The Future of Moral Science

[Wowbagger]

I have not, yet, read all of the posts after my posts from the weekend. But, I would like to take this time to summarize the three biggest objections I have read, so far. I will be repeating some points from previous posts here, but I thought it would be helpful to have these all in one place, for easy reference:

1. The accusation that I am trying to weaken science: Nope, just the opposite! I am trying to bring scientific rigor and discipline into philosophical ideas. I am NOT changing the definition of "evidence" or "empirical", or any other vocabulary words of science. I AM trying to influence changes to the usage of words like "normative", which is a philosophical term.

2. Some might think that I am merely reiterating the points of Shermer and Harris. I want everyone to try to recognize that I am trying to go a few steps beyond them. Harris doesn't get into why well-being should be valued. I am offering a few of them: 1. Evolutionary foundations, 2. Game Theory working on top of that, 3. Confounding factors leading us astray; etc. Shermer does do this to a certain degree, at least.

Furthermore: I do NOT claim any of these ideas are completely original. They all have a basis in various things I have read in various places. I am merely combining them together in a manner that I hope is a little more creative and insightful than others: As this form of predictions.

3. The accusation that I am just ASSERTING that Consequentialism is the Prime Value: Well, yes and no. I do not have any solid evidence that this will happen. There is a little speculation about the future, in here. But, I am not merely asserting it, either! I am trying to convey all of the various reasons and motivations that will bring about these trends I am predicting. I am trying to show the spots where science can enter the picture, and take over the task, in the future.

I promise I will get to the post-long-post responses, soon. I just had to get all of this back-ordered stuff out the door, before I get snowballed, again. As much as I love writing about this stuff, I do have a life outside this forum, you know.

 

[angrysoba]

I have not, yet, read all of the posts after my posts from the weekend. But, I would like to take this time to summarize the three biggest objections I have read, so far. I will be repeating some points from previous posts here, but I thought it would be helpful to have these all in one place, for easy reference:

1. The accusation that I am trying to weaken science: Nope, just the opposite! I am trying to bring scientific rigor and discipline into philosophical ideas. I am NOT changing the definition of "evidence" or "empirical", or any other vocabulary words of science. I AM trying to influence changes to the usage of words like "normative", which is a philosophical term.

2. Some might think that I am merely reiterating the points of Shermer and Harris. I want everyone to try to recognize that I am trying to go a few steps beyond them. Harris doesn't get into why well-being should be valued. I am offering a few of them: 1. Evolutionary foundations, 2. Game Theory working on top of that, 3. Confounding factors leading us astray; etc. Shermer does do this to a certain degree, at least.

Furthermore: I do NOT claim any of these ideas are completely original. They all have a basis in various things I have read in various places. I am merely combining them together in a manner that I hope is a little more creative and insightful than others: As this form of predictions.

3. The accusation that I am just ASSERTING that Consequentialism is the Prime Value: Well, yes and no. I do not have any solid evidence that this will happen. There is a little speculation about the future, in here. But, I am not merely asserting it, either! I am trying to convey all of the various reasons and motivations that will bring about these trends I am predicting. I am trying to show the spots where science can enter the picture, and take over the task, in the future.

I promise I will get to the post-long-post responses, soon. I just had to get all of this back-ordered stuff out the door, before I get snowballed, again. As much as I love writing about this stuff, I do have a life outside this forum, you know.

At this point I am completely baffled about what it is you aim to do, and the word salad above doesn't clarify things at all.

1. What do you mean by bringing "scientific rigor and discipline" to philosophy? From what I can see it is logical rigor and discipline that you, Tassman, Ron Tomkins, Shermer and Harris lack and you seem to be unaware that you lack it, as well.

2. Yes, I think much of what you are saying is a regurgitation of Harris, Shermer, Pinker and Haidt who are the trendy names in this field. Actually, I think I can tell the difference between their positions and they have had disagreements among themselves. I'm actually quite disappointed about the fact that some of these writers have now formed a club that gives each other glowing (albeit vague) write-ups that they stick on their book covers. Pinker has given a very silly endorsement to Michael Shermer's book, by the looks of it, and Harris has had a soft interview on his site when his own book explicitly repudiates some of the evolutionary ethics rubbish that Shermer babbles about.

I think these writers' fans are generally even more clueless.

3. You say "Yes and no". See it is this lack of logical rigour that makes it difficult to know what you are talking about.

If you decide that what is moral is that which maximizes the welfare of conscious creatures then you have stated a moral axiom. That is to say, you are saying something is right in and of itself. But if you do that, then you have to acknowledge that you did not get there using science.

 

[angrysoba]

By the way, I'm still looking forward to Pigliucci writing a review of Moral Arc, for the Lulz, which he has not done yet, but he has written a piece on Michael Shermer's article in Reason and does a good job of showing what a charlatan Shermer is. Here's a taste:

Shermer then moves closer to his real target: “among 20,000 young adults there was a positive correlation between IQ and liberalism. Data from the General Social Survey clarified the link in noting that the correlation involves classical liberalism of the Enlightenment kind, in which smarter people were less likely to agree that the government should redistribute income from the rich to the poor.”

Ah yes, smarter people lean libertarian! But of course this is very likely an artifact of the fact that the survey in question was conducted in the United States, where Ayn Rand’s novels are still, bafflingly, best sellers among the young. Do the same survey in Sweden, say, and you’ll likely get that intelligent people favor social democracies. Heck, do it in China and I’m sure the smartest will favor a hybrid capitalist/autocratic system. And so on.

 

[Tassman]

Addressed to Wowbagger:

At this point I am completely baffled about what it is you aim to do, and the word salad above doesn't clarify things at all.

Your making progress with angrysoba's standard approach, Wowbagger; you've graduated from "Gish Gallop" to "word salad".

Rant snipped - unhelpful and non-constructive.

If you decide that what is moral is that which maximizes the welfare of conscious creatures then you have stated a moral axiom. That is to say, you are saying something is right in and of itself.

No he is not saying “it is right in and of itself”, if I understand Wowbagger correctly. It is right because that "which maximises the welfare of conscious creatures” is congruent and logically consistent with what science tells us about the nature of humans as a social species. This is a descriptive statement but, while a logical deduction may not be possible, there are other rational inferences that need not be ruled out and which are just as useful. Science frequently and with great success relies upon such forms of induction to arrive at its conclusions.

But if you do that, then you have to acknowledge that you did not get there using science.

Yes he did via inductive argument, see above.

 

[Tassman]

Not sure what you mean.

What I mean is that you don’t need philosophically constructed moral rules to tell you you’re feeling good when (to quote you) “humans and animals are doing what they've been socialized or bred to do”. They know instinctively that their behaviour is right behaviour and social acculturation reinforces it.

Even a solitary individual needs morality to tell it that socializing too much with others is wrong. Then there's the raising of young. A solitary mother needs to feel it's wrong to do things that would prevent her offspring from surviving.

A mother doesn't, under normal circumstances, require a moral code to tell her it's wrong to harm her child. Her instinct is to protect her child. The enforcing of a moral code is only necessary if she abrogates, for whatever reason, her innate nurturing instinct. And this is true of all of us in all areas of life.

The part I've highlighted is the arbitrary declaration. If what's morally good is what facilitates self-preservation and procreation of humans, then science can figure out how best to achieve that goal.

Yes agreed. Science can figure out (or it can potentially) how to best to achieve the goals of self-preservation and procreation.

What science can't do is declare that to be morally good.

It depends what you mean by “morally good”. Surely you’re not arguing a case for Platonic Universals?

What I’m arguing is that a moral code is devised purely to enable our optimal functioning as social creatures in the same sense that a smoothly running motor vehicle is ‘good’ because it functions as it was intended. So, even though science cannot show us what moral truth is, it can show us what is factually true and why it is in our own interests to act upon it. And, what is “good” (generally speaking) is what facilitates social cohesion and what is “bad” harms social cohesion.

For example, if humans have been acting on innate instincts, etc., and those are what define moral goodness, then the same is true for other animals. If a man meets a lionness, two moral systems are clashing, and what's good for the lionness isn't good for the man. Which morality wins? The only way out of the problem is again an arbitrary definition: morality only applies to human behavior driven by innate instincts, etc. etc., and doesn't apply to any other species, because, well, we're special.

The two moral systems are not clashing. Both humans and lions are carnivores and this by definition means killing other animals for food. Although, our developed human sensibilities hopefully result in this being achieved as humanely as possible.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi you or "you" as it is the case, because this may not be relevant for you, as you already know this.

I will do something "silly". In this game of "we" there is no universal, absolute, objective and so on "we", but it doesn't matter because I can get away with claiming that without dying or something really bad.
I.e. I am we and this "we" is not in part subjective, inter-subjective or a cognitive, psychological construct. "We" is a brute, physical fact just like gravity.
How is that so? Well, everything/the universe/reality is natural/physical and religion/philosophy can't be used. Only science through observation and verification works and I have done so with evidence - I am we. I mean I have tested it using observation and as an independent observer and "I am we" works. It is a brute, physical fact just like gravity. If you claim otherwise you don't understand how reality works. You are subjective and a host of other negative words and irrelevant for how reality works. I am objective, rational, logical and only use science and scientific evidence. If you say otherwise, you don't understand how an independent observer works and don't understand that I am an independent observer. Science is the only methodology, which works and it works through independent observers. "I am we" works, therefore I am an independent observer.

That was in part a reductio ad absurdum and you, if you need to, can dismiss it with "I don't like philosophy" or what not, but it won't change that it is subjective and not a scientific fact, not matter how much you claim naturalism, science and what not. It has a name and it is called cognitive relativism and in practice it means that we, you and I, don't have to have the same reason for acting as long as we both do what is in fact possible.
It ties in with one difference between verification and falsification and to learn that you could start with Karl R. Popper. Not that you have to, because he was a philosopher and "we" need to avoid philosophy. In practice verification works if you can do it, where as falsification requires that you accept that it can be different. That is the crux of the matter, when it comes to morality. Morality is in practice as case of cognitive and emotional relativism, where "I am right and you are wrong" works for everybody, but you overlook something if you think/feel that is a case of verification and independent observation.

Now this has to do with replication or rather the ability to repeat something. It is often overlooked that repeat is not just repeat in exactly the same sense, because we all do it everyday. If you can understand this sentence, it is in part because you can think like me or anybody else, who can understand this sentence. It is not because you observe as see the meaning of this text. So if you can repeat something another human can do, it doesn't mean that it involves an independent observer. So now it comes in the absurd sense:
Someone to the following effect: "I only accept observer independent evidence."
Me: That is not observer independent, because "I only accept...." is not observer independent.
Someone: "I don't do cognitive relativism."
Me: That is a case of cognitive relativism, because you could also admit it and say that you do cognitive relativism.

So you can deny cognitive relativism and say it is irrelevant, but that is because cognitive relativism is real and you can also admit that cognitive relativism is relevant. So if you need to do that, i.e. deny cognitive relativism, it doesn't with neither rigor or logic follow that I have to do it.
The same is the case BTW for the word measure as it is for the word repeat. And again you can deny philosophy but it is as old as western philosophy:
"Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not" - Protagoras.

 

[Pup]

What I mean is that you don’t need philosophically constructed moral rules to tell you you’re feeling good when (to quote you) “humans and animals are doing what they've been socialized or bred to do”. They know instinctively that their behaviour is right behaviour and social acculturation reinforces it.

I think it's the other way around. We need philosophically constructed moral rules (with all the attendant discussion) to try to explain why our brains are telling us this stuff that feels external. Is it a god? Are these universal laws?

So, even though science cannot show us what moral truth is, it can show us what is factually true and why it is in our own interests to act upon it.

I think that's the key to the whole problem. Science can only tell us that, but it can't tell us that acting upon our own interests is morally good, unless morality is arbitrarily defined that way.

The two moral systems are not clashing. Both humans and lions are carnivores and this by definition means killing other animals for food. Although, our developed human sensibilities hopefully result in this being achieved as humanely as possible.

And yet surely it's not in the man's own interests to be eaten. Though speaking generally both species' instincts are the same--kill what you can eat and defend yourself from what will kill you--specifically they're different. If one defines morality as human instincts that keep our species going, then the lion is outside of morality. If one defines morality as animal instincts that keep a species going, the lion is acting on those instincts too, but its instincts are to kill the man, while the man's instincts are to escape. Science can't say which action is more moral, without an arbitrary definition of moral, but it can say how a lion could best kill a man and vice versa.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

If you decide that what is moral is that which maximizes the welfare of conscious creatures then you have stated a moral axiom. That is to say, you are saying something is right in and of itself. But if you do that, then you have to acknowledge that you did not get there using science.

No he is not saying “it is right in and of itself”, if I understand Wowbagger correctly. It is right because that "which maximises the welfare of conscious creatures” is congruent and logically consistent with what science tells us about the nature of humans as a social species. This is a descriptive statement but, while a logical deduction may not be possible, there are other rational inferences that need not be ruled out and which are just as useful. Science frequently and with great success relies upon such forms of induction to arrive at its conclusions.

angrysoba is correct; an axiom was put forward, and it was not derived from science. That is, consequentialism tied to maximizing welfare is a possible, but not inevitable, moral stance.

What I would like to know is if the claim is really being made that specific ethical statements about concrete situations can be derived scientifically. One can easily find some basic underlying concepts shared by all and derived from our nature, but these do not tell me if I should prefer to lock up criminals and punish them only, attempt to rehab, or execute them outright. More extremely, it does not help me decide if oppression of small minorities, in spite of maximizing general welfare, is good or bad.

As an approach, it may not even differentiate between two groups averaging $100,000 in annual income, with one being made up of 10 people making that amount, and another one person making $1,000,000 and nine making nothing. In this scenario, one can argue for either. The millionaire will invest in a factory and all will be better off in a new cycle of innovation and growth, or a set of equal earners will maximize welfare over the lifetimes of those individuals, each with his/her own profession, and they will not be factory slaves.

If one claims that logic and grounded assumptions can be used to develop a framework purporting to maximize welfare, that is not a description of human behavior, but a preferential model of the one so stating.

.... Someone to the following effect: "I only accept observer independent evidence.".... "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not" - Protagoras.

No such thing as 'observer-independent.' That is the 'God' view; no component of a system is independent. As for Protagoras, seems he understood mind-dependent reality.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...
And yet surely it's not in the man's own interests to be eaten. Though speaking generally both species' instincts are the same--kill what you can eat and defend yourself from what will kill you--specifically they're different. If one defines morality as human instincts that keep our species going, then the lion is outside of morality. If one defines morality as animal instincts that keep a species going, the lion is acting on those instincts too, but its instincts are to kill the man, while the man's instincts are to escape. Science can't say which action is more moral, without an arbitrary definition of moral, but it can say how a lion could best kill a man and vice versa.

It is the same with parasites or if you like parasitism. Even to the point where "parasitic" behavior in humans is somehow unnatural.
Another case I experienced once, was where the question was whether grass has rights and if it was wrong to cut the grass, because we feel it looks better being cut?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No such thing as 'observer-independent.' That is the 'God' view; no component of a system is independent. As for Protagoras, seems he understood mind-dependent reality.

Yes, reality/the universe/everything is neither objective nor subjective. These words only make sense in relation to lifeforms as part of reality.
Yes, measure as per Protagoras most likely means subjective value.

 

[Pup]

It is the same with parasites or if you like parasitism. Even to the point where "parasitic" behavior in humans is somehow unnatural.
Another case I experienced once, was where the question was whether grass has rights and if it was wrong to cut the grass, because we feel it looks better being cut?

Silly, but... I would argue that if someone is concerned about grass having rights, they're still talking about human morality, not the "morality" of grass. Less silly, "do animals have the right not to be tortured before we eat them?" is a question about human morality, not about animals' instincts, and depends on how much our sense of sympathy kicks in, whether we think that a desire to torture animals is a sign of a dangerous person, that kind of thing.

 

[Dani]

No he is not saying “it is right in and of itself”, if I understand Wowbagger correctly. It is right because that "which maximises the welfare of conscious creatures” is congruent and logically consistent with what science tells us about the nature of humans as a social species. This is a descriptive statement but, while a logical deduction may not be possible, there are other rational inferences that need not be ruled out and which are just as useful. Science frequently and with great success relies upon such forms of induction to arrive at its conclusions.

You have a very simplistic view of what science is about. You can't just put deduction aside. The moment you devise an experiment to test a scientific hypothesis, you're making use of deductive reasoning. That's what makes theories falsifiable.

You haven't proposed a single conceivable experiment to test what is good, bad, what makes a normative statement right or wrong. Some people have inferred that you both are just making an assumption because so far you just asserted that science will lead us to your conclusion, while on the other hand you haven't produced any conceivable scenario in which your premise could be scientifically tested.

In fact, Angrysoba's inference is inductive, based on the opportunties you had to be clear and meaningful about how we could scientifically test what's morally good or bad, if that's what you claim. Evidence is mounting that you, like everyone else so far, can't do that.

 

[Dani]

1. The accusation that I am trying to weaken science: Nope, just the opposite! I am trying to bring scientific rigor and discipline into philosophical ideas. I am NOT changing the definition of "evidence" or "empirical", or any other vocabulary words of science. I AM trying to influence changes to the usage of words like "normative", which is a philosophical term.

Good luck with that. But you do realize that what you're trying to do would have a trivial semantic impact instead of an epistemic one, right?

In other words, we wouldn't know anything new about the world. We just would give the term "normative" a different meaning.

This is pretty basic critical thinking.

 

[Tassman]

I think it's the other way around. We need philosophically constructed moral rules (with all the attendant discussion) to try to explain why our brains are telling us this stuff that feels external. Is it a god? Are these universal laws?

No they're a result of natural selection. And only science can “explain why our brains are telling us this stuff.” Philosophy can't; it must make do with existing knowledge from which to formulate its premises.

I think that's the key to the whole problem. Science can only tell us that, but it can't tell us that acting upon our own interests is morally good, unless morality is arbitrarily defined that way.

What’s “morally good” is the behaviour which enables the human ‘machine’ to function as nature intended it to function via evolution, namely as cooperative social animals living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities. It is science that provides these facts, not philosophy, and it is the application of this knowledge via inductive inference that enables the formulation of rules of behaviour. Philosophy is useful only inasmuch as it can ensure the use of rules of logical consistency, reliance upon evidence and the other components of philosophical argument, i.e. as an adjunct of science.

BTW: You didn't answer whether or not you are arguing a case for Platonic Universals? Are you?

And yet surely it's not in the man's own interests to be eaten. Though speaking generally both species' instincts are the same--kill what you can eat and defend yourself from what will kill you--specifically they're different.

They’re not different at all. The instincts of both animals (i.e. Homo sapiens and feline) are to kill for food and avoid being killed.

If one defines morality as human instincts that keep our species going, then the lion is outside of morality. If one defines morality as animal instincts that keep a species going, the lion is acting on those instincts too, but its instincts are to kill the man, while the man's instincts are to escape. Science can't say which action is more moral, without an arbitrary definition of moral, but it can say how a lion could best kill a man and vice versa.

But one is NOT defining “morality as human instincts that keep our species going.” The argument is that morality is a system of rules arising from the brute fact of humanity's evolved instincts for community living. If Homo sapiens had evolved as solitary creatures rather than communal animals (some species have), then they would not require such rules. A moral code is only useful inasmuch as it enables what it was intended to do, namely promote a cohesive society. Morality has no value in and of itself - unless one is foolish enough to believe in gods and their supposed revealed rules of behaviour.

 

[Pup]

What’s “morally good” is the behaviour which enables the human ‘machine’ to function as nature intended it to function via evolution, namely as cooperative social animals living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities. It is science that provides these facts, not philosophy,

Absolutely not. Science can make no such claim as the first sentence. The most science can claim is that humans get a feeling which they define as morally good, due to evolution. But there is no way science can state that it is morally good.

BTW: You didn't answer whether or not you are arguing a case for Platonic Universals? Are you?

Wasn't sure what you meant by Platonic Universals. Is that like Platonic Ideals, the real things out there which we only see as shadows on the cave wall? No, just the opposite. I'm claiming there are no absolute morals out there.

But one is NOT defining “morality as human instincts that keep our species going.” The argument is that morality is a system of rules arising from the brute fact of humanity's evolved instincts for community living. If Homo sapiens had evolved as solitary creatures rather than communal animals (some species have), then they would not require such rules. A moral code is only useful inasmuch as it enables what it was intended to do, namely promote a cohesive society. Morality has no value in and of itself - unless one is foolish enough to believe in gods and their supposed revealed rules of behaviour.

You just did the highlighted thing in the first sentence I quoted in this post.

 

[Dragoonster]

Jesus Wowbagger. I...I think you're a very good skeptic and such from years here, but this just seems to be selecting everything anyone says to counter your claim and tossing it into a blender. Did any of those thousands of responses make you actually change your mind or take a pause to think? Your and Harris' claim isn't that complicated. Couldn't you have synthesized your response to "Here's what I'm questioning"?

Anyway since I managed to come up (and I may be editing in the future to include proper format):

Any scientific study of what's the "best" moral anything has to initially start with what moral goals are. And that goes back to Is-Ought problem and Hume. Which is what multiple posters have already pointed to as the fundamental and insurmountable flaw.

We can START with what is practically inevitable, what is unlikely to change, in the nature of morality. If we can demonstrate that, empirically, then we have a scientific basis for starting with those as goals.

Hume did not live in an era where that was possible, due to lack of data at the time.

Hume didn't live in an era where much of society thought the nature of morality was "practically inevitable" or "unlikely to change"??? [ and "due to lack of data" rofl] If only you and Sam Harris were there in olden time semblances of your wrong selves to wrongly correct him and say slavery or subjugating women were unlikely to change/inevitable and were moral so why bother with Is-Ought and all that pesky moral philosophy.

I mean, it must be an amazing coincidence that out of 10,000 years of human history just right now is the 10-20 years where a neurologist or his particular culture/society/viewpoint is perfectly right about human morality. Empirically no less! Data! I guess we're really glad this didn't happen 700 years ago, because many of us would now be slaves! Due to Science!

 

[Jango]

Then came the Scientific Inquisition forcing all to accept the Truth^TM. The Heisenberg Morality Test allowed the Sci-inqusitors to determine the moral worth of each individual infallibly but unfortunately required the body of the suspect to be burnt to acquire a sample.

The DNR in Michigan is in on it too. They killed all the fish in a lake just to count them.

 

[Jango]

As some of you might know, I happen to be a purveyor of the idea that science can answer moral questions. However, I recognize (quite brutally) that it is really difficult to convince most other intellectual types of that idea. Not merely that science can help us answer such questions, after values are established. My claim is that values, themselves, can be determined by science, as well. And, here, I make the bold claim that this will, eventually, be a much more accepted notion. But, it will not happen right away. It is going to take a couple of generations of turnover before it goes more mainstream.

My predictions take the following, more specific, form:

Prediction #1: Academia will transform morality almost entirely into a science. Perhaps a "soft" form of it. But, the role of philosophy will become diminished to that of pure systematics: taxonomy, nomenclature, etc. It might take 1 or 2 generations (of roughly 20 years each), before progress will be noticeable.

Prediction #2 is about how morality will change. It has three sub-predictions, that more-or-less follow from each other: (In a previous draft these were numbered separately.)

2A: Morality will take on more of a consequentialist type of angle, in a greater number of people. This will also take a couple of generations to notice. And, some parts of the world will transform slower than others. This is NOT classical utilitarianism, in the Jeremy Bentham sense. This is a "new" form that more fully encompasses the six foundations of morality, that folks like Johnathan Haidt have documented. (Though, Haidt might not agree that they can be unified in this way.)

2B: The average "well being" of all human lives will continue to improve at an accelerated rate. Our measurements of "well being" might be primitive today. But, they will improve over time, across various components: health, wealth, "happiness", etc.
I used the word "continue" because this seems to be happening, anyway. The real key word is "accelerated rate". And, this would be as a result of #2A happening, of course.

2C: Skepticism will become much more of a recognized and respected skill. To be reliable, the consequentialist requires oodles and oodles of information: The more you know about everything, the better you can foresee the possible consequences of your actions, without relying on any arbitrary principles. But, as we all know: Good information ends up swimming around in oceans of bad information. Therefore, information filtering, i.e. skepticism, will be a much more sought-after skill.

I am not sure, yet, if skepticism will ever become mainstream: It might end up as more of a specialized profession, like doctors and lawyers. But, if we can find better ways to teach those skills, it might spread like reading and writing after the industrial revolution.

I recognize that there are some forces working against these ideals:
* Our own evolutionary heritage has favored principles and duty for so long, it will take some mighty powerful forces to overrule them in the general population.
* I also read up on recent findings on how evolution could favor the collapse of reciprocal altruism in certain situations.
* And, some temporary set-backs will sometimes crop-up ("The Great Sort" of U.S. politics, the rise of ISIS in the Middle East, etc.)

But, we live in a world where we can start to see all of these coming, and I think we can become increasingly adept at neutralizing them.

I would also like to point out that I could wrong about one of these predictions (either #1 or the collection of #2's parts), and still be correct about the other. If that turns out to be the case, then I hope whoever happens to read this post, in that future, would be willing to grant me half-credit.

(If #2C should become true, but not any of the other parts of #2, I would NOT count that as a victory for the purposes of this thread. Skepticism could rise for reasons not related to morality. My prediction is in how morality will be its driving force.)

I plan to argue for these predictions, this weekend, at SkeptiCamp NYC 2014. So, I probably should have started this thread sooner. While I might not have time to post too many responses before that event, I promise to read all of the posts before it takes place. And, I might revise the form of the predictions after the event is over, based on feedback and such.

So, your thoughts are appreciated.

Daniel Dennett once described the Theory of Evolution as a "universal acid", that eats away at all other notions of biological origin before it. I am much worse than that: I see the very disciple of science, itself, as a universal acid: Eating away at all other forms of thinking-about-stuff that came before it! I predict that this will, eventually, include pretty much all of morality, itself!

You appear to have great expectations and a profoundly more optimistic outlook of the future than most people would dare illustrate. The sheer uncertainty of future makes long-term forecasts pointless, although they may be entertaining at some level. But's lets say that people's lives and thinking processes improve, is that because we've solved societal and environmental problems, or do these improvements happen regardless if societal and environmental problems dissipate?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Jesus Wowbagger. I...I think you're a very good skeptic and such from years here, but this just seems to be selecting everything anyone says to counter your claim and tossing it into a blender. Did any of those thousands of responses make you actually change your mind or take a pause to think? Your and Harris' claim isn't that complicated. Couldn't you have synthesized your response to "Here's what I'm questioning"?

My guess is that every time Wowbagger has tried to summarise his ideas clearly, briefly and precisely they came out sounding obviously dumb.

Whereas when he pads them out with reams of fluffy verbiage, vagueness and imprecision they feel like they just have be right because they feel so good. Also Wowbagger has to be the first person in history to have said any of it because that idea feels good too.

This is crank philosophy, the equivalent of crank physicists who tinker around in their basement, utterly isolated from scientific progress and the scientific community, in love with the idea that they are going to discover free energy or something. The idea that they are going to solve the is/ought problem in their basement is as ludicrous as the idea that they are going to find a way to violate conservation of energy.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

At this point I am completely baffled about what it is you aim to do, and the word salad above doesn't clarify things at all.

1. What do you mean by bringing "scientific rigor and discipline" to philosophy? From what I can see it is logical rigor and discipline that you, Tassman, Ron Tomkins, Shermer and Harris lack and you seem to be unaware that you lack it, as well.

Eh?
Since you're throwing me within the pile of your opponents in this discussion (I'll be damned if I ever know why), could you elaborate on what do you mean by me "lacking rigor and discipline". Rigor and discipline on what exactly?
(I have a strong suspicion that, despite all the clarifying I've made, you still believe that I'm trying to put forward the same argument that Wowbagger is: That science can and eventually will develop a Moral Science. An argument I never made, and you continuously attacked me for, as if I was making it)