Someone, anyone—define for me what the hell "scientific values" are.
Go ahead. How do you measure a value scientifically?
You can’t.
You can’t weigh it, you can’t run it through a lab, and you sure as hell can’t calculate its worth with a bloody formula.
So tell me—how do you defend this anti-intellectual, anti-flourishing, anti-human garbage you’re selling as some kind of enlightened system?
If your so-called values have no basis in science, no way to be measured, then what the hell are they?
I see just another way to manipulate people too polite or too distracted to call out the bullshit?
Values aren’t test tubes or beakers. You don’t put them under a microscope and get an answer. They are decisions, choices we make to build something better—or worse. And your amoral system, designed to tear down everything good, has no value.
None.
You can’t measure scientific flourishing, you can’t chart morality, and you sure as hell can’t slap a "scientific" label on the destruction of reason, progress, and humanity.
So... if you think you can justify it, go on, defend it.
Tell me how your "scientific" experiment works.
Show me how you take ethics, break them into little pieces, and prove their worth in a lab.
Because from where I stand, all you’ve got is words dressed up as science to excuse the decay you’re pushing on the world.
Morality boils down to the kind of society we want to create—a society where people can live, work, and thrive. And yes, people have different subjective ideas about what that looks like.
That’s fine.
That’s part of being human. But then there’s the anti-objective crowd, the ones who don’t just disagree—they want to tear down anything that doesn’t align with their narrow worldview.
They aren’t building anything—they’re wrecking it.
Now, tell me: how do you objectively define "scientific morality"?
Go ahead, I’ll wait.
If you’re going to talk about scientific values, then you’re going to need scientific morality too. The two are inseparable. You can’t have one without the other. And here’s the kicker—morality, ethics, values—they’re not something you can measure or stick into an experiment. You can’t quantify a choice, a principle, a standard for human action. You can’t take ethics, pour them into a test tube, and say, “There it is, scientific proof!”
That’s the problem. Scientific morality, scientific values—it’s a con.
A way to shut down debate, to say, “We’ve got the facts, and you don’t.” But morality isn’t about facts—it’s about reason.
It is about choosing principles that lead to human flourishing. And this is not close to the same for everyone.
And if you can’t see that, if you think slapping the word "scientific" on your ideas makes them untouchable, then you’re not just anti-objective—you’re anti-reason, anti-progress, and anti-human.
You’re lost.
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Jan 12, 2025
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1878365743064203429?t=cFxBETadndxyOZ9PfG76tw&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/2513
Go ahead. How do you measure a value scientifically?
You can’t.
You can’t weigh it, you can’t run it through a lab, and you sure as hell can’t calculate its worth with a bloody formula.
So tell me—how do you defend this anti-intellectual, anti-flourishing, anti-human garbage you’re selling as some kind of enlightened system?
If your so-called values have no basis in science, no way to be measured, then what the hell are they?
I see just another way to manipulate people too polite or too distracted to call out the bullshit?
Values aren’t test tubes or beakers. You don’t put them under a microscope and get an answer. They are decisions, choices we make to build something better—or worse. And your amoral system, designed to tear down everything good, has no value.
None.
You can’t measure scientific flourishing, you can’t chart morality, and you sure as hell can’t slap a "scientific" label on the destruction of reason, progress, and humanity.
So... if you think you can justify it, go on, defend it.
Tell me how your "scientific" experiment works.
Show me how you take ethics, break them into little pieces, and prove their worth in a lab.
Because from where I stand, all you’ve got is words dressed up as science to excuse the decay you’re pushing on the world.
Morality boils down to the kind of society we want to create—a society where people can live, work, and thrive. And yes, people have different subjective ideas about what that looks like.
That’s fine.
That’s part of being human. But then there’s the anti-objective crowd, the ones who don’t just disagree—they want to tear down anything that doesn’t align with their narrow worldview.
They aren’t building anything—they’re wrecking it.
Now, tell me: how do you objectively define "scientific morality"?
Go ahead, I’ll wait.
If you’re going to talk about scientific values, then you’re going to need scientific morality too. The two are inseparable. You can’t have one without the other. And here’s the kicker—morality, ethics, values—they’re not something you can measure or stick into an experiment. You can’t quantify a choice, a principle, a standard for human action. You can’t take ethics, pour them into a test tube, and say, “There it is, scientific proof!”
That’s the problem. Scientific morality, scientific values—it’s a con.
A way to shut down debate, to say, “We’ve got the facts, and you don’t.” But morality isn’t about facts—it’s about reason.
It is about choosing principles that lead to human flourishing. And this is not close to the same for everyone.
And if you can’t see that, if you think slapping the word "scientific" on your ideas makes them untouchable, then you’re not just anti-objective—you’re anti-reason, anti-progress, and anti-human.
You’re lost.
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Jan 12, 2025
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1878365743064203429?t=cFxBETadndxyOZ9PfG76tw&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/2513
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment