(Untitled)

[ogda9871]

So I have to say I was a bit disappointed by Sam Harris' new book.  He seems to take a long-winded abstrusely philosophical approach to defend his thesis: that science can and should determine what we value, i.e. our morals.  The problem could be that his argument seems obviously correct to me to begin with--at least with me, he's basically

Comments

[wynterdragon]

Having watched numerous debates and discussions with the scientists and philosophers they are trying to convince of these views (the one's we find obvious), I can assure you an essay wouldn't do. Nor their books, nor an entire library of books.

We aren't the ones with the tools or jobs to do scientific research on morals or religion, nor are we the ones capable of funding them or changing public policy to allow funding.

Watch a few debates about these things, and you'll see why Dennet's book is as it is (I haven't read Harris' yet, and I actually thought 'Breaking the Spell' was pretty good).

Perhaps this is a good example of why society can be so slow to move forward and change with new ideas?

I'm glad you got to 'Outliers'. I think the best critique of the book was done in a question about it posed to the writers of the 'Freakonomics' books. They used the example of the hockey league age correlation. They mentioned how interesting and true those connections are, but also point out that what isn't mentioned is the greatest predictor of becoming a hockey player is having a parent who was a hockey player. In other words, much of what Gladwell writes about is within a broader picture. Still true, but as a layman book, it doesn't provide quantitative information that would put the findings in perspective.

[ogda9871]

I just wish the Rapture would come so secularists can begin working on this Earth without the meddling Christians. It just depresses me that one would even need to argue the obvious--that science can help us determine what promotes our well-being. It's the real work that needs to be done. It's pretty much the only work.

[wynterdragon]

Agreed.

I think science needs to get applied to morality, politics, social organization, economics (no matter how much they want it to be, economics is not yet a science, but behavioral economics is a good start and that is a whole 'nother rant), etc...

Belief, ideology, religion, gut feelings, anecdotal recollections, etc... all need to be cast aside and replaced with looking at reality, carefully and unbiased.