It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

(Philosophy) Normative Statements??

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I'm trying to understand the 'ought-is' thing... (which is confusing by itself)

But, I do not understand one of the key terms being used:

Normative Statement.


I've looked it up online, and I've found out that it's a statement that can not be proven true or false.

Frankly, that just confused me even more. The example given was: The world would be a better place if it were made of green cheese.

Which is arguably wrong, but I can't prove it wrong?? Why not??




Can anyone help this tyro philosopher?




posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Nevermind!

I get it!




Redmage -- You ROCK!

Thank You!!!





posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
If the world were made of green cheese, we probaby wouldn't be here, (good or bad?) the green cheese planet could break up easy from meteors and comets (good or bad?).

You could only know is something is good or bad if we experiance it or only when that time comes, I know people say global warming is bad, but technically that falls into this catorgary until the full effects show themselves...



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria
Normative Statement.
I've looked it up online, and I've found out that it's a statement that can not be proven true or false.
Frankly, that just confused me even more.

This ought to be easier.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Diseria
Normative Statement.
I've looked it up online, and I've found out that it's a statement that can not be proven true or false.
Frankly, that just confused me even more.

This ought to be easier.



In theory, yes. It just never struck me that you couldn't prove or disprove any given statement... even if it's based on beliefs.

Like the example about the earth being made of cheese -- it seems quite obvious _why_ it would be a bad thing, but it's classified as a normative statement simply because it's someone's belief. Any argument that could be made would be inductive...

Which is fine and dandy, until you enter the 'ought-is' realm, in which case most, if not all, arguments are (or at least try to be) deductive...


((Maybe it's an issue of simply being so used to 'being able' to argue anything?))

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Diseria]




top topics
 
0

log in

join