AngryParsley comments on Open Thread: April 2010 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Unnamed 01 April 2010 03:21PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (524)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (524)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: AngryParsley 01 April 2010 03:58:00PM 1 point [-]

Sam Harris gave a TED talk a couple months ago, but I haven't seen it linked here. The title is Science can answer moral questions.

Comment author: cupholder 01 April 2010 06:05:37PM *  3 points [-]

Harris has also written a blog post nominally responding to 'many of my [Harris'] critics' of his talk, but it seems to be more of a reply to Sean Carroll's criticism of Harris' talk (going by this tweet and the many references to Carroll in Harris' post). Carroll has also briefly responded to Harris' response.

Comment author: taw 02 April 2010 01:10:01PM 4 points [-]

It was so filled with wrong I couldn't even bother to finish it, and I usually enjoy crackpots from TED.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 01 April 2010 04:34:48PM 2 points [-]

He discusses that science can answer factual questions, thus resolving uncertainty in moral dogma defined conditionally on those answers. This is different from figuring out moral questions themselves.

Comment author: Jack 02 April 2010 02:51:32PM 2 points [-]

That isn't all he is claiming though:

I was not suggesting that science can give us an evolutionary or neurobiological account of what people do in the name of “morality.” Nor was I merely saying that science can help us get what we want out of life. Both of these would have been quite banal claims to make (unless one happens to doubt the truth of evolution or the mind’s dependency on the brain). Rather I was suggesting that science can, in principle, help us understand what we should do and should want—and, perforce, what other people should do and want in order to live the best lives possible. My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 02 April 2010 06:07:28PM 0 points [-]

He does claim this, but it's not what he actually discusses in the talk.

Comment author: timtyler 02 April 2010 11:59:50AM 1 point [-]

My reaction was: bad talk, wrong answers, not properly thought through.

Comment author: Liron 02 April 2010 12:15:27AM 1 point [-]

I'm always impressed by Harris's eloquence and clarity of thought.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit