by slimboyfat 583 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Personal purpose in life can be scientifically verified as valid?
Really?
Absolutely. Anyway, moving on to your task...
So, please show us how your definition of posotivism is the same as the one nicolau posted and, once that is done, how I said it was wrong. You've all your work ahead of you.
John Mann there was nothing wrong with your definition. Don't let Viv give you the run around. I think Cofty is correct positivists allow that logic can deliver some knowledge also, but this is limited. You're right that the main idea is that only science can deliver true knowledge. In previous conversation Cofty has claimed that science can even tell us the answers to ethical questions. It's a kind of madness. I realised later that this "science of ethics" was an idea that Sam Harris has tried to promote. He is completely barmy, and I think many are now seeing through him and how shallow his arguments are. And not just shallow but dangerous, with his "let's nuke the Middle East first" argument, and his support for Trump-style profiling and Muslim ban. If those are the ethical conclusions his "science" arrives at, he can keep it.
Here it is, positivism driven to its ultimate, and crazy, logical conclusion.
John Mann there was nothing wrong with your definition. Don't let Viv give you the run around.
And we can add "posovitism" to the list of philosophies that SBF thinks he knows about but doesn't. It also seems like a bit of a white knighting scenario, jumping in to bail John out from having to answer tough questions about his own comments. Questions like "does what you say match what you claim it matches?" I mean, how in the world can an adult be expected to stand up to such ruthless bullying?
I couldn't imagine living in yours or John's head, knowing so little about so much when it's so so very easy to learn with mountains of knowledge at your fingertips.
Sad, really.
Sam Harris' ideas on the secular basis for ethics are very interesting. There is nothing shallow about what he actually said or wrote. He is clear-thinking and intelligent.
His detractors have created an industry around quote-mining his writings.
Anybody who believes a single word he is supposed to have said that they didn't hear directly from Harris in context is a fool.
The Moral Landscape is outstanding.
Viv you can add anything to any imaginary list you like as far as I am concerned. You never back up anything you say. If you ever make an actual argument in favour of any of the claims you make, there will be something to discuss.
Viv you can add anything to any imaginary list you like as far as I am concerned. You never back up anything you say. If you ever make an actual argument in favour of any of the claims you make, there will be something to discuss
Awww.... the "but you do it toooo!" argument. It's wrong, of course. For example, when you made a wrong claim recently about what WT publications said and the source material showed you wrong and then you whined about....something or other about me because you didn't get to make claims and tell lies about people unfettered. Honestly, all whining sounds the same to me, like a three year old pitching a fit because of bedtime.
So, anyway, enough with the lies. Anytime I make a claim about science or what something says or someone said, I back it up when necessary. That's been shown over and over and over. Whining doesn't change that.
Here it is, positivism driven to its ultimate, and crazy, logical conclusion. - SBF
I hope anybody who read this dismissive comment takes half an hour to listen to Sam Harris' talk.
If you find his presentation thought-provoking, buy the book, then seek out objections to his ideas and then read his responses to those criticisms. Whether you ultimately agree with him or not you will observe that he is not "crazy". I am certain you will at least be impressed by his thoughtful and intellectually honest approach.
I just watched the video again. I have not read the book you mention, but I have read a book by Harris about free will and his "Letter to a Christian Nation". I didn't like either, in fact I'd say it's a case of I want the time back please.
A key quote in his speech there was his comment that, "some ideas just need to be excluded", or along those lines. What does he mean by that? Does he mean literally ban certain ideas? If so, we have a dictator. If not, if he simply means that we should all agree Ted Bumdy was bad - we do that already. We don't need science to tell us that. In fact it's not clear how science can tell us that.
Either Harris is saying that the idea that Bundy was good should be banned, which is ridiculous, of he is saying that we should all agree such an opinion is wrong, which is obvious. Most of what Harris says can similarly be divided into the obvious and the ridiculous.
I have not read the book you mention
So you think it is reasonable to dismiss his ideas about secular morality as "crazy" and "dangerous" without having read what he actually wrote about it.
"some ideas just need to be excluded" ...... Does he mean literally ban certain ideas?
No. That would be stupid and Harris is anything but stupid.
Most of what Harris says can similarly be divided into the obvious and the ridiculous.
And you base that on not reading the book. Genius!
Either Harris is saying that the idea that Bundy was good should be banned, which is ridiculous, of he is saying that we should all agree such an opinion is wrong, which is obvious.
Facile comment of the year. Well done.
I think the ultimate crazy conclusion from positivism is the Eliminative Materialism.
Eliminative Materialism says the human consciousness does not exist because it cannot be scientifically verified.
So to eliminativists God is not the only delusion but the human consciousness is a delusion too.
That's the logical conclusion if materialism is the only system you accept.
Before someone says my definition of Eliminative Materialism is wrong, here's a link:
