Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[cyborg]

I realize that, but I honestly don't see how explaining it would alter the situation.

Linda

Yes, I am sorry for being such a moron.

 

[fls]

Yes, I am sorry for being such a moron.

Sarcasm aside, it's a common tendency (not being a moron, but falling into old patterns of argument based on attending to key words rather than substance). I was just reading a new thread on the Monty Hall problem, and 80-90% of the posters have responded as though the OP asked the usual "I don't understand why I should switch", when she/he quite clearly stated that this was not what they were asking, in the first post.

Linda

 

[Dani]

Has anyone seen this debate? Not especially relevant in clarifying the core debate of this thread, but there are very interesting points. I especially liked Stephen Pinker's speech.

At minute 8:00, Sam Harris says:

We can't get is without ought.

Well, he is certainly distinguishing facts from values (is from ought) so I'm not sure what he was talking about when he said that the distinction is illusory. Maybe he didn't mean it this way, but then his language is inaccurate. That's precisely what some of us are objecting to. So, for the sake of clarity, he should put order in his mishmash.

Also, what he seems to be implying here is that since we can get is from ought, then we can get ought from is. That's obviously non sequitur. Again, there's the possibility that he isn't really implying this, in which case his point is irrelevant to whether or not we can get ought from is.

Science can't justify science. That doesn't make science unscientific. I mean, science can't justify our urge to understand the universe, it can't justify our respect for evidence, it can't justify our respect for logical consistency.

Then, by the same token, science can't justify morality. So he just wants us to accept his moral principle as a scientific principle? That begs the question, and I don't know if he realizes how trivial his pursuit is. He seems to think that otherwise we cannot even judge the Taliban.

That doesn't make it unscientific. Medicine can't justify not wanting to die early, but once you admit you don't want to die early, you can have a science of medicine.

Exactly: "once you admit". Once you admit you want to go to Mars, you can pursue the goal "going to Mars" and use science for that purpose. Science doesn't tell us "go to Mars". That's exactly how medicine works.

These are false problems in philosophy, and that's one of the reasons why I started denigrating philosophy. You can't believe the e-mail I get from very smart and overeducated people who think that there's no way to argue against the Taliban because they've read some Hume saying you can't get an ought from an is.

These overeducated people he talks about don't seem very educated though. Or maybe he should pay more attention to the people who, overeducated or not, are putting forth much better arguments than that. There are plenty of them around. I wonder why is he focusing on the weaker arguments. Maybe he doesn't value consistency, after all? Maybe he values straw man arguments?

As for the "problem" (you can't get an ought from an is) I don't see it as a problem, but as an observation about the difference between describing and prescribing. Certainly, I see it is a trivial problem in practice. He seems to think that this "problem" inexorably leads to a normative moral relativist position, which again, is a non sequitur.

By the way, if he is denigrating philosophy as a whole, he is denigrating his position. What does he think he is doing?

To sum up my position: his objection to the distinction between facts and values is either wrong or trivial, or both. In my opinion, it's both. We can't get ought from is, but we get ought anyway.

 

[Jono]

Has anyone seen this debate? Not especially relevant in clarifying the core debate of this thread, but there are very interesting points. I especially liked Stephen Pinker's speech.

Yes, seen it a few times. And I generally tend to find Pinker's input to be high-grade.

for the "problem" (you can't get an ought from an is) I don't see it as a problem, but as an observation about the difference between describing and prescribing.

It made me think about Byron Katie's "The Work" stuff. There's that "which is", then there's yours and my thoughts about "which is", and that "which is" is ultimately indifferent in effect to our thoughts. I.e, 'ought' being the word for what we think, we need, expect, demand and desire, all while the "is" remains as it is. For me it's essentially just condensed zen-philosophy. And it's easy to make a pig's breakfast of this line of thought when taking these things to a different level.

Maybe he doesn't value consistency, after all? Maybe he values straw man arguments?

Well, if he's a non-philosopher-philosopher then it wouldn't surprise me.

We can't get ought from is, but we get ought anyway.

There's something to the old thought of Hume (not really his, variants of it have existed for a long, long time) though, but more within the domain of application, or speculation, that nothing man ever does is really valuable except inside our own needs and expectations for/of the moment (meaning nothing to the universe).
The "we ought to" is seperate from that "which is" in the sense of that "which is" not being a moral or cognitive entity itself, ergo indifferent to our projected urgencies based on it. Of course, as formentioned it's easy to screw up this particular thought to mean just about anything, and especially to be used as a defense in order to do, again, just about anything.

I think we should go nuts getting our pound of "ought" from "is", there's little else for us to do on this Earth than that, beyond existing.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Has anyone seen this debate?

Yep:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6566055&postcount=1044

 

[cyborg]

Sarcasm aside, it's a common tendency (not being a moron, but falling into old patterns of argument based on attending to key words rather than substance). I was just reading a new thread on the Monty Hall problem, and 80-90% of the posters have responded as though the OP asked the usual "I don't understand why I should switch", when she/he quite clearly stated that this was not what they were asking, in the first post.

Linda

Look, you can either clarify or not but placing a sarky comment out there doesn't really achieve anything does it?

Saying that one can gather more data to inform one's decisions on what a correct moral decision is not the same claim as saying science can decide morality.

 

[fls]

Look, you can either clarify or not but placing a sarky comment out there doesn't really achieve anything does it?

Well, it turns out trying to offer explanations to those who are already committed to a particular interpretation doesn't achieve anything, either. I didn't mean for it to be snarky. I'm just being realistic and saving you, as well as myself, from frustrating and ultimately unfulfilling argument.

Saying that one can gather more data to inform one's decisions on what a correct moral decision is not the same claim as saying science can decide morality.

I agree.

Linda

 

[cyborg]

I agree.

Then unless you propose the later then the former will always be open to choices without definitive answers.

 

[fls]

Then unless you propose the later then the former will always be open to choices without definitive answers.

That's where we disagree. But that may be because I perform medical research which suffers from the same philosophical objections, but doesn't get attention because it isn't needed for religious apologetics.

Linda

 

[Dani]

Actions speak louder than words. When someone makes statements denying they are doing something that others observe them doing, the denial doesn't carry as much weight as the observation. In this case, the 'action' is the argument that is being made. Denying that your argument is based on a consensus of morality seems contradictory to observations made by the people disputing the denial.

Perhaps you could explain what why your 'hit on the head with a hammer' doesn't qualify as a consensus morality and what it is you are basing that obvious choice on instead. Then you would be explaining why your argument is not what it appears to be as opposed to simply denying what you appear to be doing.

I couldn't have said it better myself. The fact that someone doesn't say "here goes my fallacious argument" doesn't mean that it's not fallacious. An argument doesn't need to be explictly displayed for it to be an argument. Context is key, and we have rational tools to make inferences. If Linda thinks that we wrongly inferred her argument, I suggest she clarifies why it is not an appeal to the people instead of simply denying it is. This isn't hide and seek.

By the way:

Sarcasm aside, it's a common tendency (not being a moron, but falling into old patterns of argument based on attending to key words rather than substance). I was just reading a new thread on the Monty Hall problem, and 80-90% of the posters have responded as though the OP asked the usual "I don't understand why I should switch", when she/he quite clearly stated that this was not what they were asking, in the first post.

In fact, you got it wrong in your example. That the OP didn't understand why he/she should switch is implicit in his/her posts. So, again, context is key, and in this case, clear.

 

[Dragoonster]

I agree.

Linda

Can you break down the phrase "Science can answer moral questions" word by word?

Or at least explain what exactly this phrase is claiming?

And again, explain how/why this differs in meaning from say, "Christianity can answer moral questions"? What do you think the intended meaning of that phrase is? Is it the same general idea/claim as "Science can answer moral questions"? Should both be respected equally? Why or why not?

 

[fls]

I couldn't have said it better myself. The fact that someone doesn't say "here goes my fallacious argument" doesn't mean that it's not fallacious. An argument doesn't need to be explictly displayed for it to be an argument. Context is key, and we have rational tools to make inferences. If Linda thinks that we wrongly inferred her argument, I suggest she clarifies why it is not an appeal to the people instead of simply denying it is. This isn't hide and seek.

After I've just been informed that it doesn't matter what I say, it will be assumed that I mean something else? Yeah, one has to wonder why your offer isn't tempting.

In fact, you got it wrong in your example. That the OP didn't understand why he/she should switch is implicit in his/her posts. So, again, context is key, and in this case, clear.

Linda

 

[fls]

Can you break down the phrase "Science can answer moral questions" word by word?

Or at least explain what exactly this phrase is claiming?

And again, explain how/why this differs in meaning from say, "Christianity can answer moral questions"? What do you think the intended meaning of that phrase is? Is it the same general idea/claim as "Science can answer moral questions"? Should both be respected equally? Why or why not?

These are (some of) the questions I have been answering/addressing/explaining in this thread. I don't understand what offering more of the same is expected to accomplish?

Linda

 

[Dragoonster]

These are (some of) the questions I have been answering/addressing/explaining in this thread. I don't understand what offering more of the same is expected to accomplish?

Linda

You either haven't answered them sufficiently (whether logically, scientifically, or philosophically), and/or your answers are not in alignment with Sam Harris' answers...though you claim you and he seem to be on the same page.

All I'm trying to accomplish now is to discern whether you and/or Sam Harris believe Science Can Answer Moral Questions, and what exactly you mean by that. Do you think "Answer" means "Inform"? If not, you really need to back your claim up, amazingly and revolutionarily so.

 

[cyborg]

That's where we disagree. But that may be because I perform medical research which suffers from the same philosophical objections,

No it doesn't.

You have tacit assumptions about what the outcomes of medical research should be that is not shared with the much larger scope of what morals should be for.

Should we respect the individual over the group?

Is the purpose to eliminate suffering or is suffering necessary?

Etc...

This is not the same as, "get the best medical data without breaking the Hippocratic oath"

 

[fls]

You either haven't answered them sufficiently (whether logically, scientifically, or philosophically), and/or your answers are not in alignment with Sam Harris' answers...though you claim you and he seem to be on the same page.

All I'm trying to accomplish now is to discern whether you and/or Sam Harris believe Science Can Answer Moral Questions, and what exactly you mean by that. Do you think "Answer" means "Inform"? If not, you really need to back your claim up, amazingly and revolutionarily so.

That's what I mean. If the thousands of words I've written which very directly and explicitly answers those questions are insufficient, what is offering more of the same expected to accomplish?

Linda

 

[JoelKatz]

It's irrelevant anyway - you can't extract "the" moral truth from observing an individual brain's moral processing - only "a" moral truth for that particular brain.

That may be the only kind of moral truth that there is. You can't extract "the" height from anything but only the height of a particular person.

Really, I don't see what advantage this "scientific" analysis of brain function has over just seeing how people behave and drawing conclusions from that. It still won't tell you which behaviours are scientifically "right".

Not directly, but perhaps indirectly. For example, prior to our scientific understanding of colors, how would you study color? Since human beings are the only color discriminators you have access to, you'd study in great detail how human color vision works. Your hope would be to start with "it looks green to me", figure out how/why someone says that, and then eventually work your way to a purely objective notion of "green" and a purely objective "color measuring device".

But you're right, of course, the objective color measuring device wouldn't likely replicate human vision exactly. If it did, it would make the same 'mistakes' human vision makes and be limited as our color vision is. But you'd get the idea of what color "really is" from human color vision, and then work on measuring that in a more objective way.

It's not a straight line path. And you couldn't say ahead of time where it would lead. It's a path you have to walk to know where it goes. Right now, we understand moral judgment as something humans do that has something to do with the properties of volitional actions, just as we once understood color vision as something humans do that has something to do with properties of light. We now know, of course, that color vision is about the frequencies of light. We don't yet know what moral judgment is about.

 

[fls]

No it doesn't.

You have tacit assumptions about what the outcomes of medical research should be that is not shared with the much larger scope of what morals should be for.

Should we respect the individual over the group?

Is the purpose to eliminate suffering or is suffering necessary?

Etc...

This is not the same as, "get the best medical data without breaking the Hippocratic oath"

Right. When it's medicine, it's "tacit assumptions". When it's morals, it's "axioms".

Linda

 

[Kuko 4000]

No it doesn't.

Again, I don't follow, maybe you can give clearer examples? English is not my first language so please keep it simple.

Why should a doctor save the life of a patient?

My understanding is that it only makes sense if we value staying alive over being dead.

The philosophical objection seems the same to me.

 

[AlBell]

I realize that, but I honestly don't see how explaining it would alter the situation.

Linda

Yes, I am sorry for being such a moron.

Just guessing here, but I've concluded Harris etal have substituted Science for God, and Harris (and his Priesthood) will advise us when morals have been delineated.

It's apparently a fait accompli wrt medical ethics, but I don't know where to find the details that cover those answers.