you can skip the first 10-15 minutes i guess. That guy is bo-ring n verbose.
So what do you guys think?
Re: Science and Morality
Peace philosophy
I found it quite interesting ... but it appeared to me much like a set of religious sermons ... Now that is ironic isn't it?
I personally agree with the opposite position the aught and the is are not reconcilable ... that science can only measure what is and has nothing to do with what aught to be ...
Re: Science and Morality
I don't watch religious sermons, wouldn't know.
Do you think morality can be defined within the realms of science?
And what about human sacrifice as a part of religions.
Re: Science and Morality
The video was 1 h 11 min long. Would help if a small summary is provided. Absent that, here is my 2 nayapaisa:
"Do you think morality can be defined within the realms of science?"
I assume you are asking if morality even has a place in Science. To me, Science is about discovery, inventions, experiements etc. I would say ethics would be more appropriate while discussing Science. That is, do not fudge/cook up data, do not use others' work and claim as your own, do not cover up bad data and present only good data, use animals judiciously, try to be green (recycle chemicals, reduce, reuse) etc.
"And what about human sacrifice as a part of religions". I dont know what you are asking here.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Re: Science and Morality
youre talking about a totally diff angle. see this is why you should’ve watched it 
im sad now.
Re: Science and Morality
^ Ok - if you put it that way, will try to watch it over the week and provide my 4 nayapaisa.
Have a good week and stop with that !
Re: Science and Morality
ok, good
Re: Science and Morality
Sam Harris tries to argue that the position of values and facts should be no different and hence concludes what we aught to be valuing can be confirmed using scientific means and methods, but he admits the complexity will be more than the level of economics and (I think a bit like weather forecasting) ...
I presume he will arrive at the same conclusions that religion has us arrive at, but he wants to do this without religion. To create a moral framework without religion ... he is what people call "consequentialist" in his approach ... but with a caveat to his own description. The opposition to his position would be "predeterminists" or "morality by Divine edict".
My main criticism of his approach was also found by one of the questioners, which is that he appealed to common sense and what seemed obvious to build his basis for his argument, and did not use science to establish morality. People were half expecting him to use neuroscience to create morals. But he ended up looking like a greek philosopher with only half of their answers ...
He does also make many logical fallacies in his argumentation, especially where he is appealing to common sense and doubly when he asserts that it is science.