Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[annnnoid]

And given the results, this process hardly recommends itself.

Linda

….and so now we have his holiness Harris. Somehow claims that ‘moral rules’ exist that govern human conduct (and something called ‘science’ can adjudicate them). What, though, are the origins of these ‘rules’ (and the thing ‘science’ that mediates them?) ? What, even, are ‘moral rules’ and what is the ontology of the phenomenon that is a function of them (or the epistemology of moral action itself?) ? Doesn’t ‘morality’ dictate (intrinsically) that we ‘understand’ morality? (saying that we, and it, just pooped out of thin air hardly qualifies as understanding for the foundation of human meaning)

These questions are better not asked….for the answers are lost in the fathomless depths of universal truth. Mysteries they’ll called. The ‘universe’ creates the rules. Nuff said.

What?????????????? What the hell does that mean? What the hell is a universe, and what is this thing ‘consciousness’ that is a function of it?

Ask not! Only….hail the universe from which ‘moral rules’ ensue….and bow down before the high priest Harris who is the voice of the universe and articulates It’s purpose for the ignorant.

….what’s his name…Harris???...isn’t he a scientist?....what was it Chomsky had to say about scientists adjudicating human activity?

Hmmmmmmmmmm…..sound familiar? If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and is stupid like a duck….must be a duck! Science can pretend till it’s blue in the face that it ‘understands’ what’s goin on. Fact is, when we’re talking stuff as fundamental as human existence, meaning, and morality….we’re talking mysteries. You can play the indignant skeptic all you want fls….but religion evolved as a response to the most relevant human realities. It’s a monumentally substantial and complex issue. Reducing it to simplistic…’…yaaah, it’s all garbage…’ statements hardly does your credibility any good.

 

[AlBell]

And given the results, this process hardly recommends itself.

Linda

Let us know when you and/or Harris science out an overwhelmingly convincing answer as to when human life begins.

ps. So far, Harris is just running a newer con.

 

[JoelKatz]

…people like you??? What the hell does that mean? Who are 'people like you' and what are these efforts ‘people like you’ are devoting yourselves to?

In this context, people like me are people who maintain that rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable. The efforts are primarily in defending science's competence to address any issue that involves understanding the world and how it works, refuting claims that certain areas are off-limits to science, and refuting claims that there's some other tool that justifies beliefs. The stakes are high, as rejection of precisely these claims has been and continues to be responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths.

 

[fls]

Let us know when you and/or Harris science out an overwhelmingly convincing answer as to when human life begins.

Why do you want to know?

Linda

 

[fls]

….and so now we have his holiness Harris. Somehow claims that ‘moral rules’ exist that govern human conduct (and something called ‘science’ can adjudicate them). What, though, are the origins of these ‘rules’ (and the thing ‘science’ that mediates them?) ? What, even, are ‘moral rules’ and what is the ontology of the phenomenon that is a function of them (or the epistemology of moral action itself?) ? Doesn’t ‘morality’ dictate (intrinsically) that we ‘understand’ morality? (saying that we, and it, just pooped out of thin air hardly qualifies as understanding for the foundation of human meaning)

Exactly. There are no moral rules.

These questions are better not asked….for the answers are lost in the fathomless depths of universal truth. Mysteries they’ll called. The ‘universe’ creates the rules. Nuff said.

What?????????????? What the hell does that mean? What the hell is a universe, and what is this thing ‘consciousness’ that is a function of it?

Ask not! Only….hail the universe from which ‘moral rules’ ensue….and bow down before the high priest Harris who is the voice of the universe and articulates It’s purpose for the ignorant.

….what’s his name…Harris???...isn’t he a scientist?....what was it Chomsky had to say about scientists adjudicating human activity?

Hmmmmmmmmmm…..sound familiar? If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and is stupid like a duck….must be a duck! Science can pretend till it’s blue in the face that it ‘understands’ what’s goin on. Fact is, when we’re talking stuff as fundamental as human existence, meaning, and morality….we’re talking mysteries. You can play the indignant skeptic all you want fls….but religion evolved as a response to the most relevant human realities. It’s a monumentally substantial and complex issue. Reducing it to simplistic…’…yaaah, it’s all garbage…’ statements hardly does your credibility any good.

I'm happy to leave you to your elaborate stories. There's just no point in pretending that they are accessing this non-existent moral truth.

Linda

 

[Beth]

In this context, people like me are people who maintain that rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable. The efforts are primarily in defending science's competence to address any issue that involves understanding the world and how it works, refuting claims that certain areas are off-limits to science, and refuting claims that there's some other tool that justifies beliefs.

You don't find art to be a useful tool in understanding our world?

The stakes are high, as rejection of precisely these claims has been and continues to be responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths.

I don't think this is true. Can you justify it using science?

 

[Paulhoff]

It seems a lot of humans want and need to think that they are not in any predictable, well that's nice.

Paul

 

[JoelKatz]

You don't find art to be a useful tool in understanding our world?

As I said, there's no science without sensory input. Art is definitely a useful subject for scientific study.

I don't think this is true. Can you justify it using science?

Yes, but probably not without hijacking this thread.

 

[Dani]

Yes, but probably not without hijacking this thread.

I think this is on topic. And I'm curious.

 

[AlBell]

Why do you want to know?

Linda

Evasion --as usual-- noted.

Maybe an easier one for practice? What does Science tell us about the immorality of burkas?

 

[Beth]

In this context, people like me are people who maintain that rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable. The efforts are primarily in defending science's competence to address any issue that involves understanding the world and how it works, refuting claims that certain areas are off-limits to science, and refuting claims that there's some other tool that justifies beliefs.

You don't find art to be a useful tool in understanding our world?

As I said, there's no science without sensory input. Art is definitely a useful subject for scientific study.

You misunderstand. I’m not talking about studying art with science. I’m talking about using art as another tool to understand our world.

You said that rationality is our only means of understanding our world and that such a viewpoint is indisputable. I’m disputing that and saying that art is also a means of understanding our world. Do you disagree?

The stakes are high, as rejection of precisely these claims has been and continues to be responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths.

I don't think this is true. Can you justify it using science?

Yes, but probably not without hijacking this thread.

Not a hijack at all, but precisely the topic of this thread. Please at least outline your thoughts on the matter. How would you scientifically justify the idea that belief in the ability of art to help us understand our world has contributed to human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths?

 

[Paulhoff]

What does Science tell us about the immorality of burkas?

Where else does one see women cover themselves completely for fear that men will not be able to control themselves but for religion. I don’t know how that idea would ever come about thru science to begin with let alone ask what science has to say about it.

Paul

 

[AlBell]

Where else does one see women cover themselves completely for fear that men will not be able to control themselves but for religion. I don’t know how that idea would ever come about thru science to begin with let alone ask what science has to say about it.

Agreed. "Nothing" is the answer.

 

[Paulhoff]

Agreed. "Nothing" is the answer.

It depends on the reason, covering completely makes sense when one goes out into space, but than it is the same for men too. But has for the other, if the base line for the burkas is based on a false idea, then science can say it shouldn't be done.

Paul

 

[JJM 777]

What does Science tell us about the immorality of burkas?

Anonymous polls would tell us that nearly all people in the West, and many, while not all, men and women in ME
- have avoided being brainwashed to believe in the rightness of the burka rule
- feel that the burka rule restricts life and makes it less joyful
- have the opinion that the burka rule should be abolished

These are the objective findings that science can provide.

 

[Beth]

Anonymous polls would tell us that nearly all people in the West, and many, while not all, men and women in ME
- have avoided being brainwashed to believe in the rightness of the burka rule

Whether or not a person has been or avoiding being 'brainwashed' to believe something is not a judgement science makes nor is it something that can be deduced from poll results.

- feel that the burka rule restricts life and makes it less joyful
- have the opinion that the burka rule should be abolished

These are the objective findings that science can provide.

These are objective findings about the opinions of people, not findings about the immorality of the burka.

 

[Egg]

Anonymous polls would tell us that nearly all people in the West, and many, while not all, men and women in ME
- have avoided being brainwashed to believe in the rightness of the burka rule
- feel that the burka rule restricts life and makes it less joyful
- have the opinion that the burka rule should be abolished

These are the objective findings that science can provide.

I wonder what a poll from the middle-east would say about the way Western women dress. Is there any scientific reason why we should draw conclusions from one poll and not the other?

 

[Dani]

Anonymous polls would tell us that nearly all people in the West, and many, while not all, men and women in ME
- have avoided being brainwashed to believe in the rightness of the burka rule
- feel that the burka rule restricts life and makes it less joyful
- have the opinion that the burka rule should be abolished

These are the objective findings that science can provide.

Agreed.

 

[Dani]

In this context, people like me are people who maintain that rationality is our only means of understanding the universe, that sensory input is our starting point, and that it is inherently indisputable.

I completely agree that rationality is our only means of understanding the universe. Sensory input is our main starting point, but without a priori knowledge such as induction or deduction, sensory input is useless.

The efforts are primarily in defending science's competence to address any issue that involves understanding the world and how it works, refuting claims that certain areas are off-limits to science, and refuting claims that there's some other tool that justifies beliefs.

You say that you defend science's competence to address any issue that involves understanding of the world and how it works, so you're precisely defining the limits of science: understanding of the world and how it works.

My position is that moral claims are beyond that line you just described. They are not rational (or, at least, not entirely rational) and therefore not scientific (or entirely scientific). Not because they're irrational, but because they're not intended as such. They don't describe reality, they just describe how we would like reality to be. I doubt you would accept "dada dudu" or "I like the brown coat better" as scientific statements. Here you have evidence of areas that are off-limits to science.

I haven't seen any refutation of this position.

The stakes are high, as rejection of precisely these claims has been and continues to be responsible for a significant fraction of human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths.

As I said, this is relevant to the discussion. In fact, this misconception has been an important inspiration to Harris.

I'd like to see your argument, but I think you're confusing normative moral relativism with the position that moral claims are not entirely scientific. This would a non sequitur, and a pretty obvious one.

 

[JoelKatz]

You misunderstand. I’m not talking about studying art with science. I’m talking about using art as another tool to understand our world.

You are talking about studying art with science. It's just such an obvious and broadly-accepted aspect of science that it almost seems like something else.

When you use art to understand our world, you are doing nothing different from what you do when you read a scientific paper. The primary difference is that the emphasis is usually on the thought processes of the writer rather than quite so directly on the content. But this is merely a difference in emphasis.

Looking at what something has produced to understand both the producer and the raw materials on which it operated is a scientific process.

You said that rationality is our only means of understanding our world and that such a viewpoint is indisputable. I’m disputing that and saying that art is also a means of understanding our world. Do you disagree?

Art is just another thing we can look at.

Not a hijack at all, but precisely the topic of this thread. Please at least outline your thoughts on the matter. How would you scientifically justify the idea that belief in the ability of art to help us understand our world has contributed to human misery and uncountable numbers of human deaths?

That's not what I said. You created this false dichotomy between science and art, not me.