Supplement: Sorry for this second post, but I think I have to explain what I mean, but I think, Kohlberg has done that much better than I could, with his book: "From is to ought, how to commit the naturalist fallacy, and get away with it". Well, I think, that, if you assign the "is" to science, and the "ought" (societal norms) to metaphysics, there is a gap. But if you show the derivance of "ought" from volition, or the possibility of volition, see e.g. the categorical imperative by Kant, then this gap is bridged.
Edwina, List,
How are societal norms not a matter of the scientific method? Are politology, psychology, philosophy, sociology not sciences?
Best, Helmut
16. Januar 2026 um 19:50
"Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>
wrote:Gary R, List
In an offlist conversation between myself and Gary R, Gary posted the below:
What I quoted of yours was written before you discussed hypotheses as being metaphysical, something which I find peculiar but quite interesting. I think it is worth exploring further. These quotations are, I think, relevant to the discussion:
“Every attempt to understand the universe involves some metaphysics.”
CP 1.129
“Metaphysics is a science, in the same sense in which physics is a science.”
CP 6.6
“Metaphysical propositions are to be judged in the same way as other scientific hypotheses.”
CP 6.13
Exactly. Thanks for the quotes. That’s exactly my point. I understand ‘hypothesis construction’ in science to be ‘metaphysics’ - and, as Peirce points out, should be subject to the ‘same approach as other scientific hypotheses’ ie, open to fallibility via empirical tests.
And that’s why I caution about metaphysics that is used in the non-fallible ‘fixation of belief tactics of tenacity, authority and a priori, which are basic to ‘seminar room metaphysics’, and are held by emotional commitment and not open to evidentiary fallibility.
These are the foundation of religions, societal norms, etc - even in medical and other belief systems [remember when swallowing tapeworms was advised for weight loss?] - and should be open to empirical scrutiny.. In religions, of course, these must be accepted or you are defined as a ‘heretic’…I do not deny the obvious societal advantages of collectivist beliefs; in our species - they are necessary since our knowledge base is collectivist rather than genetic. But - we still remain as individuals and able to think as such - and since we operate also in 2ns, then, we must require factual [2ness type] evidence.
Edwina
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
