Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions [split]

(1/7) > >>

Teleological (November 02, 2010, 15:02:29 PM):
Sam Harris wants to disregard the is/ought, fact/value dichotomies and in doing so circumvent the naturalistic fallacy and claim that science can determine an ought from an is.

I wonder if he is aware of natural law theory? Or if he even has some sort of understanding of the terms "good" and "goodness"?

Moreover, to argue for an in-principle incompatibility between our materialistic (philosophically speaking) conceptions of mind/brain and such ideas as intentionality and will (free or otherwise) is to ignore the entire realm of emergent phenomena and the infancy in which the physics thereof presently finds itself.
Muffles, I'll ask you again:
What is your understanding of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception" of reality?

You continuously employ bait and switch tactics whenever you discuss "materialism" or "materialistic philosophy".

You bait by praising the success and "history" of the "materialistic approach", whatever that is, you don't say.
And when asked to elaborate on this (and your understanding of materialistic philosophy), you switch by saying materialism is not a complete and fully-developed metaphysical position.

You want to call yourself a materialist and praise its successes but at the same time haven't got a clue what it entails and then demand that some other "scientific" approach is needed before abandoning materialism.


Mefiante (November 02, 2010, 15:39:56 PM):
Since you are patently incapable of following something that has been explained to you in several different ways at several different times and places, I’ll not waste my time.

So, whatever you say, Teleological. Whatever you say.

Now be a good boy and go back to playing with your pigeonholes, see?

'Luthon64
Teleological (November 02, 2010, 16:14:05 PM):
Since you are patently incapable of following something that has been explained to you in several different ways at several different times and places, I’ll not waste my time.

So, whatever you say, Teleological. Whatever you say.

Now be a good boy and go back to playing with your pigeonholes, see?

'Luthon64
I wouldn't mind a few links to these alleged explanations... Especially the ones were you "at several different times and places" explained what is your understanding of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception" of reality.

Waiting...
Mefiante (November 02, 2010, 17:06:11 PM):
Waiting...
Why? You are perhaps bored with your pigeonholes, yes? Say it’s not so!

'Luthon64
Teleological (November 02, 2010, 17:23:03 PM):
Stop evading the question ::).
What is your understanding of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception" of reality?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page