Helmut, list Again, I think it’s important to define terms. What do you mean by ‘justice’?
Its meaning can be very different - after all - the 16th century burned people at the stake to ’save their souls’ from heresy [similar to modern day Iran]; socialists consider that private property is ‘unjust’; and so on.. > On Jan 18, 2026, at 7:52 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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: > Helmut, list > > 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, 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 > <mailto:[email protected]> . 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] . ► UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L > <mailto:[email protected]> . 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.
