[Bobboau]

http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values#fullprogram

discuss.

[NGTM-1R]

If he weren't ragging on Islam so much I'd be behind him all the way.

[Bobboau]

why?
and you posted that two minutes after I posted it, either you've seen this already or you didn't even get to the guy giving the speech.

[NGTM-1R]

why?
and you posted that two minutes after I posted it, either you've seen this already or you didn't even get to the guy giving the speech.

Because selecting a single target suggests an ulterior motive. Islam-bashing is en vogue right now. I have little respect for someone trying to piggyback their idea through the door rather than get it in on its own merits (and it does have its own merits).  Also: If you're going to say "I have an alternate method of determining morality better than religion" you can't limit yourself to showing it to be better than only one religion. You have to take them all on if you're going to be taken seriously.

And no, I've not seen this already, but the concept is one that's quite familiar to me. I'm watching it now.

[Bobboau]

Out of an 100 minute speech he focuses on Islam for an 11 minute segment 35 minutes in, he follows that up with 5 minutes focusing on Catholicism/Christianity. it's hardly his central point, he chose to focus on Islam at all expressly because it's a prime example of the failure of moral relativism, that is people let Muslims get away with **** they should not get away with (for example (my example) the rioting when ever someone draws a picture of Mohamed) because they are Muslims so it's ok.

[Rodo]

I have to see this, but not now... too late round here already.

[Goober5000]

How can science handle the intangible when it has such trouble with the tangible?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

[Bobboau]

i see no problem, what that article shows is science correcting it's self.

[General Battuta]

scientific investigation based on rigorous, progressive movement towards the truth fails to immediately get everything right on the first try

goober demands end of science

as for the topic: we know where morality comes from (evolution, both biological and memetic) and what it's for (a selected mechanism to regulate societies); all that's left is investigation and parametrization

[Mongoose]

I didn't have the motivation to sit through the entire video at this moment, but the section on Catholicism I skipped to contained nothing but points that were either incredibly tired or nothing short of ill-founded.  If the entire video is in the same style, I can't say that he's making a very cogent argument.

(And then he said "my colleague Richard Dawkins," and I pretty much lost all interest.)

Edit: Also, the article Goober linked is really fascinating stuff in its own right.  Almost a bit eerie, even.

[zookeeper]

Well, looks like he agrees with me on pretty much everything he talked about. Smart chap!

Also, that's absolutely not the usual anti-intellectual anti-islam drivel and I wouldn't even say that it focuses on islam.

[Nuke]

the answer is obviously simple, nuke the world, flatten the moral landscape.

[Nemesis6]

the answer is obviously simple, nuke the world, flatten the moral landscape.

Quiet, you silly nihilist!

[Colonol Dekker]

Noooooo, without vault-tec we are screwed.

[karajorma]

How can science handle the intangible when it has such trouble with the tangible?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

Actually science HAS explained that one.

I seriously recommend reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. Especially the chapter on the Placebo Effect.


But since most of you won't. Here's a rebuttal of that piece.

[Spicious]

If that's too long to read, just visit this comic for a general approach to follow.

[General Battuta]

it boggles my mind that there are people who think science can't touch certain areas while they're sitting here communicating with us on computers in a world that exists because of science

'those methodologies worked perfectly for all these 5132509341534 things that benefit me. but don't touch my beliefs, i'm a true believer! science is FLAWED'

the human brain and human morality are transparent and explicable. DEAL

[MP-Ryan]

as for the topic: we know where morality comes from (evolution, both biological and memetic) and what it's for (a selected mechanism to regulate societies); all that's left is investigation and parametrization

And a nuanced understanding that behaviour evolves at different rates and through varied mechanics that do not always fall within the general parameters of how strict biological evolution is understood (by the majority of people who accept the premise) to occur.

But yes, I agree, there is no need to invoke religion to give moral/ethical foundation.

[General Battuta]

right, social darwinism is clearly bollocks, and the way that culture and behavior spreads is never going to be perfectly mappable to the way biological evolution occurs

[Rodo]

An interesting video, thanks for the link

Some things I have already thought before, but it planted some interesting questions in me, such as that example about people in general being more prone to help just one person at a time instead of multiple persons.
I find this to be correct even with my own behaviour, I can easily overlook the suffering of a lot of people and at the same time care a little more about just one.
I wonder if this true also for the kind of people that opens up a community kitchen or works for charity daily, or maybe they see it diferently.