/lit/ - Literature

we valued scientists too much and now they're cocky

>>6066320
Krauss's definitions of science is basically "looking at shit". More idiocy here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8?t=31m20s

>>6066340
>Sam Harris
>former neuroscientist, published little, what he published was fMRI bullshit
>now mostly writes crap books because he couldn't cut it as a scientist

I wouldn't really call that guy a scientist

>>6066320
Ignore scientific fetishism, appreciate science, be kind to animals.

>>6066320

The thing is these aren't even premier scientists, I mean does anyone honestly think Krauss and Dawkins are on the forefront for scientific research? These are literally a bunch of 2nd tier academics who exploit the internets infantile religious obsession with euphoric atheist quotes.

Serious question, somewhat on topic:

Why does Sam Harris keep taking pictures like this one? At first I thought it was the same pic edited several different ways, but it's actually a bunch of different ones

>>6066385
Dawkins used to be at the forefront of scientific research, he turned over evolutionary biology with The Selfish Gene

Then he concentrated on public acceptance of science, and then the whole atheism crap started

Can anyone convince me that Sam Harris isn't a bumbling retard and should be taken seriously?

>>6066392

Someone please post the comic.

>>6066396

>>6066403
looks like i swapped part ii & i, oh well

>>6066385
>I mean does anyone honestly think Krauss and Dawkins are on the forefront for scientific research?

Not sure about Krauss but Dawkins definitely is respected in his field.

>>6066410

>>6066413
Thanks, it was a genuine question.

Dawkins, is still on the side of "Philosophy is dead" and Im not sure if this viewpoint is at all common among scientists, but it certainly is troubling how easily they dismiss a very valid field of thought.

>>6066320
This debate is extremely mediocre. No one is really bringing up anything interesting. They are just making these trivial and safe statements.

>I don't want to get into the details of the philosophical arguments
>Hume comes up

Jesus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8L7p-76cU
Sam Harris spends an hour asserting strawman after strawman while taking the Bible literally

>>6066434
>Churchland completely explains Hume at an undergraduate level. It is baby level
>Harris and Krauss still don't fucking get it

What in the living fuck. Yes what Hume said is trite now, but in the same breath you demonstrate you don't even understand his true and trite conclusions. Fuck man

>>6066392
I can't, because he definitely is one. How the fuck a person like that can manage his way through a philosophy course is beyond me, because I've never seen him intelligently dealing with any philosopher.

Every time he tries to enage with moral and ethical thought he usually ends up talking how morally superior he is to ISIS which is the type of shit that would get you laughed out any classroom. Basically, he thinks he's the guy keeping it real, approaching all the mumbo-jumbo with a no-nonsense attitude and showing that people have really just been "overthinking" for the past 2500 years: the intellectual equivalent of people who enter Marxism threads here on /lit/ saying something like "humans are greedy, deal with it"

WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT

There is no debate. It's just science science science. Philosophy isn't against science.

>>6066320
>applause break

The reason most 'debates' in American are despicably unwatchable. People can't help but to clap like seals at each sentence.

>>6066470
Harris and Krauss are saying you need nothing BUT science, and the others (even Pinker, a scientist) are saying "well nah" but Harris and Krauss insist "NOPE SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE OBJECTIVE FACT TRUE FUCK RELIGION"

>>6066434
Let's be honest here. Churchland, Blackburn and Singer could definitely have taken this debate to a next level, but they realised it would be fruitless because they're sitting next to people who don't get Hume, let alone anything beyond that (wanted to punch Pinker when he mentioned Aristotle). The audience is definitely not any better because they're madly clapping any bullshit they say.

>>6066491
It's definitely not an american thing. I see it in british and european debates, I saw it on elections all over South America during presidential debates where the audience was explicitly told not to applaud beforehand.

It's just an unavoidable consequence of partisan politics. Idiots acting like politics and philosophy are football and everytime their team gets a mention they must show sum love.

krauss wrote a book where he claimed to answer the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" however, all he really did was show how concrete objects might emerge from a condition with no concrete objects, given the laws of quantum mechanics. a philosopher of science wrote a review of his book pointing out that he had completely failed to answer the original question, since he didn't explain where the laws of quantum mechanics (or any other natural laws) came from, meaning that his explanation didn't really start with nothing (he thought it was an interesting book, setting that failure aside). krauss got extremely upset and said a bunch of stuff about how philosophy is stupid and it started a big, embarrassing back and forth between him and a bunch of philosophers of science.

this illustrates that pop scientists are largely incompetent when it comes to philosophy and that people like krauss have personal vendettas against philosophy. so, i wouldn't take them too seriously

>>6066320
>>6066375
>>6066392
>>6066435
>>6066456
>>6066497
>>6066509

>>6066320
OH GOOD
IT'S THIS FUCKING THREAD AGAIN
THANK YOU OP
THANK YOU

>>6066545
Go to bed Harris

>>6066545
Hey, at least it's contained in a thread.
>>6066534
Yeah I thought Krauss' ideas about that and some lectures he's given about it were interesting, but it's not some theory of everything for material existence. I agree with many of Harris' positions about Islam, religion, gun ownership, etc. but his moral philosophy seems like it gets wrecked in just a few sentences. For guys who are supposedly open to the truth and honest discussion, they're very defensive of their pet theories.

>>6066543
So you've never read Hume and didn't understand Churchland where she painstakingly explained what Hume actually said?

You're not fooling anyone who has actually read Hume.

Also can I just point out that moderators are always so cringe worthy? They almost always seem to want to put in these clever little jokes and quips right when a conversation is getting good, even if (and it almost certainly does) that quip derails the conversation right when someone else is going to make a counterpoint.

I mean they were right in the middle of Blackburn tearing Harris and Krauss for their lazy assumptions and prejudices, Krauss makes some assanine comment, blackburn is about to retort, but no we need "d-does the name john-" to interrupt the conversation.

>>6066391
>he turned over evolutionary biology with The Selfish Gene
This, Dawkins earned respect in biology with The Selfish Gene earning a reputation with scholars. The God Delusion earned him a reputation with the new atheist shit heads.

>>6066583
>Hey, at least it's contained in a thread.

it isn't tho
threads like these reproduce by asexual cell division

>>6066320
Hand Krauss a copy of 'Dialectics of Enlightenment' to have him open his mind just a little