tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post7171223772431349855..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Rationally Speaking cartoon: Sam HarrisUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18443235691202443892014-01-23T18:46:44.407-05:002014-01-23T18:46:44.407-05:00@Disagreeable Me
It isn't the impression I get...@Disagreeable Me<br />It isn't the impression I get from Harris (which isn't based solely on this article) - Coyne/Harris have mentioned in a few places about "Science construed broadly" which includes every day items like logic/reason/philsophy etc - I prefer the Jason Rosenhouse approach of call it Science+Philsophy+Reason+Maths (or massimo's SciPhi). <br /><br />I believe their motivation for doing so, is so that religion can be tagged as unscientific or incompatible with science (a poor strategy if you want to reduce the influence of religion imo).Deepak Shettyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04324456947895848248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25528224739239239252014-01-23T12:16:33.060-05:002014-01-23T12:16:33.060-05:00Massimo, you often chant that Harris tries to dism...Massimo, you often chant that Harris tries to dismiss the entire field of philosophy, and you've based many of your critiques (many of them ad hominen) on this premise. You've extrapolated some of his criticisms of philosophy, along with his footnote denigrating certain philosophical language, in a way that doesn't actually follow rationally. Your defensiveness on the issue correlates very well with your misinterpretation of his views. <br /><br />(By the way, in this blog post/comment section) you've incorrectly paraphrased the relevant footnote in the Moral Landscape. Harris does not say that "philosophy increases the boredom of the universe," as you've stated, he says that certain philosophical language "increases the boredom of the universe." As I suspect you care a great deal about the the intricacies of language, I assume that bringing this distinction to your attention will be meaningful and help you re-evaluate your misconception. <br /><br />Harris has said explicitly and directly, to an audience of thousands of people, that he considers himself a philosopher and that he thinks there are no clear boundaries between philosophy and science. It could not be clearer that Harris considers himself a philosopher in many respects, especially as it relates to rational and evaluative thought. What he has said, is that there are translations of philosophy, both in thought and their manifestation of language, that have very little use, and only obfuscate ethical and moral precepts where we should otherwise be able to clarify <br /> <br />There are many things that could be said (many of which you have) - that Harris's version of philosophy is sloppy, uninformed, or not useful in the ethical and moral sphere. Seems like a reasonable debate we could be have. But to say that Harris is an anti-intellectual that tries to dismiss the entire field of philosophy, while he has directly identified himself a philosopher, is to so irrationally label Harris's mode of thought that we should all worry about how your defensiveness clouds the rationality of your critiques. jefscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16818842643842622828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66648530949509441222014-01-23T11:24:05.301-05:002014-01-23T11:24:05.301-05:00Hi C,
"Actually, I think what Crescendo'...Hi C,<br /><br />"Actually, I think what Crescendo's argument amounts to is a denial of consequentialism."<br /><br />Perhaps. If so, then perhaps Harris's argument could be taken to be a defense of consequentialism.<br /><br />I really think his main point is that he doesn't like to be dismissed because he's trying to find empirical answers to philosophical questions. I agree with him to a point - it's not fair to dismiss him out of hand. Where he is incorrect it is sufficient to point out the specific problems with his argument.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77183696762860257682014-01-23T10:34:25.001-05:002014-01-23T10:34:25.001-05:00>>It really seems that the only way it's...>>It really seems that the only way it's 'problematic' is insofar as those religious leaders come to different conclusions than is desired.<br /><br />I certainly think that's problematic, but what I also think is problematic is the assumption that someone is an epistemic authority on moral matters *in virtue of* being a religious figure. A person might seek council from a really liberal priest who I happen to totally agree with, but I still object to the assumption that the man is a moral authority *because* he is religious. In contrast, if a person seeks council from the priest simply because the priest seems like a generally wise and thoughtful man who thinks about these issues clearly and carefully, then I have no objection to that - just as I wouldn't object to someone seeking moral advice from a thoughtful philosophy professor, or physicist, or librarian, or plumber, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47728393690985813672014-01-23T10:19:48.593-05:002014-01-23T10:19:48.593-05:00>>I think a recent comment by Crescendo on M...>>I think a recent comment by Crescendo on Massimo's post on gay adoption exemplifies the position Harris is arguing against. Crescendo commented expressing reservations about justifying gay adoption with science, as it ought not to be a scientific question. Harris's article can be charitably interpreted as an argument against this kind of statement, and if so I don't think he's far wrong.<br /><br />Actually, I think what Crescendo's argument amounts to is a denial of consequentialism. As Massimo pointed out later, there are some moral questions where Crescendo's attitude is reasonable - like the question of whether women should be able to vote. If you went about justifying womens' suffrage based on empirical studies, I would probably say something like, "Um, I think you're missing the deeper point that women have a fundamental right to vote, regardless of the consequences of that policy." Obviously, this attitude presupposes some kind of non-consequentialist theory.<br /><br />Now, as Massimo also pointed out, the relevance of empirical data is going to vary on a case-by-case basis depending on the moral question at hand. Massimo wisely pointed out that the relevant difference between the adoption case and, say, gay marriage, had to do with whether there were non-consenting parties involved. Again though, this seems to be implicitly appealing to a non-utilitarian principle (e.g., something about respecting the autonomy of adults). <br /><br />I'm not arguing against utilitarianism. I'm just saying that Cresendo's attitude doesn't reflect a *general* denial of the relevance of scientific information for moral or political questions. It just reflects that he's probably not a utilitarian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11886837339865289052014-01-22T11:35:51.244-05:002014-01-22T11:35:51.244-05:00On the "broad" definition of science I&#...On the "broad" definition of science I'd go for something like "learning about and understanding the universe using evidence and reason". Plenty of things then don't qualify. Any *good* philosophy would! <br /><br />On your last point, there's a difference between "arguing for" substance dualism and showing "evidence for" it. If there is no evidence for it then the philosophers should not be "arguing for" it. If there *is* evidence for it then it wouldn't matter if it were a "philosophy" paper or a "science" paper that presented it, what would matter would be the evidence. <br /><br />Yes there is utility in different labels for different fields (e.g. biology v physics), but personally I think philosophy would benefit from seeing itself as part of this broad-definition enterprise. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-749562576356589042014-01-22T06:29:46.156-05:002014-01-22T06:29:46.156-05:00Hi Deepak,
I don't think that's at all wh...Hi Deepak,<br /><br />I don't think that's at all what Harris is saying. He's not saying there's no difference between science and philosophy, he's saying the borders are porous and not absolute, just as in the examples you list. He's arguing that some questions traditionally considered the domain of philosophy might be approachable from a scientific point of view (and potentially vice versa), just as some questions in biology might be answered by new discoveries in physics or organic chemistry.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90347127338771398272014-01-21T15:47:36.510-05:002014-01-21T15:47:36.510-05:00“someone who is not particularly interested in or ...“someone who is not particularly interested in or knowledgeable about the difficult questions of ethics.”<br /><br />I just don’t think this is a useful or meaningful critique and this sort of thing is mostly a distraction. It seems that Harris spends spend a considerable, if not the majority, of his time writing and speaking about ethics and morality – so to say he is not “interested” about the difficult questions of ethics seems to misapply any meaningful definition of the word interested. Probably what you really mean is that you think he comes to the wrong conclusions or answers, which could be a useful critique <br />jefscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16818842643842622828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89766671693665039512014-01-21T15:23:31.658-05:002014-01-21T15:23:31.658-05:00“Do you believe that it is legitimate generally fo...“Do you believe that it is legitimate generally for philosophers to write about the nature of ethics?”<br /><br />Sure, I don’t see any reason why anyone can’t comment on the nature of ethics and morality. Though I think there are inherent differences in the usefulness of some modes of thought compared to others. Like Massimo (and Harris) for instance, reliance on scripture and a supernatural entity seems the least useful. I tend to think that some modes of philosophical thought are useful, while others are not. <br />jefscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16818842643842622828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72810405198652151332014-01-21T14:38:58.091-05:002014-01-21T14:38:58.091-05:00“ If so, I think the experience of reading actual ...“ If so, I think the experience of reading actual ethics papers - as opposed to taking the word of a pop provocateur (Harris) - would soon reveal that the complexity of ethics necessitates great care with language “<br /><br />These types of concern are not meaningful. They have this sort of vague sense of an appeal to authority. Good or bad ideas, and good or bad uses of language are not dependent on whether one is a veteran publisher in ethics journals. Though I do think in the long run (where “long” can be many generations) better ideas tend to persist, but that is different sort of “popularity” then the one you invoke. <br />jefscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16818842643842622828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54277696989141794642014-01-21T13:44:04.544-05:002014-01-21T13:44:04.544-05:00"If so, I think the experience of reading act..."If so, I think the experience of reading actual ethics papers - as opposed to taking the word of a pop provocateur (Harris) - would soon reveal that the complexity of ethics necessitates great care with language"<br /><br />"Actually, Harris has repeatedly been OCD about the "finer points of language," insisting that we do or do not use certain terms as they are normally used."<br /><br />Good points. Keep in mind, I’m not actually arguing against the central role that language plays in the conceptualization and communications of ideas, especially ethical and moral ones. So we all know, Harris and Pigliucci included, that good use of language is very important. But we know there are modes of language that become disconnected from the usefulness of ideas that model reality. <br /><br />If we ask specific question like, “what is the color of jealousy,” we could talk about a lot of different things. But at the end of the day we’ll have talked and talked and after breaking down the minutia of every word, we won’t be anywhere useful, except to realize this question is a failure of language to model something we are interested in. <br /><br />So what I’m saying is that Harris, and others long before him, tend to change the question and language around to be something useful, while Massimo is an example of someone who will want to talk about the definition of “color” and “jealousy” and what the word “is” means. He’ll use all sorts of words that most people wouldn’t understand anyways, but the fact they won’t understand them doesn’t change the fact that he really wouldn’t be talking about much other than the way in which formulations of language can fail so easily as models of something we are interested in.<br /><br />Also keep in mind, I’m not saying this is the case everytime with Massimo. Massimo and Harris probably have quite a lot in common, at least in practice of ethics and morality and maybe not in theory of how to derive it. What I’m saying is there’s a general correlation in explaining models of reality in simple ways that tend to be better or more useful models than those that attempt the same explanation in unnecessarily complex ways.<br />jefscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16818842643842622828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58438332461198449282014-01-21T13:41:38.268-05:002014-01-21T13:41:38.268-05:00“His argument for moral realism basically rests on...“His argument for moral realism basically rests on defining terms like "good" and "bad" and "ethics" rather than making arguments that tie concepts together.”<br /><br />From everything I can tell, Harris has made it a goal to fundamentally tie the concept of “well being” with the definition of the words “good and bad”. His position is that if the words “good and bad” can have any useful meaning in ethics and morality, then it is as they relate to the well being of people and animals. Keep in mind the operative word here is useful. You could argue against its usefulness, but to argue that he doesn’t tie concepts together is to misunderstand his argument in a very basic way <br /><br />So in the end, it is exactly his connection of these two concepts – “well being” and the “definition of good and bad” - which is why many of us think he has done something useful. <br /><br />Of course, as with anything, it’s possible I’ve misunderstood something about Harris’s arguments. And if that’s the case I don’t mean to misrepresent or defend positions he doesn’t hold. <br />jefscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16818842643842622828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78381593474321880032014-01-21T13:29:12.351-05:002014-01-21T13:29:12.351-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.jefscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16818842643842622828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29290575377308620012014-01-21T13:23:19.174-05:002014-01-21T13:23:19.174-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.jefscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16818842643842622828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52848316463703534902014-01-21T13:10:53.431-05:002014-01-21T13:10:53.431-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.jefscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16818842643842622828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25703894775921649862014-01-21T13:06:31.987-05:002014-01-21T13:06:31.987-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.jefscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16818842643842622828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39614868139889920052014-01-21T12:56:18.783-05:002014-01-21T12:56:18.783-05:00One last thing: I've heard that the German ter...One last thing: I've heard that the German term "wissenschaft" is used similarly to the way Harris proposes. My understanding is that "wissenschaft" basically refers to anything that involves systematic research or scholarship, so historians, linguists, literary scholars, etc., would all be considered to be engaging in "wissenschaft." <br /><br />It's not quite the same as Harris's use of the term "science," because "wissenschaft" seems to be characterized by a certain kind of systematization of knowledge, whereas Harris just requires the use of reason and evidence. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1009439152168720532014-01-21T12:38:04.644-05:002014-01-21T12:38:04.644-05:00You don't have to think there's a clear de...You don't have to think there's a clear demarcation in order to think that there's an important distinction to be made (pick your favorite version of the Sorites paradox.) And while you make a good point that the umbrella term "science" contains things as diverse as baboon sociology and theoretical cosmology, it seems like that point could be used to justify calling *anything* a science. "What? You don't think novel-writing is a science because it's different in style, subject matter, and method from most other sciences? Well that's not a convincing argument, because 'science' covers things as diverse as baboon sociology and theoretical cosmology!" <br /><br />Anyway, I have a pragmatic argument against using the term "science" so liberally. Even in America, where there's a lot of anti-intellectualism and anti-science, the terms "science" and "scientific" carry a certain amount of weight to them (that's why, for example, some economists are so eager to call their discipline a science. It adds to their credibility.) Combined with the fact that the popular understanding of science is pretty terrible, using the term "science" so liberally seems like it would cause nothing but confusion.<br /><br />Let's say, for example, that philosophy is a kind of science. Philosophy articles are still published arguing in favor of substance dualism. Do you think Harris would be happy if newspapers printed headlines saying, "New scientific publication shows evidence of mind-body dualism!" Even if he sticks to his guns, my guess is that he'd end up saying something like, "Well the media should point out that this was a philosophy-science publication, not a 'normal' scientific study." So we're back to making the distinction anyway, regardless of whether we call philosophy a "science" or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9887114158613557002014-01-20T17:28:38.014-05:002014-01-20T17:28:38.014-05:00jefscott, good post. You don't have to defend ...jefscott, good post. You don't have to defend yourself against the red herring critiques you have received. Sam Harris does NOT write with an anti-intellectual (anti-philosophy) agenda (Somebody please prove otherwise for me, if I am mistaken). Furthermore, intelligent people publishing popular science/philosophy books for the layman to understand is very important and is NOT an offensive vice. If one's reading comprehension level is above the level of such books, then good for you. And if one believes that Harris has misrepresented some significant technical point to the layman reader, then respond to him. He has personally brought experts and waged challenges (see the current "Moral Landscape Challenge") on his own blog to give differing ideas there fair representation. And this also is not a point against him, but rather an example of his decent rationality.<br /><br />I cannot understand what the hostility is over. All I see are upset, fallacious assertions being made with no evidence of having read or understood anything Harris has written.Brad Lencionihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02453894833441267961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84795860126815514242014-01-20T16:14:17.438-05:002014-01-20T16:14:17.438-05:00"It's often the case that the unnecessary..."It's often the case that the unnecessary complexity of philosophy, the type that Harris denigrates, is born because philosophers are not necessarily studying ethics or morality, but the "finer points of language," which may have nothing to do with ethics or morality"<br /><br />Actually, Harris has repeatedly been OCD about the "finer points of language," insisting that we do or do not use certain terms as they are normally used. He has insisted we don't use the word "atheism," that we do use the word "science" to refer to all rational thinking, and that we use the word "religion" to refer to all irrational thinking. He has blasted people who use the word "spirituality" to refer to things other than what he uses it to refer to, which is meditation aimed at eliminating the sense of self. His argument for moral realism basically rests on defining terms like "good" and "bad" and "ethics" rather than making arguments that tie concepts together. He has avoided the label "utilitarian" simply to avoid associating himself with previous philosophical debates, because this would have the unfortunate consequence of making it seem like he is not an original thinker boldly cutting through swaths of bullshit with brilliant original insights. In The End of Faith he used innuendo to lend credence to superstitious beliefs but later failed to own up to his softness towards superstitions.<br /><br />Sam Harris is often boldly willing to say what he believes, and while I'm not sure he's right, I admire his willingness to argue for torture under certain circumstances, the fact that different religions are not equally dangerous, and that Buddhism and Hinduism may have backbones of wisdom that are actually compatible with science. But when he's arguing a position that's hard to argue--when he's trying to settle a debate that has confounded really smart intellectuals for centuries--when he's more interested in rallying the troops that pointing out nuances--he resorts to equivocation, and it never illuminates ethics or morality.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09021835055768270843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82545034256818464532014-01-20T15:31:36.772-05:002014-01-20T15:31:36.772-05:00Massimo, were you asked to be a respondent? You co...Massimo, were you asked to be a respondent? You could have said "Sam Harris" as the one idea to be retired!Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89217348807454349462014-01-20T14:45:31.926-05:002014-01-20T14:45:31.926-05:00jefscott,
Do you believe that it is legitimate ge...jefscott,<br /><br />Do you believe that it is legitimate generally for philosophers to write about the nature of ethics? If so, I think the experience of reading actual ethics papers - as opposed to taking the word of a pop provocateur (Harris) - would soon reveal that the complexity of ethics necessitates great care with language - just as physics requires great care with numbers - and that large matters can turn on small differences of language. Anyone who takes a good ethics 101 class will by the end see Harris for what he is, viz., someone who is not particularly interested in or knowledgeable about the difficult questions of ethics. Paul Paolinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04580285404702244031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82469415103508631722014-01-20T14:24:33.809-05:002014-01-20T14:24:33.809-05:00* ANTI-intellectual, rather.* ANTI-intellectual, rather.Brad Lencionihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02453894833441267961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64532844994924465762014-01-20T13:47:18.879-05:002014-01-20T13:47:18.879-05:00I agree with you, Alex., and thanks for your post....I agree with you, Alex., and thanks for your post. I am utterly confused over the hostility here against Sam Harris on this issue -- Sam Harris's "science" IS Massimo's "scientia"<br /><br />Also, Massimo commented:<br /><br />"Yes, of course what we are all striving for is reason. But Harris is purposely using the word "science" here, in part to discard other disciplines, such as philosophy, which he says explicitly in footnotes to The Moral Landscape he finds "only increases the boredom of the universe." What an anti-intellectual jerk."<br /><br />Harris holds a degree in philosophy (he must see some value in the discipline). He is not trying to discard philosophy; rather, as I understand him, 'philosophy' doesn't hold the same respected connotations as 'science' currently does in our society. And Harris is trying to have included respectable philosophy (I have a hard time counting much of the work in the philosophy of religion and theology as respectable philosophy) in this term 'science'. If i am grossly misunderstanding Harris's ideas here, then please somebody write out a real argument for me to understand.<br /><br />Finally, bout that last quote of Harris: can you provide a page number? If I remember correctly (it has been a while), Harris was making a point there about rejecting the endless special terminology used in philosophy. It was a stylistic point where Harris thinks much of philosophy can be stated and argued in common language, if one is careful, without simply referencing abstract and bloated terminology which nobody understands but a select few. If you disagree with this, fine. (I think this was more of a tongue in cheek comment in defense of his own writing style than a major part of his thesis.) But I think it's petty to attack the man over this as "an intellectual asshole." But I don't personally know him--perhaps I am wrong.Brad Lencionihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02453894833441267961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51869012090279346902014-01-20T13:02:54.884-05:002014-01-20T13:02:54.884-05:00"This isn't true with regard to philosoph..."This isn't true with regard to philosophy as in a sense it is about fine points of language."<br /><br />In some sense, this is actually my point. It's often the case that the unnecessary complexity of philosophy, the type that Harris denigrates, is born because philosophers are not necessarily studying ethics or morality, but the "finer points of language," which may have nothing to do with ethics or morality<br /><br /><br />jefscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16818842643842622828noreply@blogger.com