Edwina, List,
This was my supplement: "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."
For Kohlberg, justice is central, not just one value out of a bag of values. With the the categorical imperative (Kant) understandable like: It is impossible to want to live in a society, in which justice does not exist. This is an ontological, not a deontological statement, and therefore scientific (logical), not metaphysical. That is why I think, that the "oughts", for whom you can show, that they are derviances of (the possibility of) "wants" (volitions), are in fact "is"-es, and bridge the gap between metaphysics and science. If I am right, that ontology belongs to science, and deontology to metaphysics, that is. Or, if I am not right in this case, then there is a part of deontology, that is science, and another part, pure opinion, that is metaphysics. Then you can tell, which societal norms are corrobatable or refutable with the scientific method, and which are not.
Maybe too far-fetched, I don´t know: Is "justice" even reducible to, or a derivance of, the physical law of action and reaction?
Best, Helmut
17. Januar 2026 um 17:48
"Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>
wrote:I think it’s important to define terms. What do you understand by ’the scientific method’?
I consider the scientific method to be, as Peirce outlined in his article ‘Fixation of Belief’ where
‘it is necessary that a method should be found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human. But by some external permanency- by something upon which our thinking has no effect”…It must be something which affects, or might affect, every man…the method must be such that the ultimate conclusion of every man shall be the same.Such is the method of science. Its fundamental hypothesis, restated in more familiar language, is this: There are real things, whose characters are entirely independent of our opinions about them; those /reals affect our senses according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as different as are our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantages of he laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and truly are….5.384
Two things to note:
1] our beliefs must be determined by nothing human; ie, the conclusions must be such that the subjective relativism of opinion [ whether held by tenacity, authority or a priori] have no relevance. Essentially this means that objective evidence confirming a hypothesis must be accepted by all according to the methods used to ‘measure’ that evidence.
2] the conclusion is therefore fallible, dependent on both the hypothesis and the evidence
Now in political ’science’, psychology, philosophy, sociology - such an infrastructure of a requirement for objective verification does not exist. Instead - what we find are OPINIONS. These opinions are stated as logical, rational and held up as valid by virtue of tenacity, authority, a priori. But there is no empirical objective evidence such that the opinions are the same, ultimately, for every man.
I’m sure you are aware of all the heated debates in these fields over many years. For example, closer to home,I happen to completely disagree with the views of JAS and Gary R on the ‘blackboard analogy, where they posit that the black board is operative in a primitive Thirdness [ Gary R’s term is ‘aboriginal’]; I reject that and maintain that there is no such thing as a primitive Thirdness and that the blackboard is instead, Firstness as potentiality.
There is obviously NO way that these two opinions can be scientifically validated; they have to remain as two different opinions - and reasoning and logic cannot prove the validity of either one. And there is no objective empirical evidence.
Therefore - understanding science as requiring objective evidence and fallibility of the hypothesis subject to this objective evidence, I consider that political science, psychology, philosophy etc are not sciences - even though they may be argued with logical methods -
An example of logic and ’non-science’ can found in the well known Barbara syllogism:
All men are wise
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is wise.
The above is as an example of logical reasoning - totally valid. The objective verification is the problem, ie.that first premise ‘all men are wise’ - is that verifiable?
Regards
Edwina
On Jan 17, 2026, at 10:48 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
Edwina, List,How are societal norms not a matter of the scientific method? Are politology, psychology, philosophy, sociology not sciences?Best, Helmut16. Januar 2026 um 19:50"Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>wrote:Gary R, ListIn 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 6.13Exactly. 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.
