Ted talk spins morality on it's head

[P3nT4gR4m]

So the ideas died with his credibility then?

[Telarus]

I think there is a fundamental disconnect with the idea he is proposing, but I also can't quite place my finger on it. Here's what came to mind first:

"Science" is concerned with replicating phenomena and measuring them in order to be able to predict future phenomena that fall in the classes & behaviour studied. "Science" falls down when it encounters evidence of non-replicable phenomena, such as God or other flavors of the "supernatural". That's of course, very abstracted, and so loses a lot of the context of individual branches of science. Even the social 'soft' sciences heavily use controlled replication ("closed systems") to get datapoints about the open systems that they study. This is used to build a model of reality.


Now, Harris is proposing that because Mathematical Science says 2+2 only has "one right answer", then the questions of morality have "a right answer" and "many wrong answers". Because science gives you "the" right answer.

Science doesn't give you "the right answer", but it does give "models that have degrees of predictive ability" (see above).

Harris seems hung up on Right and Wrong, which is just like being hung up on Virtue and Sin.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Some moral claims are empirical matters of testability.

For a common example, isn't this the basis for medical malpractice suits?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Some moral claims are empirical matters of testability.

For a common example, isn't this the basis for medical malpractice suits?

Typically matters of medical ethics, rather than morals.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So the ideas died with his credibility then?

No, did you read #1? Or just disregard it because #2 is more sensational?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think there is a fundamental disconnect with the idea he is proposing, but I also can't quite place my finger on it. Here's what came to mind first:

"Science" is concerned with replicating phenomena and measuring them in order to be able to predict future phenomena that fall in the classes & behaviour studied. "Science" falls down when it encounters evidence of non-replicable phenomena, such as God or other flavors of the "supernatural". That's of course, very abstracted, and so loses a lot of the context of individual branches of science. Even the social 'soft' sciences heavily use controlled replication ("closed systems") to get datapoints about the open systems that they study. This is used to build a model of reality.


Now, Harris is proposing that because Mathematical Science says 2+2 only has "one right answer", then the questions of morality have "a right answer" and "many wrong answers". Because science gives you "the" right answer.

Science doesn't give you "the right answer", but it does give "models that have degrees of predictive ability" (see above).

Harris seems hung up on Right and Wrong, which is just like being hung up on Virtue and Sin.

Harris is one of those scientists who has gotten bogged down in a set of ideas that he wants so badly to work that his desire to shoehorn them into functionality has blinded him to rational assessment of his darlings.

[rong]

I've found that the question: Should Kenny G be executed? is a decent test of any moral or ethical decision making algorithm


interesting side note:

in self checking my understanding of the difference between ethics and morals, I checked out this site

here, I learned that ethics is externally driven by societal standards and morals are an individual/internal belief system.

The funny thing is that the word "ethics" comes from the greek "ethos" which means "character" (internal, right?) while the word "morals" comes from the latin "mos" which means "custom" (external, right?)

no wonder we're all so confused

[Cain]

Harris is a bird of a feather with Dawkins and Hitchens, and is rather famous for two things in addition to his books on atheism: One, making bold statements about morality being hardwired into us without providing anything approaching scientific justification of this hypothesis, and two, his infamous statement about how if he could wave a magic wand and eliminate rape or religion, he would choose religion in a heartbeat.

And the third thing he is famous for is his admonishment to nuke Iran as quickly as possible.  Before they nuke us, with those nukes they've been one year away from building for the last 20 years.

Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens, for all their supposed atheism, were quite keen to let themselves be used in a religious/civilizational dispute between Euro-American Christianity and Islam.

I can't say I'm surprised to see Harris thinks morality can be discovered by science.  It's sad that someone who is described as a neuroscientist and philosopher seems to have such a poor grasp of both fields of study.  He should ask for his money back from Stanford and UCLA.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Harris is a bird of a feather with Dawkins and Hitchens, and is rather famous for two things in addition to his books on atheism: One, making bold statements about morality being hardwired into us without providing anything approaching scientific justification of this hypothesis, and two, his infamous statement about how if he could wave a magic wand and eliminate rape or religion, he would choose religion in a heartbeat.

And the third thing he is famous for is his admonishment to nuke Iran as quickly as possible.  Before they nuke us, with those nukes they've been one year away from building for the last 20 years.

Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens, for all their supposed atheism, were quite keen to let themselves be used in a religious/civilizational dispute between Euro-American Christianity and Islam.

I can't say I'm surprised to see Harris thinks morality can be discovered by science.  It's sad that someone who is described as a neuroscientist and philosopher seems to have such a poor grasp of both fields of study.  He should ask for his money back from Stanford and UCLA.

You know who else is a PhD neuroscientist and philosopher from UCLA? Mayim Bialik, the girl from TV series "Blossom" who doesn't believe in vaccination.

It kind of makes me wonder WTF they're teaching down there.

[Cain]

It must be a really cheap program, I'm thinking.  A really, really cheap program.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It must be a really cheap program, I'm thinking.  A really, really cheap program.

Hmmm, the other UC campuses have a decent reputation. I'll have to look into it.

[Cain]

I tried, but I'm unfamiliar enough with the US system that I quickly got lost among a series of, it seems, rather imprecise, ratings sites.

[P3nT4gR4m]

The philisophical argument - Can morality be divided into that which, for all intents and purposes, be considered absolute and that which cannot?

If so, the scientific question arises - can this be measured, can it be quantified?

The rest of the presentation was a primate, on stage, making ook noises. Srsly.

[Cain]

I remember debating the first question in my A level religious philosophy class.

As a bunch of teenagers, we concluded it was impossible to find an objective measure of morality in nature or human custom, except that of "do not betray the group".  Which is a pretty poor basis for a universal moral system.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I can definitively prove that morality is not absolute.