*solves ethics using science and logic*

[Anonymous No.18666455]

[Anonymous No.18666465]

>>18666455
>"enmeshed"
>curly haired, long-nosed Epstein clique member
>Anglo perspectives on anything important
Into the garbage it goes

[Anonymous No.18666649]

>>18666455
Why do people take such issue with him? Objectively speaking, there are certain experiences which intrinsically contain "undesirableness". It's packaged in that you WILL find them undesirable. Pain is the most common and perhaps universal, but the fact remains that to every person there is one type of existing which is preferable to another. So when speaking of "should", it doesn't really matter, since you WILL work to avoid certain things and pursue other things. Morality is just a framework to maximize the avoiding and pursuing.

[Anonymous No.18666715]

>>18666649
It's a book trying to inculcate you with the mind trap that 'science' = good and 'scientists' are the arbitrators of what is good. It's a book about what is good and moral with a blurb of recommendation written by a proven Epstein associate, who aided him in legal defense.

[Anonymous No.18666818]

>>18666715
>'science' = good
Correct.
>'scientists' are the arbitrators of what is good
Also correct.

[Anonymous No.18666838]

>Repackaged ideas from cornell realists like Boyd, Brink, and Sturgeon, except far less sophisticated and well defended, relying less on insights from science and philosophy of language and more on "just go with it bro"-style arguments
>Plebs eats it up
I hate people

[Anonymous No.18666896]

>>18666818
There is the scientific method, a process which requires that some result be repeatable to be considered as a legitimate information from which further inquiry can be conducted, science proper. And scientists proper, people who approach a particular subject using this method, who are aware that any information they have eked out using the scientific method will more than likely be significantly changed, recontextualized or even proven wrong with time.

Then there's 'science' in the sense used by Harris and Pinker here, a phrase used as a hammer to legitimate whatever ideology the powers want to propagate through their mouthpieces, or 'scientists', figures set in place to push an agenda, blinded by the feeling of superiority and omniscience drilled into them by the apparatus they serve and thinking their opinion is the be all end all for any topic they happen to latch onto.

This virus has come from bats and bats only and any possibility of it being artificially changed is something only a retard would think. 'Science' has proven the bat origin and disproven any human involvement, all the 'scientists' have proven this with their 'science'. Better believe it and spread it around or you are a retard.

[Anonymous No.18666908]

>>18666896
What you are describing is Scientism, which is a religion.

[Anonymous No.18666916]

>>18666896

>There is the scientific method

no sorry, this is actually incorrect

[Anonymous No.18666919]

>>18666896
>>18666908
>Science is descriptive, rather than prescriptive. It cannot tell us what is good or bad. It cannot provide us with value. If we value truth, then we take that value with us to science. We don't get it from science. There's no scientific experiment that can prove the value of truth, just as there's no scientific experiment that can prove the value of life or of death. Scientism, however, is not science, and it has a proof for everything.
-Kevin Solway
https://thephilosophytakeaway.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-source-of-meaning-by-kevin-solway.html

[Anonymous No.18666936]

[Anonymous No.18666946]

>>18666936
I have to take the bait when it comes to IDW. It's enjoyable shitting on them

[Anonymous No.18666963]

>>18666916
Cheers cunt. Now what stable epistemology gives your work meaning?

[Anonymous No.18667003]

God this guy is such a fucking PSEUD

[Anonymous No.18667016]

I honestly doubt Sam Harris has ever read any philosophy if he thinks that morality can be addressed scientifically.

Has a so-called public intellectual really never studied philosophy?

[Anonymous No.18667031]

>>18666649
That is a massive oversimplification of moral and ethical dilemmas that the most brilliant men in history have debated for thousands of years

[Anonymous No.18668143]

Guys, Jesus is Lord.

[Anonymous No.18668150]

No.

[Anonymous No.18668834]

Prostrate yourselves before your high priests and know that the science has been settled.

[Anonymous No.18669070]

I'll never get tired of posting this clip
https://youtu.be/-YKkYU5W-IM

[Anonymous No.18669169]

>>18669070
I prefer this clip, Taleb's genius is in full flower:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XAbSmTGJhEA

[Anonymous No.18669247]

>>18666649
Ignatius Loyola scourged himself daily, slept on the floor and ate only bread and drank only water. Pain and suffering was desirable to him because of its association with Christ.

[Anonymous No.18669312]

>>18669247
Ignatius J. Reilly had a problem:
>My valve did close quite violently this afternoon when Mr. Gonzalez asked me to add a column of figures for him.
His associate Myrna Minkoff was his Pontius Pilate, the valve his Longinus. As a man of stomach, his Christendom necessitated suffering.

[Anonymous No.18669648]

>>18666649
No one is contesting that humans have preferences of that sort, the point is that Harris absolutely failed to prove that desiderability (and welfare in general) actually substantiates normative obligations of an ethical kind. Like, he doesn't even get what the debate is about, he's actually that clueless.

[Anonymous No.18669769]

>>18668143
Sam harris annihilated.

[Anonymous No.18671097]

>>18666455
Ah yes, the “moral philosophers” known as scientists who arrive at certain unquestionable but politically well-timed truths by way of corporate and state-funding...

[Anonymous No.18671201]

I hate rationalists so much. Might as well live in a pod.

[Anonymous No.18671210]

>>18666455
Do it the other way Around now.

[Anonymous No.18671223]

>>18668150
I'm curious as to a negative for OP's issue attached to Witt. I don't know much about him but what was his direction when it came to morality and ethics?

[Anonymous No.18671226]

>>18666455
>solves ethics
>shalom haaretz

[Anonymous No.18672542]

Why would anybody in their right mind read this shit. I did, and it was a huge waste of time. He's worse then Peterson. I unironically found more fun and value in the self help books from the Percocet addict.

[Anonymous No.18672576]

>>18666455
You cant "solve" ethics because its just a set of rules set by logical thinking that are supposed to help people make better decisions without having to go through decades of trial and error, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. But at least you know what you are doing.

The premise of the book misses the point and is low IQ, also unbelievably arrogant.

[Anonymous No.18672871]

>>18672576
>You cant "solve" ethics because its just a set of rules set by logical thinking that are supposed to help people make better decisions
That's pretty much the same logic as the book midwit--and the logic of the book is retarded.

[Anonymous No.18673500]

There exists no non-religious reason why any moral claim is true. Harming people is fun, therefore it is as morally good as anything else.

>>18666649
If something was morally wrong (something people shouldn't do) then there would exist a reason why that is the case. Giving people pain is a reason why people SHOULD do it. Everyone who wants to harm others do it because it causes pain.

>>18667016
He has a BA in philosophy from Stanford. Goes to show how useless that degree is when he writes a whole book based on a fallacy.

>>18672871
This. Logic has no inherent goal. It is a religious concept that contains rules for the religion and the goal of the rules can be literally anything.

[Anonymous No.18673516]

>>18666455
>Pinker

[Anonymous No.18673757]

>>18666455
Every scientist in the world has been eternally blown the fuck out by pessimist meta-induction.

If all former scientific theories describing the natural world have been proven wrong or inadequate through the course of human history, then using inductive reasoning, that must mean that every current scientific theory describing the natual world is...?

[Anonymous No.18673773]

>>18671223
On 25 October 1946, Popper (then at the London School of Economics), was invited to present a paper entitled "Are There Philosophical Problems?" at a meeting of the Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club, which was chaired by Wittgenstein. The two started arguing vehemently over whether there existed substantial problems in philosophy, or merely linguistic puzzles—the position taken by Wittgenstein. In Popper's, and the popular account, Wittgenstein used a fireplace poker to emphasize his points, gesturing with it as the argument grew more heated. When challenged by Wittgenstein to state an example of a moral rule, Popper (later) claimed to have replied "Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers", upon which (according to Popper) Wittgenstein threw down the poker and stormed out.

[Anonymous No.18673781]

>>18673757
Everyone knows 'all theories are wrong, but some are useful'. There's a Feynman essay about theories getting successively more accurate, like the limit of an equation, but I can't find it at the moment.

[Anonymous No.18673991]

>>18673757
Scientists don't discard theories just because they are proven wrong. It might still be the best guess they have. Science have no method to prove a scientific theory to be true. It CAN prove it to be false however. And when that happens then scientists try to make another guess that is not disproven yet. But there is always a period where the theory is proven wrong and where nobody made a guess that doesn't contradict the current observations yet.

[Anonymous No.18675098]

>>18667031
OP's book is trash but, sincerely: nobody cares