Economic Analysis of Public Intellectuals
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Economic Analysis of Public Intellectuals
The man speculates. Why not go into the arguments rather than just calling him a hack. He is not a stupid man and, from what I have read, your comments are of the strawman variety.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Economic Analysis of Public Intellectuals
Right, and I think this is a valuable function of the public intellectual.But think, he is at least bringing people to the table of themes that only few could otherwise sit at.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Economic Analysis of Public Intellectuals
Some thing is wrong with your views and intellectual integrity here which has been infected with confirmation bias. You have to read the book to give credible [agree or against] views.Fan of Science wrote:Harris's statements in the Moral Landscape, as well as on many videos, clearly state that science, all by itself, can determine moral values. It's even in the subtitle to his book. Now, as quite often happens with Harris, he later on figures out that he screwed the pooch on an earlier claim. However, in Harris-speak, he never admits to having made an error, but, instead, insists he was merely misunderstood. Harris has made such claims on numerous faulty positions of his, including his claim that religious moderates are more dangerous than religious extremists, while lately conceding that we need religious moderates to fight the extremists. This is what happens when a person pretends to know something about the subjects he writes publicly about. Harris is no expert on history, economics, religion, sociology, law, and many other subjects he claims to be an expert in.
By the way, has Harris ever established any rational basis for being a moral realist? No. He simply assumes this position, while claiming that religious people who make similar assumptions are irrational. Rather odd duck on around.
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values;
I think you have interpreted too much on the sub-title and did not bother to read the book;
Note the Intro [extract];
If you read the Harris' book, you will note he put a lot of restraint and limitation on Science, but the point he is not giving up that Science can contribute greatly to the question of morality.The people of Albania have a venerable tradition of vendetta called Kanun: if a man commits a murder, his victim’s family can kill any one of his male relatives in reprisal. If a boy has the misfortune of being the son or brother of a murderer, he must spend his days and nights in hiding, forgoing a proper education, adequate health care, and the pleasures of a normal life. Untold numbers of Albanian men and boys live as prisoners of their homes even now. 1 Can we say that the Albanians are morally wrong to have structured their society in this way? Is their tradition of blood feud a form of evil? Are their values inferior to our own?
Most people imagine that science cannot pose, much less answer, questions of this sort. How could we ever say, as a matter of scientific fact, that one way of life is better, or more moral, than another? Whose definition of “better” or “moral” would we use? While many scientists now study the evolution of morality, as well as its underlying neurobiology, the purpose of their research is merely to describe how human beings think and behave.
No one expects science to tell us how we ought to think and behave. Controversies about human values are controversies about which science officially has no opinion. 2
I will argue, however, that questions about values—about meaning, morality, and life’s larger purpose—are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be scientifically understood: regarding positive and negative social emotions, retributive impulses, the effects of specific laws and social institutions on human relationships, the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering, etc.
...
...
I am not suggesting that we are guaranteed to resolve every moral controversy through science. Differences of opinion will remain—but opinions will be increasingly constrained by facts.
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm
Re: Economic Analysis of Public Intellectuals
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Economic Analysis of Public Intellectuals
I would be interested to know where did he make the above claims [1 & 2 ] in his book. Provide some quotes and page number.Fan of Science wrote:I have read the book and own a copy. I also listened to a number of Harris videos that promoted the book. His claims were quite clear ---
1. that he assumed an objective morality existed, and
2. he claimed that science can answer moral questions all by itself.
These are the facts. The fact Harris and his fan club are desperately trying to rewrite history and claim Harris never made these assertions is pathetic. Just goes to show the intellectual bankruptcy of the new-atheist movement.
-- Updated Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:30 pm to add the following --
I don't believe Harris would make those assertions you claim he made.
Since I don't agree with what you are accusing him of and that Harris is still alive we can write to him to get him to confirm his views.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023