/sci/ - Science & Math

>/thread

This video should provide a better explanation than I've been able to. Neuroscientist Sam Harris discusses meditation and consciousness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2tEQPNG198

Sam Harris believes science can answer moral questions. Now you might say "lol that's a naive position go read some philosophy." You might say that if you never took more than freshman philosophy or just read a few blog posts about morality. Nevertheless, in my experience this is an extremely common response.

There are way too many to list, but here are some prominent figures who argue that morality is essentially scientific in character:

- Richard Boyd. philosopher of scientfic realism, one of the Cornell Realists, author of How to Be a Moral Realist
- Patricia Churchland. Neurophilosoher, author of Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality
- Paul Thagard. Philosopher of science, author of The Brain and the Meaning of Life
- David Brink. Cornell Realist and author of Moral Realism and the Foundation of Ethics, a book which defends the objectivity of ethics
- Joseph Daleiden. An economist, statistician, & philosopher. Author of The Science of Morality.
- Carl Craver. Neurophilosopher and philosopher of moral psychology. Author of Explaining the Brain and many articles on the brain.
- Michael Shermer. Historian of science, prominent skeptic, and author of The Science of Good and Evil.

And then throw in the entire field of positive psychology (Stefan Klein - author of The Science of Happiness being just one refernce point).

In fact, moral realism is the dominant stance (56%) on meta-ethics according to a poll of philosophers conducted by David Chalmers.

Encyclopedia articles:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality

There's lot's more to say but I'll stop here for now. So if you say Sam Harris' position is naiive it's only because you haven't exposed yourself to a well-established, mainstream philsophical position.

>>4481758

>doesn't know what evolutionary psychology is
>attempts to correct someone

2/10

you cant get an "is" statement without assuming an "ought"

water "is" 2 parts hydrogen 1 part oxygen,...but you cant convince someone who doubts this without appealing to evidence, what if someone says they dont value evidence?
science is built on an ought, you "ought" to value evidence

logic "is" how we reason but you cant convince someone who doubts this, without telling them they "ought" to value logic

whats wrong with an argument that contradicts itself? it seems wrong, but is that a good enough reason? but maybe that's just how our limited human minds perceive it..no

what do you say to someone who doubts the value of evidence logic and reason?
you say valuing evidence logic and reason are all useful for the well-being of conscious beings (us in particular)
what do you say to someone who doubts the value of it being useful for the well-being of conscious beings?

nothing,...you are arguing with a solipsist who would argue that we have ethical duty towards rocks

science makes no apologies for saying we ought to value evidence logic and reason.
why should science apologise for saying we ought to value the well-being of conscious beings?

I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.”

>>2806734
> Science cannot answer moral questions