|
Sam Harris on TED Talks: Science can answer moral questions. (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Just because there are exceptions to be made, it does not mean that a universal value of "killing is wrong" should not be enforced or desirable. Assuming that there is no objective truth to be reached in morality and concluding that it is therefore not desirable to seek it is something that I find quite ludicrous. |
What I intended to show is that there are always counter-examples and, due to it's accumulation of data, science is always forced to re-analyse its theories and hypotheses.
For example, let me give you an example from the science I study:
Languages in which the verb usually comes at the end of a sentence (e.g. Japanese) tend to have postpositions (in Japanese, instead of saying ~I went to the house~, you say ~I (the) house to went~). Language in which the verb does not come at the end (e.g. English and Chinese) tend to have prepositions. This works like a charm in most cases, and there are hypotheses concerning a possible cognitive link between these two structures.
However, should a language not fit this criteria, rare though it is, we do not tell the speakers to change the grammar of their language so the data can fit our theory again. No, we go back to the sketching board and see what we can do to fit and formulate an ancillary hypothesis.
This comes to show that science will never ever reach an ultimate truth because there's no such thing as an ultimate experience. Unless we've experience all there is to be experience can we say we're somewhere close to the ultimate source of objective knowledge.
And, most importantly (I can't believe I forgot that), science describes, it does not say what the world should be like. In this case, science can say what most people think is right to do in certain scenarios, and why they think that way, but it doesn't entail from that the conclusion reached in these experiments is the right choice. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Qualitative reasoning > qualitative research. Every time.
I'm with you, brother - embrace the Solar Mother! Whose truths speak only the warm rays of the atom, vibrating to that illusion of time we so callously reduce to the mere resonance of a Cesium particle! Oh, lord magnet, whose direction points only north to our mother, when shall we be delivered from the things of man, whose conceit decays the great tree of knowledge, and whose deceits gnaw at our immortal essence like the lapping of an extinct meat! Repent! Aieeeee |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
It has to do with a few of Harris's talking points about religion and morality, he is more of an ignorant racist than any sort of philosopher or thinker. And much of what he says is so damn canned and pre prescribed. And he totally failed to answer the moderator's questions properly. An intellectual imposter with some beliefs based on lies. Not much more...
wiki |
Let me ask again: what does the monetary source of a fundamentalist religious group have to do with the issue of scientific morality vs religious morality? |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Qualitative reasoning > qualitative research. Every time.
I'm with you, brother - embrace the Solar Mother! Whose truths speak only the warm rays of the atom, vibrating to that illusion of time we so callously reduce to the mere resonance of a Cesium particle! Oh, lord magnet, whose direction points only north to our mother, when shall we be delivered from the things of man, whose conceit decays the great tree of knowledge, and whose deceits gnaw at our immortal essence like the lapping of an extinct meat! Repent! Aieeeee |
i'm guessing you are mad...because you've been blatantly tricked for 10 years.
maybe over some more time it will gradually seep into societies conscience, that both groups (al qaeda and taliban) have been controlled remotely by their non muslim beneficiaries (multi trillion dollar.)
Start by looking up what Gladio is...if you value research. And then from there do some qualitative reasoning. |
|
|
| woscar |
Like I said on the other thread, while paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens.
"To describe [your views] as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental."
Now, let's get back on topic. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
"Subjecting the world to some distant authority that they have to believe in". That sounds an awful lot like religion to me, not science. Ins't God a "distant authority"? Science asks us only to question the nature of things, which leads me to my next point:
|
What are you talking about? I am not up in arms against science, I am up in arms against the idea of a universal moral code. I dont care if it comes from science or religion, it's a bad idea either way.
You're damn right it sounds an awful lot like religion!
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Plus, I think a scientist has less reason to lie. A clergyman is trying to enforce morals, whereas a scientist is only trying to enforce truth. A scientist would never tell you that hell exists so you'll stop shoplifting. |
Well we all know there is corruption in religion and I don't want to defend religion in any way, but this is BS. The real goal of clergy is also to enforce truth. Even scientists don't agree on truth.
But I do agree that scientists have less reason to lie... except when they get tied up with morals and trying to enforce them (governments).
What Sam Harris is proposing is that a group of scientists can tell you that you are proven to be a bad person. If you take this to the logical end, presumably a computer can kill you before you are born if it determines after in-utero neural analysis that you're going to be a bad person according to its universal scientific code.
For the last time, I have nothing explicitly against science anymore than I do with religion, but I think using either as the basis of some universal code of conduct is ludicrous at best and truly dangerous. |
|
|
| Amduscias |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
|
u never answered my PM, i need your set! the one with exaltion and indians & bagpipes but it wont let me download it fully from your site, it stops downloading on its own... |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Why would you approach a religious person as an equal? Clearly, someone who believes in an old man in the sky ready to punish them for not believing in him isn't on your level. |
Just because a person is ignorant does not mean that they lack the intellectual capacity to understand what you're saying, and alter their beliefs based on new learning. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Subjecting the whole world to some distant authority that they have to believe in because they lack the scientific training to comprehend it is not moving towards a goal of universal love, but rather one of universal fear. |
Kinda sounds a lot like God. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Just because a person is ignorant does not mean that they lack the intellectual capacity to understand what you're saying, and alter their beliefs based on new learning. |
true dat. Thats why I dont mind calling someone ignorant, but sorta feel bad when I use the words "stupid" or "dumb." |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
true dat. Thats why I dont mind calling someone ignorant, but sorta feel bad when I use the words "stupid or dumb". |
You must be the most modest poser... err, poster on TA |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
true dat. Thats why I dont mind calling someone ignorant, but sorta feel bad when I use the words "stupid" or "dumb." |
Oh , it agrees with me.
I take it back guys, I never meant a word of it! |
|
|
|
|
