Maarten van Doorn
Sep 9, 2018 · 1 min read

Thanks, Samuel.

I’m not entirely clear on where the accusation of scientism gets its force. If you like, you can replace science with an ‘view from nowhere’ about the world, and the scientific method as the method that, if its concepts are applied correctly, tells us things that are true about the world (whatever its name). Change the labels, if you prefer. The idea was to contrast subjective with non-subjective judgments.

“If these things only exist inside of consciousness, what does an “external view” even mean?”

I’m also not sure why the meaning of external view is unclear here. Don’t colors also only exist in consciousness? Yet, based on science, we can give arguments to the extent that if you’re calling “grass”, “red”, you’re misapplying concepts.

“What basis does the result provide for any of those value judgments being actually true?”

Yeah, that’s a good question. I don’t know the answer to that and wasn’t trying to give one. The thing I was trying to point out was that our beliefs about truths about values can never be said to match the actual world. In that sense, there’s no truth that will set us free.

On your argument: sure, it’s valid, but constructing a valid argument isn’t hard. But is the argument also sound? Coherence counts for little when the premises are not argued for. As you can imagine, I’d like to see some supporting argument for premise 1.

Maarten van Doorn

Written by

PhD candidate in philosophy. Reconsidering the obvious. Chasing interestingness. Get good ideas that make you think: maartenvandoorn.com