4 ms·

Either you're doing a lousy job of putting Harris's thesis across, or the thesis itself is gibberish. Whichever is so, you would've added more to this discussio

by aaronem 13y ago

Either you're doing a lousy job of putting Harris's thesis across, or the thesis itself is gibberish. Whichever is so, you would've added more to this discussion by not posting this comment at all, than by doing so in its current state. (And, having just spent a year in academia and seen "methods of science" firsthand, I can only assume the suggestion they be applied to questions of morality represents a blatant grab for funding on the part of Dr. Harris, who no doubt envisions himself as a PI presiding over such investigations. On the other hand, if he were all that good a grant writer, I doubt he'd have gone to the trouble of publishing in the popular press.)

thesigil 13y ago
Thanks for pointing out that am doing a lousy job of putting across Dr. Harris's work, :) And I think that is mainly because of the way am putting the thought experiment across without a lot of premise being set, which is clearly set in the talk he gives. Many people misunderstand that non-existence of free will means everything is predetermined, which is not the case we all know. It does not matter if you have a lot of skills, but it matters if you use them. It does not matter if you have not understood some subjects, rather than blaming someone else about it, it matters if you improve on them. And he is not the only one whose work lead to the conclusion of free will being incoherent, there are many other biologists who prove the same. Now what is remarkable about Sam's work is that he also takes care of proving that the illusion of free will is also an illusion. When Harris is saying methods of science being applied to look at morality, he is not the first one to propose so, there have been many prominent schools of thought, to name one Hindu philosophy, which have also spoken the same. The way Harris is speaking about methods of science is that every individual can apply it for themselves and see it for themselves. There need not be any investigating authority other than the privacy of our mind :) I have applied methods of science myself to what Harris is saying and then coming and posting here. Please do not criticize him or his work without even looking at it :) Methods of science mean that results of an experiment being verifiable by all.

by aaronem 13y ago

thesigil 13y ago

Thanks for pointing out that am doing a lousy job of putting across Dr. Harris's work, :) And I think that is mainly because of the way am putting the thought experiment across without a lot of premise being set, which is clearly set in the talk he gives. Many people misunderstand that non-existence of free will means everything is predetermined, which is not the case we all know. It does not matter if you have a lot of skills, but it matters if you use them. It does not matter if you have not understood some subjects, rather than blaming someone else about it, it matters if you improve on them. And he is not the only one whose work lead to the conclusion of free will being incoherent, there are many other biologists who prove the same. Now what is remarkable about Sam's work is that he also takes care of proving that the illusion of free will is also an illusion. When Harris is saying methods of science being applied to look at morality, he is not the first one to propose so, there have been many prominent schools of thought, to name one Hindu philosophy, which have also spoken the same. The way Harris is speaking about methods of science is that every individual can apply it for themselves and see it for themselves. There need not be any investigating authority other than the privacy of our mind :) I have applied methods of science myself to what Harris is saying and then coming and posting here. Please do not criticize him or his work without even looking at it :) Methods of science mean that results of an experiment being verifiable by all.