@spendius,
Farmerman argued by definition, there is necessary entailment when the antecedent conditions are assumed, however this did not refute my arguement.
To elaborate for farmerman, empirical facts do not speak for themselves, it requires a human to cogent these empirical facts.
Therefore, scientific methodology is of no obligations to be practiced, there is no philosophical certitude, nor scientific arguementation for this, there is only the infinite regress as consequence of the objective moral/aesthetic values appeal under the assumed nomological properties.
Examples:
In social science, if a 'cognitive behavioral therapy' practice has a ninety percent success rate in opposition to an alternative practice that has a fourty percent success rate, does this suggest that the higher success rate ought to be practiced?
In natural science, if the 'attraction' between bodies of mass has been observed for several thousand years by humans (excluding anthropocentric bias in this case), does this suggest that humans ought to assume the consistency of gravitation, yet will the universe 'end', chaotic inflation perhaps, and have you personally observed space, infinitely?
However, moral values may be scientifically investigated by increasing assumptions, such as the operationalisation of 'good' and 'bad', from
your interpretation, being 'what should be practiced' and 'what should not be practiced'.
In this case, 'good' may be presupposed as 'human flourishing', which in itself may be in fact variable, hence it is acknoewledged to be circular reasoning.
