As the paper points out, things like the following are problematic from a purely experimental approach:
"Scientific knowledge is better than non-scientific knowledge."
Yet many scientists treat it as common knowledge.
Isn't this a falsifiable hypothesis?
If you analyzed various predictions made by scientific and non scientific knowledge then you could compare them and determine if one was "better".
That historical performance might not hold but the sun may not rise in the east.
That the scientific method has not be employed because our heuristics say the answer is obvious does not mean it cannot be employed.
I do agree that the scientific method is too high a bar for something to be considered knowledge.
The problem is labelling what is beneficial and what is not. That is a value judgement. But if certain human rights are universal, we can agree on at least a subset of benefits.
That's an acceptance that philosophy is useful. Pragmatic utilitarian is one kind of philosophy.
> The problem is labelling what is beneficial and what is not. That is a value judgement.
See my reply to the other post above. [1] Philosophy is the discipline that specialises in the problem of rational analysis of value judgements. A good way to agree on which rights and valuable benefits to use is to discuss them philosophically.
Isn't the loss of objectivity just a result of the question having more degrees of freedom than it does constraints, and the subjectivity just comes from picking which constraints to assume? Doesn't a well defined goal turn that question into a positive question?
A simpler example could be, "is it better for me to build a bridge over a highway out of cardboard or out of steel?"
It's superficially normative but becomes a positive question as soon as you define the constraint that a bridge that no one needlessly dies while walking across is better than one that kills people.
At that point all of these questions become scientifically approachable, although some are likely still hopelessly complex, as soon as you assume an axiom like, "it is best to maximize the ratio of well being over conscious suffering."
What that axiom should actually be is likely a nearly unapproachably complex amalgamation of philosophy, but it seems more reasonable to work with something than assume that there is no right answer, especially when we seem to be rapidly approaching the point of needing to have software systems make quick ethical decisions.
Science is necessarily neutral in that regard; it's a tool to achieve some goals that, as you said, require a judgement value. There is some moral knowledge that provides value and motivation, and which is not scientific knowledge.
> Is this not just an underdetermined question?
Not in philosophy, no. The mother of all sciences has ways to deal with the question, which is meaningless from a purely scientific POV, but which nevertheless merits being studied. For example, it could guide you to choose and refine the guiding principles for programming your autonomous car, and to analyze whether your missing something in your "amalgamation of philosophy" that you used as the basis of that technology project.
1) Who are you talking about.
2) What is sperm.
3) What do you mean by conceived.
4) Whether the statement is literal or requires specific context.