Mr.Samsa wrote:
Just-so stories are bad. They are failed attempts at scientific explanations.

So, according to you, failure is bad, success is good, but that has nothing to do with ethical judgements. What I take away from this is that you don't insist that 'good' and 'bad' necessarily imply ethical discourse.

Or maybe we can just bind ourselves to Popperian falsification and only talk about the badness of failure, whereas anything that hasn't failed yet is good. What are you on about, then?

surreptitious57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
So where do we get the judgements of morality from

Other moral beings and especially those that have some authority or respect in the community

If you want to bind morality to authority as a personal matter, that's fine with me. This is probably more easily applied in cases where morality is about prohibitions rather than when it is about obligations. I think the gray areas are mostly to do with obligations. Obligations tend to involve reciprocity, but don't look at reciprocity too closely. If you justify someone's failures at reciprocity in terms of his authority, you might as well be telling just-so stories, mainly because of rank circularity.

Cito di Pense wrote:
If you want to bind morality to authority as a personal matter that is fine with me . This is probably more easily applied in cases where morality is about prohibitions rather than when it is about obligations . I think the gray areas are mostly to do with obligations . Obligations tend to involve reciprocity but do not look at reciprocity too closely . If you justify someones failures at reciprocity in terms of his authority you might as well be telling just so stories mainly because of rank circularity

Reciprocity compromises moral intent because ulterior motive is being referenced
Reciprocal altruism may be fine for other members of the animal kingdom but not for us
You think the grey area in morality is obligation : I think the grey area in morality is morality
How long have us ground apes been at this : Two million years and no closer to the answer even now
Morality is emotional and subjective and relative and none of that leads to Utopia : And this is for ever so

surreptitious57 wrote:Reciprocity compromises moral intent because ulterior motive is being referenced

More circularity, then. I don't wish to punish anyone for meaning well but acting incompetently on any single occasion. Most fuckups are habitual fuckups. Blame it on their disadvantaged childhoods, and talk about 'privilege'. Next stop, Atheism+. Why isn't 'moral intent' treated as an 'ulterior motive' exercised by the incompetent?

Cito di Pense wrote:
Why is not moral intent treated as an ulterior motive exercised by the incompetent

The phrase moral intent implies or suggests altruistic behavior not ulteriotr motive

Granted intent can be negative or positive but that is just how this particular ground ape sees it

surreptitious57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
So where do we get the judgements of morality from

Other moral beings and especially those that have some authority or respect in the community

The first homo sapiens referenced morality as a social construct in order to maintain well being

Thr reason for this was because negative behaviour could compromise the survival of the group

So humans have been at this fine moral tuning for all of history : Some two to four million years

Which is why we've gotten so excellent at it that we are just now considering letting people of the same sex get married. Only 500 years ago, England put homosexuals to death.

I pointed out somewhere that it was a hell of a lot cheaper to offer birth control than pay for the children popped out by people who couldn't care for them. One of my Catholic friends said, "that's what morality is for." He was right. Morality is for feeling superior to people born to parents who can't afford them. Telling mothers that their children are sick because of the sins of the mothers is very moral, too. Very favorite amongst the moral set.

An Indian friend of mine and I, just today, were talking about the Chinese incursion into India. India's a pretty moral place; common behaviors in the US can get you arrested as immoral. He tells me that telling parents the sex of a foetus is forbidden, though there are lawbreaking radiologists, and there is so much female-specific foeticide that there is a significant gender imbalance. As with China, of course, they too have males. Don't worry. Warfare is a time-honored way to get rid of excess males. Interesting that the gender imbalance is higher in the areas of high income.

Yay morality! It's so fine-tuned and all about well being.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Just-so stories are bad. They are failed attempts at scientific explanations.

So, according to you, failure is bad, success is good, but that has nothing to do with ethical judgements. What I take away from this is that you don't insist that 'good' and 'bad' necessarily imply ethical discourse.

Your description of my position is obviously over-simplified to the point of being pretty inaccurate, but sure, overall the take away message is right - of course "good" and "bad" don't necessarily imply ethical discourse.

To disagree would put someone in the most ridiculous of positions - e.g. the idea that saying my burger tastes bad is an ethical claim.

Cito di Pense wrote:Or maybe we can just bind ourselves to Popperian falsification and only talk about the badness of failure, whereas anything that hasn't failed yet is good. What are you on about, then?

You aren't making any sense. Why would we believe that anything that hasn't failed yet is good? What does that have to do with Popper? Do I need to go back to repeating questions at you until you attempt to answer 1 out of the 20+ outstanding questions?

Mr.Samsa wrote:

lobawad wrote:

Mr. Samsa, do you agree or disagree with the statement "when a human female has power over the if, when and with whom of reproduction, this is a geat evolutionary advantage compared to if the female doesn't have this power"?

Mr.Samsa wrote:
I say it makes a great just-so story. I prefer evidence over pure conjecture and speculation though.

Of course it's a just-so story! And a damn good one if I may say so myself. It's a counter to your boorish 19th-century macho just-so story of "advantageous rape".

I don't think you understand what a just-so story is... Just-so stories, by definition, cannot be "good ones" as they are inherently flawed and bad (which is why scientists avoid them).

I was speaking of "good" in terms of aesthetics, internal consistency, and of course assuming a standard of social justice. I was obviously not presenting "science"-can't do that without presenting a mechanism for falsification. In these lights, my story is good and elegant, yours is crap. Not only is your story crap, it's dusty crap. I heard the same story in a speech on how evolution is "evil-lution", in the late 1970's, and I'm sure a bit of foraging in archives would flush out the same story, plumed in top hat, monocle, and watch fob.

lobawad wrote:It is impossible to base "morals", ethical systems, and so on, directly on "evolution" or "natural selection".

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Exactly - you need an extra step between the "is" and the "ought" (hence the is-ought gap).

You are considering only discrete (ultimately binary) and linear systems. Sam Harris is trying to get people to consider analog and non-linear systems, webs.

There is a binary anchor to Harris' proposed web, but it is not philosophical, nor metaphysical, nor does it have any inherent "moral" nature. It is what I call a logical dead-man's switch.

It is this: avoiding extinction is a given, because if there is no human species, this whole debate is moot.

This is given because it cannot be logically otherwise, but there are not binaries or "gaps" in Harris' system. Some kind of concept of "health" is mandated as long as we're leaning on that dead-man's switch, and Harris would have "well-being" and "health" as interconnected concepts, with things like "empathy" scientifically demonstrable as integral to well-being and health, and so on.

Does Harris succeed at presenting and arguing this approach? I think he grossly overestimated his audience's ability to escape quantized thinking.

lobawad wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:I don't think you understand what a just-so story is... Just-so stories, by definition, cannot be "good ones" as they are inherently flawed and bad (which is why scientists avoid them).

I was speaking of "good" in terms of aesthetics, internal consistency, and of course assuming a standard of social justice. I was obviously not presenting "science"-can't do that without presenting a mechanism for falsification. In these lights, my story is good and elegant, yours is crap.

It is completely lacking in any kind of evidence and it is the shit that makes evolutionary biologists cry themselves to sleep at night. It's awesome that laypeople are getting into biology more these days but it's shitty that everyone thinks that they can come up with an evolutionary explanation for a behavior by just thinking about it.

lobawad wrote:Not only is your story crap, it's dusty crap. I heard the same story in a speech on how evolution is "evil-lution", in the late 1970's, and I'm sure a bit of foraging in archives would flush out the same story, plumed in top hat, monocle, and watch fob.

Again, ignoring the fact that the idea I presented is still a relatively popular idea in evolutionary biology (looking towards the original ideas of Thornhill and Palmer), I'll point out that my argument was a hypothetical - hence the qualifiers like "if". You cannot answer or refute a hypothetical by stating that it's not the case, especially when the only basis you have to think it's not the case is your own unevidenced opinion.

lobawad wrote:

lobawad wrote:It is impossible to base "morals", ethical systems, and so on, directly on "evolution" or "natural selection".

Exactly - you need an extra step between the "is" and the "ought" (hence the is-ought gap).

You are considering only discrete (ultimately binary) and linear systems. Sam Harris is trying to get people to consider analog and non-linear systems, webs.

Pure gibberish. This is wibble at it's finest.

lobawad wrote:There is a binary anchor to Harris' proposed web, but it is not philosophical, nor metaphysical, nor does it have any inherent "moral" nature. It is what I call a logical dead-man's switch.

It is this: avoiding extinction is a given, because if there is no human species, this whole debate is moot.

It wouldn't be moot to the people alive during the time they decide to doom the human race, making your argument entirely illogical.

lobawad wrote:This is given because it cannot be logically otherwise, but there are not binaries or "gaps" in Harris' system. Some kind of concept of "health" is mandated as long as we're leaning on that dead-man's switch, and Harris would have "well-being" and "health" as interconnected concepts, with things like "empathy" scientifically demonstratable as integral to well-being and health, and so on.

Even if we agreed with your idea of the "dead-man's switch", consequentialism and Harris' well-being isn't the only option. Practically all moral systems and moral theories value, on some level, the survival of the human race. He still needs to demonstrate that his approach is better than others.

lobawad wrote:Does Harris succeed at presenting and arguing this approach? I think he grossly overestimated his audience's ability to escape quantized thinking.

I think the opposite occurred. Harris underestimated the intelligence of his readers - he probably assumed they were halfwits that could be spoonfed whatever nonsensical dribble he could come up with. He clearly wasn't expecting people to point out the fact that when he says that he can use science to determine human values, someone would ask him to show how science could determine human values. His complete and utter failure to do so (thus defeating the main premise of his book) left him in quite an embarrassing position.

lobawad wrote:It is what I call a logical dead-man's switch.

It is this: avoiding extinction is a given, because if there is no human species, this whole debate is moot.

This is given because it cannot be logically otherwise, but there are not binaries or "gaps" in Harris' system. Some kind of concept of "health" is mandated as long as we're leaning on that dead-man's switch, and Harris would have "well-being" and "health" as interconnected concepts, with things like "empathy" scientifically demonstrable as integral to well-being and health, and so on.

I could go along with defining morality as that which governs the conversation about staving off extinction. I guess we'd have to be talking about endogenous extinction mechanisms, like the behavioural substrate of AGW, and now this business about rape. Usually species go extinct for reasons like losing their food supply, but humans eat almost anything that doesn't obviously poison them, except perhaps each other. The ideas of Thornhill and Palmer are still popular in evolutionary psychology circles after nearly fifteen (count 'em, 15!) years. I must say it is quite amazing to gossip about the validity of an idea purely because it has been discussed among social science academics for a decade or so.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Harris underestimated the intelligence of his readers . He probably assumed they were halfwits that could be
spoonfed whatever nonsensical dribble he could come up with . He clearly was not expecting people to point
out the fact that when he says that he can use science to determine human values some one would ask him to
show how science could determine human values . His complete and utter failure to do thus defeating the main
premise of his book so left him in quite an embarrassing position

Science cannot determine morality because it only answers how not why questions : But
I wonder if this was just Harris attempting to demonstrate that religion does not have
a monopoly on this question : Though what he should have said of course was that
psychology and philosophy determine morality and not science

Cito di Pense wrote:I must say it is quite amazing to gossip about the validity of an idea purely because it has been discussed among social science academics for a decade or so.

Biologists are social scientists now?

surreptitious57 wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Harris underestimated the intelligence of his readers . He probably assumed they were halfwits that could be
spoonfed whatever nonsensical dribble he could come up with . He clearly was not expecting people to point
out the fact that when he says that he can use science to determine human values some one would ask him to
show how science could determine human values . His complete and utter failure to do thus defeating the main
premise of his book so left him in quite an embarrassing position

Science cannot determine morality because it only answers how not why questions : But
I wonder if this was just Harris attempting to demonstrate that religion does not have
a monopoly on this question :

If this were the case, then it seems like such a strange position to take given that it's a near-universally accepted position. Religion hasn't really had any role in ethics for centuries.

surreptitious57 wrote:Though what he should have said of course was that
psychology and philosophy determine morality and not science

I assume you're using the term "psychology" there in the loose sense, and not the formal sense where it refers to the scientific field? Otherwise that statement would contradict itself.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Harris underestimated the intelligence of his readers . He probably assumed they were halfwits that could be
spoonfed whatever nonsensical dribble he could come up with . He clearly was not expecting people to point
out the fact that when he says that he can use science to determine human values some one would ask him to
show how science could determine human values . His complete and utter failure to do thus defeating the main
premise of his book so left him in quite an embarrassing position

Science cannot determine morality because it only answers how not why questions : But
I wonder if this was just Harris attempting to demonstrate that religion does not have
a monopoly on this question : Though what he should have said of course was that
psychology and philosophy determine morality and not science

Of course science can answer 'why' questions. Why is the sky blue? I hate that saying when used by theists. It's so smug, as if they posses some secret knowledge.

Animavore wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:Science cannot determine morality because it only answers how not why questions : But
I wonder if this was just Harris attempting to demonstrate that religion does not have
a monopoly on this question : Though what he should have said of course was that
psychology and philosophy determine morality and not science

Of course science can answer 'why' questions. Why is the sky blue? I hate that saying when used by theists. It's so smug, as if they posses some secret knowledge.

It's usually taught in science classes. The idea is that "why" is a question about purpose or teleology, when of course science can't answer that. When you say that it answers why the sky is blue, what you mean is that science answers how the sky is blue.

Of course it's debatable whether anyone or any field/approach could answer "why" questions but we can say for certain that science at least can't answer them.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Animavore wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:Science cannot determine morality because it only answers how not why questions : But
I wonder if this was just Harris attempting to demonstrate that religion does not have
a monopoly on this question : Though what he should have said of course was that
psychology and philosophy determine morality and not science

Of course science can answer 'why' questions. Why is the sky blue? I hate that saying when used by theists. It's so smug, as if they posses some secret knowledge.

It's usually taught in science classes. The idea is that "why" is a question about purpose or teleology, when of course science can't answer that. When you say that it answers why the sky is blue, what you mean is that science answers how the sky is blue.

Of course it's debatable whether anyone or any field/approach could answer "why" questions but we can say for certain that science at least can't answer them.

Why is the sky blue?

Because http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature ... ic/sky.htm

Question answered.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Science cannot determine morality because it only answers how not why questions : But wonder if
this was just Harris attempting to demonstrate that religion does not have a monopoly on this question

If this were the case then it seems like such a strange position to take given that it is a
near universally ccepted position Religion has not really had any role in ethics for centuries

surreptitious57 wrote:
Though what he should have said of course was that
psychology and philosophy determine morality not science

I assume you are using the term psychology there in the loose sense and not the formal
sense where it refers to the scientific field . Otherwise that statement would contradict itself

My referencing of religion in determining morality was from the perspective of those who have a belief
system and use it for moral guidance : I was not treating it as an academic discipline like philosophy

I was aware of the contradiction of separating psychology from science given how it is a branch of it : So was
thinking of it in the informal sense where one determines boundaries according to their individual morality

Animavore wrote:
Of course science can answer why questions . Why is the sky blue . I hate that
saying when used by theists . It is so smug as if they posses some secret knowledge

It may be smug but it is also true : Because why questions pertain to morality which science can not
answer : As morality is a philosophical concept and as such is non falsifiable : So theists thinklng
religion answers them are wrong too : Only philosophy can do that as ethics is a branch of it

surreptitious57 wrote:

Animavore wrote:
Of course science can answer why questions . Why is the sky blue . I hate that
saying when used by theists . It is so smug as if they posses some secret knowledge

It may be smug but it is also true : Because why questions pertain to morality which science can not
answer : As morality is a philosophical concept and as such is non falsifiable : So theists thinklng
religion answers them are wrong too : Only philosophy can do that as ethics is a branch of it

Why questions do not only pertain to morality. Why is he here? Why am I still with this person? Why is the floor wet?

It just seems like a semantic quibble to me as well as some esoteric use of 'how' and 'why'. Science answers why, how, what and where questions in the proper English sense. Why is summer warmer than winter? How do birds communicate? What is the composition of the atmosphere? Where in the brain is visual input interpreted?

Animavore wrote:Why is the sky blue?

Because http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature ... ic/sky.htm

Question answered.

It answered how it's blue. In common conversation we can conflate the two and use the words interchangeably, but it doesn't mean that they have the same meaning.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Animavore wrote:Why is the sky blue?

Because http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature ... ic/sky.htm

Question answered.

It answered how it's blue. In common conversation we can conflate the two and use the words interchangeably, but it doesn't mean that they have the same meaning.

why  (hw, w)
adv.
For what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive:

http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.t ... C24gZ1R6hg

Answering why the sky is blue falls under giving reason for its blueness.

EDIT: Why can be used causally as well as intentionally. When we ask why someone committed an action we want to know their purpose. When we want to know why the floor's wet we want to know what caused it to be in that state. Sure we tell them how the floor became wet but the how has explained why.