VazScep wrote:

cakrit wrote:I am receptive to new evidence and willing to listen to people holding different views. I reevaluate my own views and they change over time. But for change to happen, I need two things:
- Dig deep and realize what my basic assumptions are.
- Understand what the other person is saying and why (what are his assumptions).

Why think you have any basic assumptions? In my opinion, this is a poor model for human beings, where they are deductive engines which have buried their own assumptions in their subconscious, and where the job of philosophical reflection is to tease out those assumptions and evaluate them (in what way?). Change can happen in lots of ways. I'd probably change a great deal if I packed up and moved to a third-world country for a decade, even if I never had another philosophical argument again.

Very nice coincidence. The Ayn Rand quote I used before came from here. It describes exactly what you are saying (i.e. the rational vs the experiential mind). I definitely agree with you and experiences are much more powerful than any debate. I had a friend once who refused that you can make a judgment on whether you like something or not, unless you have actually tried to live that way. He would read a theory and adopt it and act on it for a month or two (this is actually the rational ignoring the demands of the experiential for a while). However, our lifespan is too short for us to rely solely only on what we get to experience. In conclusion, I think both are useful and rationally evaluating theories is just a shortcut that saves time.

Do you need anything systematic? Maybe you can just find a point of emotional discomfort and rationalise a patch for it. Does the whole thing need to be subsumed under a grand and almost certainly brittle moral theory, one which will inevitably break in a whole slew of edge cases?

I've already said that I don't believe such a monstrosity is possible, or even desirable. All moral theories will probably be proven to be at least internally inconsistent or incomplete. Goedel again. I still like it that people take the time to posit their own oughts, however incomplete they may be. It helps me reevaulate mine.

I like this idea though that we could eventually have such a developed set of tools in which to formulate moral theories and test them, perhaps via simulation. We could call it "moral systems theory", and maybe it would produce a wealth of interesting theories and results, university programmes, rows of textbooks and published articles. That would be cool. Such a theory would almost certainly have a place in what we now call "ethical discourse", though I doubt it would be replace it. Still, I doubt such a science is computationally feasible.

I had nothing of the sort in mind when I started writing my 'pornography' as Cito put it, but I did realise that it could be helpful in more ways that I had envisioned. To return on topic, I had no clue that I could use my definition of a normative moral theory to say something so specific about what science could and could not say with regards to NMTs.

Sadly, I am in no way qualified to pursue the idea myself. I would need to map all major NMTs on the model and tune it so that it can at least cover all of them. I would need people to review it and point out its faults, so I could address the objections. I'm just an engineer, so I'm at a loss as to how I might proceed.

palindnilap wrote:

epepke wrote:Why ruin something that seems to work pretty well by turning it into some overarching system?

As for it's being "subjective," what's really wrong with that?

That is more or less what I tried to answer in that order with that post.

Thanks. I hadn't actually seen that before you reminded me. I read these things rather sporadically.

cakrit wrote:Very nice coincidence. The Ayn Rand quote I used before came from here. It describes exactly what you are saying (i.e. the rational vs the experiential mind).

No, I wasn't proposing a dichotomy. I was challenging your claim that in order to change we must dig deep and investigate our assumptions, and challenging the idea that there are any assumptions that can be meaningfully said to underlie our behaviour anyway. I was not proposing an alternative view, or suggesting that moving to third-world countries is part of a better view.

cakrit wrote:However, our lifespan is too short for us to rely solely only on what we get to experience. In conclusion, I think both are useful and rationally evaluating theories is just a shortcut that saves time.

Again the prescriptive for something having to do with "saving time". I've had enough foreplay on that one. Too much foreplay is considered a waste of time in certain applications. Let's get to the main event and try to establish for whom we are trying to "save time".

Oh, wait. We've been there and done that. Something terrible is about to happen! And our lifespan is too short to prevent it! This is a great argument against wasting time, but ethics discussions continue apace.

I'm all for rationality, I am, but this is beginning to sound like the overture to "Promises! Promises!"

VazScep wrote:No, I wasn't proposing a dichotomy. I was challenging your claim that in order to change we must dig deep and investigate our assumptions, and challenging the idea that there are any assumptions that can be meaningfully said to underlie our behaviour anyway. I was not proposing an alternative view, or suggesting that moving to third-world countries is part of a better view.

Genetic predispositions aside, my brain is a machine that has been trained to respond to certain stimuli in particular ways. Before it was exposed to binary numbers, it assumed that 10 meant 'ten'. Later on, it learned that it had to put '10' in context, in order to decide whether it actually was meant to be a 'ten' or a 'two'. Its assumption changed. You may choose a different term if you like, but I expect that direct experiences change our wiring in pretty much the same way as discussions do. I guess the difference is how much conscious thought goes into it. If you can point to research that indicates otherwise, I'll be glad to read up on it.

Cito di Pense wrote:Again the prescriptive for something having to do with "saving time". I've had enough foreplay on that one. Too much foreplay is considered a waste of time in certain applications. Let's get to the main event and try to establish for whom we are trying to "save time".

Oh, wait. We've been there and done that. Something terrible is about to happen! And our lifespan is too short to prevent it! This is a great argument against wasting time, but ethics discussions continue apace.

I'm all for rationality, I am, but this is beginning to sound like the overture to "Promises! Promises!"

Once again, I'm having trouble following you and I'm not known to be a complete idiot. I set a goal for myself (to learn something) and I choose the most efficient way I can think of to get there (have a discussion, read up and reflect). When I don't do that, I shoot the shit and have fun (nothing efficient about that). Having fun while learning something is ideal, but so very rare. So where is that terrible thing looming on the horizon? I just don't see it.

cakrit wrote:So where is that terrible thing looming on the horizon? I just don't see it.

Oh. stop with your nonsense, cakrit.

cakrit wrote:The fact remains that the world has some serious problems and we all have our own views on if/what we can/should do about it. I am a natural optimist and believe we will work things out, but we have to try harder. If we don't, things will work themselves out and humans may no longer be here when they do.

Cito di Pense wrote:

cakrit wrote:So where is that terrible thing looming on the horizon? I just don't see it.

Oh. stop with your nonsense, cakrit.

cakrit wrote:The fact remains that the world has some serious problems and we all have our own views on if/what we can/should do about it. I am a natural optimist and believe we will work things out, but we have to try harder. If we don't, things will work themselves out and humans may no longer be here when they do.

Two entirely different points. In my mind, the statement 'I would like it if we didn't become extinct' has nothing to do with the statement 'I like abstractions because they help me learn faster'. They may be linked in yours. Stop assuming you can read through a person based on 10 posts in a thread.

cakrit wrote:Two entirely different points. In my mind, the statement 'I would like it if we didn't become extinct' has nothing to do with the statement 'I like abstractions because they help me learn faster'.

Sorry if it offends you, my friend. I do respect your intellect. I just think it is still a little wet behind the ears. You and Harris both seem to be searching for ways to give some external weight to your personal opinions about how other people should behave. We are, as we fully admit, all entitled to our personal opinions about how other people should behave. That means this whole conversation is just another kaffee-klatsch.

To say, "I would prefer it if the human race did not go extinct" is just one such sort of personal opinion, with a go at giving it some "moral heft". It's as if to ask, "What sort of asshole would want Homo sapiens to become extinct?" If the amphibians could talk, they'd weigh in on the subject: "Croak!" It's given in the imperative.

We're all well used to the priggishness of religious types who tell us these things are based on "God's will". If someone is only embarrassed to use such a crude metaphor in giving heft to his opinions, and seeks something more intellectual, I have only the highest regard for the endeavour. That I think the endeavour is futile is beside the fucking point. That's just my opinion.

Harris is trying a great old trick to try to shame us into some political unity. If you and he wish to row the same boat together, it hardly matters if it is a dory or a trireme. We are, each of us in the end, lashed to our own oar. The remaining option, if it is at all open to us in a universe of free will, is learning how to swim, so that we feel less compelled to spout our personal opinions about everything under the sun, and stick to what we can identify as data.

"Unhappiness" is not data, simply because it is possible for someone to desire her hangnail declared a federal disaster area. For other people, resisting the spouting of their personal opinions tends to make them cranky and irritable. The bottom line, for me, is resisting people who try to shame me into joining their political party while at the same time trying to fool me into thinking that they are enlisting science in their campaign.

The hyperbole of imagining that the fate of the human race hangs in the balance is just the frosting on the cake.

Cito di Pense wrote:"Unhappiness" is not data, simply because it is possible for someone to desire her hangnail declared a federal disaster area. For other people, resisting the spouting of their personal opinions tends to make them cranky and irritable. The bottom line, for me, is resisting people who try to shame me into joining their political party while at the same time trying to fool me into thinking that they are enlisting science in their campaign.

Also, "unhappiness" is suspect because 1) a lot of people seem to seek unhappiness, and 2) a good part of all extant moral systems consists of trying to persuade or force people to be unhappy, or "make sacrifices," in the service of some "greater good."

Given a choice between 1) being molested by some naive and sanctimonious person who thinks they know what I ought to do in the name of religion and 2) being molested by some naive and sanctimonious person who thinks they know what I ought to do in the name of science, I'll pick 3 every time.

Oh, excellent post, BTW.

Cito di Pense wrote:

cakrit wrote:Two entirely different points. In my mind, the statement 'I would like it if we didn't become extinct' has nothing to do with the statement 'I like abstractions because they help me learn faster'.

Sorry if it offends you, my friend. I do respect your intellect. I just think it is still a little wet behind the ears. You and Harris both seem to be searching for ways to give some external weight to your personal opinions about how other people should behave. We are, as we fully admit, all entitled to our personal opinions about how other people should behave. That means this whole conversation is just another kaffee-klatsch.

To say, "I would prefer it if the human race did not go extinct" is just one such sort of personal opinion, with a go at giving it some "moral heft". It's as if to ask, "What sort of asshole would want Homo sapiens to become extinct?" If the amphibians could talk, they'd weigh in on the subject: "Croak!" It's given in the imperative.

We're all well used to the priggishness of religious types who tell us these things are based on "God's will". If someone is only embarrassed to use such a crude metaphor in giving heft to his opinions, and seeks something more intellectual, I have only the highest regard for the endeavour. That I think the endeavour is futile is beside the fucking point. That's just my opinion.

Harris is trying a great old trick to try to shame us into some political unity. If you and he wish to row the same boat together, it hardly matters if it is a dory or a trireme. We are, each of us in the end, lashed to our own oar. The remaining option, if it is at all open to us in a universe of free will, is learning how to swim, so that we feel less compelled to spout our personal opinions about everything under the sun, and stick to what we can identify as data.

"Unhappiness" is not data, simply because it is possible for someone to desire her hangnail declared a federal disaster area. For other people, resisting the spouting of their personal opinions tends to make them cranky and irritable. The bottom line, for me, is resisting people who try to shame me into joining their political party while at the same time trying to fool me into thinking that they are enlisting science in their campaign.

The hyperbole of imagining that the fate of the human race hangs in the balance is just the frosting on the cake.

Much appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to write this. I have seen some members of this forum overreacting to particular wordings, which at first surprised me. But it is quite understandable, after all the crap you guys have heard from the people who consider all of us the instruments of Satan. I'm very new here and I tend to avoid confrontation with anyone not willing to have an honest conversation, which means I haven't actually tried to engage any fanatics. Unfortunately, these morons have done so much damage, that a hardened atheist advocate is sometimes like the opposite of the boy who cried 'wolf'. S/he's so used to seeing wolves, that s/he may see them even when they're not there.

My position is quite different from Harris' and I won't repeat myself, but at last I can comprehend your reactions. Thanks again.

There are still waves about this subject. A very lengthy and complete argument that utterly demolishes Harris' stance:

Sean Carroll made a counter argument to Harris, pretty much touching the points we have been touching in the thread:

I’m going to give the basic argument first, then litter the bottom of the post with various disclaimers and elaborations. And I want to start with a hopefully non-controversial statement about what science is. Namely: science deals with empirical reality — with what happens in the world. (I.e. what “is.”) Two scientific theories may disagree in some way — “the observable universe began in a hot, dense state about 14 billion years ago” vs. “the universe has always existed at more or less the present temperature and density.” Whenever that happens, we can always imagine some sort of experiment or observation that would let us decide which one is right. The observation might be difficult or even impossible to carry out, but we can always imagine what it would entail. (Statements about the contents of the Great Library of Alexandria are perfectly empirical, even if we can’t actually go back in time to look at them.) If you have a dispute that cannot in principle be decided by recourse to observable facts about the world, your dispute is not one of science.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... t-from-is/

From the left, we get PZ Myers agreeing with Sean Carroll:

I'm afraid that so far I'm in the Carroll camp. I think Harris is following a provocative and potentially useful track, but I'm not convinced. I think he's right in some of the examples he gives: science can trivially tell you that psychopaths and violent criminals and the pathologies produced by failed states in political and economic collapse are not good models on which to base a successful human society (although I also think that the desire for a successful society is not a scientific premise…it's a kind of Darwinian criterion, because unsuccessful societies don't survive). However, I don't think Harris's criterion — that we can use science to justify maximizing the well-being of individuals — is valid. We can't. We can certainly use science to say how we can maximize well-being, once we define well-being…although even that might be a bit more slippery than he portrays it. Harris is smuggling in an unscientific prior in his category of well-being.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... arroll.php

From the right (libertarian kind of extreme-right) we get Lubos Motl agreeing with Carroll as well:

Obviously, I agree with Sean Carroll. He mentions three basic points I subscribe to:
- Well-being has many definitions and one can't objectively say whose definition is the right one, or how to separate the morally right people from the morally wrong people.
- Even if well-being were well-defined, it's not necessarily true that it's the goal of morality.
- Well-being can't easily and canonically be summed or accumulated over individuals.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/scien ... tions.html

I think it's settled then (as if it wasn't already). Well, at least apparently the blogosphere agrees with us here: Harris is a fool that doesn't understand the point of science and its limitations.

Since I'm new to this forum I didn't participate in this thread when it was active. I have watched the video and seen PZ Myers take on this. I skimmed the thread and skipped a couple of pages at a time, so I may have missed some things. I don't think 'happiness' is the measure that Harris invented, it's well-being. How to measure that is the problem when it comes to doing the science part.

From what I read it appears that the criticism is focusing on the inability to accurately describe and measure the well-being of the individual. I *think* where Harris is going with this is more toward the well-being of society as a whole. And taken to conclusion, would look at the sum total well-being of everybody on the planet.

How to measure that? What about mortality, per capita income, teen birth rates, poverty, levels of education, disease control? Science can look at those measurements and make causal correlations. Failed states tend to be bad at just about everything to do with human well-being. Liberal democracies tend to do a lot better. What are the social systems in place in each that correlate to well-being? Isn't picking one system over another a moral choice when it affects the well-being of all the citizens?

In the TED talk Harris didn't propose that science could make finely drawn lines of distinction between is and ought. He said that there are ranges of 'better' along a spectrum.

Someone said they thought Hitchens and Dawkins would coddle Harris in this. Probably so, because they are all working the talking point that religion is not the only (or best) source of morality. Religion also works at the level of the society at large, so if this works to dislodge religion's grip on the moral high ground, that works for me.

The cartoon I did on this way back when.... http://minigiggles.com/2010/04/07/moral-relativism/

You should read the criticisms that I've linked, Tom Wood. All of your points were addressed... and refuted quite intelligently in all of them (except for the ranting part about Global Warming on Lubos' link ).

In the TED talk Harris didn't propose that science could make finely drawn lines of distinction between is and ought.

In reality, he blurred the distinction and pretended even that it either didn't matter or didn't exist. Which is bollocks to the extreme. He's basically saying that we can all agree to what the point of morality is (well being) and what well being is exactly, by a very basic process: who the hell disagrees with him can fuck off (it's almost verbatim).

Of course, if you base your objective criteria upon a "consensus thought", and that consensus is merely a poll, then we are discussing politics, not science.

He's posted a rebuttal to some of his critics:

http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/ ... _science3/

Yes, I know Tom. It has been discussed in this thread already. He still makes the same mistakes and denies doing so. It's like talking to a wall.

OK.

Richard Dawkins is a dick.
Sam Harris is a pompous ignoramus.
Christopher Hitchens is probably drunk right now.
That leaves Daniel Dennett, who doesn't seem to write much any more.

Yay atheists!

epepke wrote:OK.

Richard Dawkins is a dick.
Sam Harris is a pompous ignoramus.
Christopher Hitchens is probably drunk right now.
That leaves Daniel Dennett, who doesn't seem to write much any more.

Yay atheists!

the Death of the New Atheism?

My basic problem with the stance of Harris on this is that he equates "objective goodness" with the thriving of human societies. That is merely an assumption and therefore this is not objective morality.

Most of the criticism against Sam Harris is mistaken or irrelevant, because even Carroll agrees that epistemic norms are valid, but moral norms is a subset of epistemic norms, so if epistemic norms are valid, so are moral norms.

When standing in the middle of a desert, a step in any direction is better than none.

Anything that can dislodge the idea that religion is the/only source of morality is a step in the right direction. Sam's exploration of the idea that science can provide moral answers may end up being fruitless in and of itself, but in the context of the science versus religion debate it's an exploration well worth doing. The first step is the hardest.