Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lpuckeri t1_j3hgxyq wrote

Reply to comment by ShalmaneserIII in Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

I agree with you 100% im basically adding on to refuting klosnj11

Thats about as good as it gets. Maybe you could argue machines measuring neurotransmitters can be better sometimes, but the point is that you dont need access directly to someone subjective qualia to make good, helpful, meaningful scientific assessments of happiness. Meaningful inductive assessments can be made through self reporting and other assessment methods.

Klosnj11 is conflating science seeking general and useful understandings of happiness to a completely objective understanding of happiness. Just like the mustard manufacturer can study taste to improve it generally, but doesn't claim to objectively perfect taste.

4

ShalmaneserIII t1_j3hhj98 wrote

> Maybe you could argue machines measuring neurotransmitters can be better sometimes,

Possibly not, considering what we know of how neurotransmitter-increasing medications work. They don't cause an end to depression immediately after raising neurotransmitter levels. And, ironically, suicide risk goes up shortly after starting the meds.

2

lpuckeri t1_j3hji5p wrote

No doubt. It was kinda besides the point as i said. I was just playing devils advocate as I'm sure there's at least some situation or person where measuring neurotransmitters is more helpful than self reporting. Also it can be helpful in addition to self reporting.

But i would generally agree self reporting is much more valuable.

2