December 08, 2010The Great Debate Panel: Can Scientists Determine What is, in Fact, Right and Wrong?"If human morality is an evolutionary adaptation and if neuroscientists can identify specific brain circuitry governing moral judgment, can scientists determine what is, in fact, right and wrong?" A panel discusses the question, over at The Science Network:
Posted by Robin Varghese at 04:02 PM | Permalink |
3QD ADVERTISINGFind the best prices on Las Vegas Show Tickets at Best of Vegas and Orlando Theme Parks at Best of Orlando!
3QD on Facebook
3QD on Kindle
3QD by Daily Email
3QD on Twitter
MiscellanyLijit Search
Recent Comments
John Ballard on Can science explain why we tell stories?
ganji on American rage at Pakistan over the punishment of a CIA-cooperating Pakistani doctor is revealing
Louise Gordon on B. F. Skinner’s ideas are making an unlikely comeback
Eli on The Self Illusion: An Interview With Bruce Hood
Abbas Raza on i started a joke
mr.ed on Guy Plays A Cat Organ
Letteratura Operaomnia on A Moveable Feast rises above the struggle of Hemingway's later years
Ejvind on Guy Plays A Cat Organ
Jesse on Martin Amis: over-60 and under-appreciated
Elatia Harris on Martin Amis: over-60 and under-appreciated
Jesse on Martin Amis: over-60 and under-appreciated
Namit on The Inner Lives of Animals
Elatia Harris on Martin Amis: over-60 and under-appreciated
Ruchira on Martin Amis: over-60 and under-appreciated
skl on Martin Amis: over-60 and under-appreciated
Elatia Harris on Martin Amis: over-60 and under-appreciated
Namit on Martin Amis: over-60 and under-appreciated
Philip Graham on Guy Plays A Cat Organ
Chris Schoen on The Inner Lives of Animals
Cynthia Haven on Martin Amis: over-60 and under-appreciated
reader on Martin Amis: over-60 and under-appreciated
Acclaim For 3QD
"I couldn't tear myself
away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on
this superb site."—Steven
Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.
"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard
Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. "Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual. The 3QD Prizes
|
Comments
Modern public intellectual debate: non-experts get together to discuss confused questions centred around meaningless conditionals. Why? God, why?
Posted by: Joe | Dec 8, 2010 10:08:14 PM
The answer, of course, is : 'no they can't'. The intelligent naturalist position is surely to be as well informed as possible about all kinds of facts - nothing new there -and then make a judgement. But facts -knowledge -states of affairs -latest scientific knowledge- can't do it for us. What one should do is always -up to a point -an open question.
To assume that the facts dictate moral choices is to commit the hoary old naturalistic fallacy.
Posted by: Chris Horner | Dec 9, 2010 4:44:22 AM
Joe—Non-experts? I’m pretty sure everyone on the panel are considered “experts” in their field. Maybe you mean non-expert-moral-philosophers. In which case, what about Peter Singer?
At any rate, why would I care whether or not someone is an “expert” when the topic is morality? It’s important to me that I see an “expert” neurologist. It’s not important to me that I consult a PhD in ethics to make an ethical decision.
As for confused questions and meaningless conditionals: maybe.
Chris—They actually talk about what you’re referring to as the “naturalistic fallacy”. Did you just not buy their response to the problem? Basically, they say you can arrive at an is from an ought inductively, which Hume himself acknowledged, so this shouldn’t be such a philosophical bugbear. Or, did you not get that far in the video? It’s towards the end.
Posted by: Nathan | Dec 9, 2010 10:02:16 AM
Nathan: an expert would actually know that the "naturalistic fallacy" was a linguistic thesis proposed by G.E. Moore. They would also know that the modern interpretation of Hume (as dividing the world, bizarrely, into two classes of facts) is highly questionable at best, and that this "is-ought" thesis is basically dead in the water since Hilary Putnam attacked it a few years ago.
Moral philosophers aren't necessarily experts in telling people what to do (though this is debatable, Singer sure thinks he can tell us all what to do). The subject of this debate is not "how should we live our lives?" but "what is this phenomenon called morality?"
Why on earth wouldn't you want a panel full of people who've spent their lives studying this question? Sam Harris? Are you kidding me?
Posted by: Joe | Dec 9, 2010 1:35:23 PM
Joe—I’m still a little confused on who’s being attacked for not being an expert. Since you say that an expert would know that the phrase “naturalistic fallacy” originates with Moore, you might be suggesting that I’m not an expert. Because, in the video, the panelists talked about the is/ought issue, going back to Hume, without referring to it as the naturalistic fallacy (from what I remember—maybe I’m wrong). Chris is the one who used the phrase “naturalistic fallacy”, which I was careful not to equate with Hume’s is/ought problem. But, to clear things up: I admit that I am not an expert. Singer seems to me to be an expert. Churchland and Blackburn may be experts. Harris is not an expert. OK. But it seems to me that if you’re going to have a panel discuss what science may be able to tell us about morality, you would want experts in a variety of fields, including science.
I’m just questioning the idea that there was a dearth of relevant expertise in that video.
And, now that I read your comment again, we may just disagree on “the subject of this debate.” It’s not clear to me that the subject is “what is this phenomenon called morality?” The title of the video series on The Science Network website is “Can Science Tell Us Right from Wrong?” In my mind that would certainly include what is morality, but also what is science, what can science tell us about the mind, and how should we live our lives. A whole slew of issues that would be dealt with quite poorly by a panel made up entirely of professional philosophers.
Or maybe they could have just left Harris out and you would be happy with the group?
Posted by: Nathan | Dec 9, 2010 3:14:52 PM
but also what is science, what can science tell us about the mind, and how should we live our lives. A whole slew of issues that would be dealt with quite poorly by a panel made up entirely of professional philosophers.
I just don't even know what to say to this. I'm afraid you are incredibly under-informed as to the nature of professional philosophy. Every major philosophy department in the world has at least one or two people who *individually* study all of these issues in depth and detail. Blackburn is one of these people. Harris is not. Pinker is not. The author or "The Physics of Star Trek" is not.
Posted by: Joe | Dec 9, 2010 3:41:38 PM
You may be right. As I said, I’m not an expert (in anything really), so I’m not incredibly informed about what all happens in professional philosophy. I’ll give you that.
But I guess it all depends on who the audience is. I mean, if this panel is for philosophers, and you have 6 seats, then there should be 6 philosophers. If it’s for a broader audience who would be just as interested in hearing what a psychologist or neuroscientist says about the mind or what a physicist says about how science works, then it might make more sense to have say 3 philosophers, 1 psychologist, 1 physicist, and a neuroscientist. It’s not that philosophers can’t speak clearly and persuasively about all of these topics (you’re right—there are books on the philosophy of Buffy and South Park, for Pete’s sake). It’s that the practitioners of science (the ones that are, you might say, more philosophical and well spoken) are able to carry a kind of clout that philosophers of science don’t quite have in the broader world.
Don’t get me wrong. I like philosophy. I think it can be useful and actually fun to read. Well, some of it. I’m just saying that my ideal panel for this discussion would include a variety of experts, including the philosopher. Whereas you seem to want to exclude every voice *but* the philosopher’s. Your panel may have a more succinct, rigorous philosophical discussion; but it’s less likely to be heard by all of us non-experts who want to know what science can tell us about right and wrong. And complaining that all such panels aren’t entirely made up of philosophers doesn’t exactly endear your *experts* to a broader audience. Kind of makes things worse.
Posted by: Nathan | Dec 9, 2010 4:43:09 PM
And when I said a panel made up of professional philosophers would deal quite poorly with those issues, I put things quite poorly myself. That was too strong of a statement. Of course there are excellent philosophers of mind and science. They would do an adequate job. What I should have said was just that a diverse panel is better. So, for example, a panel of 3 philosophers discussing the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics is going to be improved by the addition of one or two actual quantum physicists. Even for an expert audience. Don't you think?
Posted by: Nathan | Dec 9, 2010 5:45:14 PM
Awe hell naw
Posted by: anonymous | Dec 9, 2010 11:44:26 PM
"If human morality is an evolutionary adaptation and if neuroscientists can identify specific brain circuitry governing moral judgment, can scientists determine what is, in fact, right and wrong?" A panel discusses the question, over at The Science Network:"
No, science can't determine that. Even if both ifs here were true, which I don't believe, they still couldn't determine it.
I have a wonderful proof of this, but it's too big to fit in the margins...
Posted by: mcd | Dec 10, 2010 10:40:37 PM
Post a comment