tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post4526202285835709724..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: More on how I've confused MassimoRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-17111385884782358572011-03-05T00:49:47.028+11:002011-03-05T00:49:47.028+11:00http://hypermoxie.blogspot.com/2011/02/2011feb14.h...http://hypermoxie.blogspot.com/2011/02/2011feb14.html<br /><br />This is another take on The Moral Landscape.Cogitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125198066334821962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-67020105954849239662011-03-03T07:54:15.827+11:002011-03-03T07:54:15.827+11:00in context, i think it's fairly clear what pig...in context, i think it's fairly clear what pigliucci means by scientism. he quotes blackford's review, "thinking that all problems can be solved by science", and then restates this issue in his own words, "a major problem with the whole project is precisely the stubborn attempt to overextend the reach of science which is properly labeled as scientism."flieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04438262506920089149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-55934831310898709802011-03-01T09:43:01.844+11:002011-03-01T09:43:01.844+11:00Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong by J. Mackie
£3...Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong by J. Mackie<br /><br />£3.49 at Amazon UK with free delivery!!!<br /><br />Well, I've ordered it! You'd have to be mad, bad, or on the wrong blog, not to. <br />(And Being Good too since it would be environmentally irresponsible to get the delivery van to make the trip twice.)<br /><br />I was going to ask, Russell, what I should read after, Levy & Singer, but now I won't need too for a couple of months.Felixnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-75150299996168722332011-03-01T07:43:56.360+11:002011-03-01T07:43:56.360+11:00I read Being Good recently, I didn't get the i...I read <i>Being Good</i> recently, I didn't get the impression that Blackburn was saying that Dawkins was arguing that hyper-reductionist stance, but that there were those who thought that way and took the idea from Dawkins. (I'm still not sure how people can misread <i>The Selfish Gene</i> that way, it's pretty clear in its ideas)Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-18927133067103401502011-03-01T07:39:00.435+11:002011-03-01T07:39:00.435+11:00When I hear "scientism" it's usually...When I hear "scientism" it's usually "You're wrong to use science to slaughter my sacred cow". Most of the time it's not even using science; recently I got accused of it after being careful to make an almost entirely philosophical argument because I dismissed the concept of the supernatural.<br /><br />As far as I can see, the term is pretty much a slander that might have meant something originally, but like reductionist is a rebuke of a methodology without carefully considering the position.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-89190715623263576672011-02-28T06:27:13.343+11:002011-02-28T06:27:13.343+11:00Well the onus may be on you, and other gnu atheist...Well the onus may be on you, and other gnu atheist philosophers, but I don't think it's on all of us. I don't think it's on me, for instance, because I wouldn't dream of considering myself qualified. (I could <i>get</i> qualified, but that would require a lot of time and money.) I don't think I'm at all the right person to write a would-be definitive book on gnu atheist metaethics (or a provisional one either).<br /><br />I could write a definitive book on gnu atheist etiquette though! HahahahahahachokeOphelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-39567411977412751952011-02-27T12:24:46.949+11:002011-02-27T12:24:46.949+11:00Well, yes - I agree that it would be a Bad Thing i...Well, yes - I agree that it would be a Bad Thing if lots of folks only read TML and took it as the official Gnu Atheist, scientifically-informed view on these matters. They'd do well to read, ahem, my review of it (whether the long version or the shor version that the ABC published), which is, of course a lot more than a review. And they'd do well to read, say, Blackburn's little book (even though this contains some things that are problematic such as the discussion of the selfish gene concept, and calling Epicurus a Stoic at one point - say <i>what</i>?). And it'd be nice if some went and read some of the other books that are around that are better than TML, while covering a lot of the same territory, such as <i>Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong</i>.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, people could do a lot worse than read Hume's <i>An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals</i>, which is still way ahead of almost any recent books on the subject.<br /><br />All the same, TML does have the strengths that I described in the post, as well as being timely. I think the onus is really on the rest of us to do better if we're critical of some of the arguments and conclusions.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-49942615261212315392011-02-27T12:07:23.017+11:002011-02-27T12:07:23.017+11:00Well Russell I think it's misleading enough to...Well Russell I think it's misleading enough to be not worth reading. It could be the only book on the subject a lot of people will ever read, and I do think that would be unfortunate. There are already a lot of people who think he's saying something startlingly new, and also definitive. I do find that a bit maddening.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57219244157745919492011-02-27T10:45:58.499+11:002011-02-27T10:45:58.499+11:00Ophelia, do you really think that TML is so bad as...Ophelia, do you really think that TML is so bad as not to be worth reading? Fair enough, if that's what you think, but yes it is a bit startling.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-17973870268527716942011-02-27T03:16:03.454+11:002011-02-27T03:16:03.454+11:00That's where I part company with you, Russell ...That's where I part company with you, Russell - and where I startled Massimo by agreeing with him! I mean yes, people who read <i>Being Good</i> of course <i>could</i> read TML, but I think the former is worth reading while the latter isn't. I think TML is misleading while BG isn't - which is to say, Blackburn's book is much better for non-philosophers (like me) to read than Harris's book is.<br /><br />BG is a lot shorter, too. :- )Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-50064258352077181022011-02-27T01:10:40.858+11:002011-02-27T01:10:40.858+11:00Funny, I was just reading Blackburn's Being Go...Funny, I was just reading Blackburn's <i>Being Good</i> yesterday, and I came across what seemed to me a pathetic and irresponsible misrepresentation of a Gnu's position.<br /><br />Blackburn disses Dawkins for taking a hyper-reductionist stance on morality, assuming that if genes are selfish, they'll simply make people psychologogically selfish---he gives Dawkins <i>The Selfish Gene</i> as a "notorious example." He says that Dawkins repudiated the idea later, but the idea "has a life of its own."<br /><br />The problem is that Blackburn, like Mary Midgely, apparently never read the book---just the title, which he completely misinterpreted or at least overinterpreted. In the actual book, Dawkins says right off the bat that that's <i>not</i> what he's saying, and the main theme of the whole book is that simplistic idea is <i>profoundly untrue</i>---"selfish" genes may make people selfish, but may also make them sincerely self-sacrificing, because the genes' "interests" are not the same thing as the individual's psychological interests.<br /><br />It's not just Harris and Gnus who haven't done as much homework as we might like, and aren't as fair as we might like to opposing views. Professional philosophers do it all the time when writing for a popular audience. (And too often when writing for a professional audience.)<br /><br />IMHO, includes many criticisms of Gnus by turf-defending professional philosophers like Massimo. Harris's book isn't the one I'd have written, but it's a lot better and more <i>philosophically</i> respectable than Massimo lets on.Paul W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13909647399634037101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-58561280818936102492011-02-26T10:41:17.073+11:002011-02-26T10:41:17.073+11:00As for the audience for the book. I'd say a ge...As for the audience for the book. I'd say a general educated audience with an interest in issues. It could be read by the same people who'd read, say, Simon Blackburn's <i>Being Good</i>.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-43589479519513239642011-02-26T10:16:03.942+11:002011-02-26T10:16:03.942+11:00Okay, Massimo - that's appreciated. Thanks.Okay, Massimo - that's appreciated. Thanks.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-15962131629014828192011-02-26T08:09:23.138+11:002011-02-26T08:09:23.138+11:00As a game reviewer, Mr. Gorton, what would you thi...As a game reviewer, Mr. Gorton, what would you think of a review where the reviewer found the game storyline incoherent, the controls awkward, the character designs amateurish, and the software buggy and prone to crashing, only to give the game a middling-high score on the ground that the packaging looks nice and there are a few good-looking cutscenes?<br /><br />That's a pretty good analogy for our blog host's review of Harris' book. He damns Harris with faint praise, and if he didn't outright say that the book was worth reading, we'd conclude that he thought just the opposite.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-40230679444526991852011-02-26T08:03:18.835+11:002011-02-26T08:03:18.835+11:00I don't know about scientism, but the more ant...I don't know about scientism, but the more anti-"scientistic" philosophical rhetoric I hear, the sicker I am of simplistic <i>philosophism</i>.Paul W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13909647399634037101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-8974609858490479762011-02-26T07:10:54.435+11:002011-02-26T07:10:54.435+11:00Russell,
well, I think apologies are in order her...Russell,<br /><br />well, I think apologies are in order here. I actually, most emphatically, did *not* mean to call *you* intellectually dishonest. I have a high esteem of your writings, and this particular response by you has certainly not changed that fact.<br /><br />But the passage you quote was one in which I was broadening the fire from my specific disagreements with your review of Harris to the general field of New Atheism. Moreover, I wrote "or even intellectual honesty," which I meant as calling to the possibility of intellectual dishonesty, not as stating a fact. If that wasn't clear, I apologize.<br /><br />Of course, being increasingly skeptic of the New Atheists' rhetoric, I wonder why Dawkins gets away throwing accusations of intellectual dishonesty right and left and people simply cheer him on, even though I doubt he has the facts to back up those accusations any more than anyone else.<br /><br />As for scientism, I think that's our big disagreement. My view is that *that* is the primary problem affecting much of the skeptic and atheist movements, it's a subtle and pernicious ideology that doesn't do much good and potentially undermines our efforts and credibility.<br /><br />But of course we can have reasonable and honest disagreements with each other on that one too. Cheers.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-59043752695066579482011-02-26T06:14:17.411+11:002011-02-26T06:14:17.411+11:00"There's only black and white. You're..."There's only black and white. You're either with us or you're against us."<br /><br />It's the New Philosophy.Kirth Gersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771084733414305421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-87325309339007786332011-02-26T06:13:55.679+11:002011-02-26T06:13:55.679+11:00Scott Atran wrote damning review of The Moral Land...Scott Atran wrote damning review of The Moral Landscape here:<br />http://nationalinterest.org/bookreview/sam-harriss-guide-nearly-everything-4893<br />I understand they've had some beef in the past, but this was pretty extreme.MHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14697172554669263698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-17211929932737123662011-02-26T03:35:53.549+11:002011-02-26T03:35:53.549+11:00I think Massimo's biggest problem with Harris ...I think Massimo's biggest problem with Harris is that Harris justifies his lack of familiarity with the literature on ethics by saying that he thinks it's boring and not necessarily for what he's doing even though Harris is writing a book in this field. And to me, that is a very valid complaint. It seems like a very anti-intellectual attitude. It also doesn't seem like a very respectable attitude.JustAGuynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57915543883785903762011-02-26T02:56:22.136+11:002011-02-26T02:56:22.136+11:00Russell,
A serious question: what audience would ...Russell,<br /><br />A serious question: what audience would be a good one for Harris' book?<br /><br />For those who don't know much -- or anything -- about the philosophical issues, I find that TML wouldn't be appropriate because 1) He's not all that careful about being fair to his opponents' positions and 2) As the book is meant to advocate for his position, it's might be hard for less informed readers to get an overview of the positions and what the concerns are. An introductory text would be a better starting point.<br /><br />But for people who have some knowledge and so can get into more technical discussions, there are books that say far better things -- even about the positions Harris takes -- and go into the issues far deeper than Harris does. TML isn't the right book for them.<br /><br />So it's hard for me to think of an audience where reading TML would be as good as or better than reading something else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-80090164708858906352011-02-25T23:11:30.450+11:002011-02-25T23:11:30.450+11:00As someone who writes game reviews Massimo's w...As someone who writes game reviews Massimo's whole stance puzzles me. There is a word for a review that is wholly positive or negative - boring.<br /><br />Its boring to write and boring to read.<br /><br />Further, something doesn't have to achieve its aims or be entirely agreed with by the reviewer in order to be good. <br /><br /><i>Interesting</i> is far better than <i>agreeable</i>.Bruce Gortonhttp://gortonb@thetimes.co.zanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-17866735069141241612011-02-25T22:57:33.336+11:002011-02-25T22:57:33.336+11:00Good reply, Russell. I'm about two-thirds thro...Good reply, Russell. I'm about two-thirds through TML (almost at the end of the 'Religion' chapter) and in both your review and this post you've articulated my thoughts on Harris's arguments. To be honest, I find Pigliucci's opinion of TML (and Harris) rather harsh, vicious even. Somehow Harris's ideas don't seem to warrant that level of condemnation, IMO.<br /><br />Re scientism, I admit to being tempted on occasion to subscribe to a sort of 'strong' scientism. But the more I read on the philosophy of science, of mind and epistemology, the less certain I am that science is the be all and end all.<br /><br />But this I can definitely agree with:<br /><br />"If, on the other hand, "scientism" just means something like "having a high regard for the authority of science" then it's not obvious that scientism is a bad thing."Darrick Limhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13791236823584001938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73692322245937944592011-02-25T20:13:42.105+11:002011-02-25T20:13:42.105+11:00As far as I understand, Massimo seems to have fall...As far as I understand, Massimo seems to have fallen into the trap of thinking that people who agree on the facts, will also agree on their appreciation.<br /><br />He doesn't seem to consider that people can agree on the facts while giving different weights in evaluating these facts and so in the end come to a total different appreciation of these facts.axxyaannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-62346294673298130842011-02-25T17:21:57.590+11:002011-02-25T17:21:57.590+11:00Hmmmm. Maybe you've "herded" me Russ...Hmmmm. Maybe you've "herded" me Russell ;), having now read that again, a bit more closely, I think your initial reaction is on the money. At the very least, a clarificationis in order.<br /><br />Massimo's first para in the comment is an "I see what you're saying.." The second is a "but I think you're wrong, what I think is happening is.. [insert insults for Russell here]."<br /><br />I think Ian's point, whether I want to call TML a "bad" book is on the money, speaking as a layman is about right. I have found it a very useful introduction to the finer points of all manner of complex discussion of morality, largely because you, and Massimo, and everyone else, has had stuff to say. The criticism has been as interesting and informative as the book itself. And yes, I'll freely admit that Sam gets some slack for having said lots of interesting stuff that I agree with for a few years.<br /><br />I recommended the book to someone in this thread at the forum I haunt (posting as Facewon: http://forums.next-gen.biz/viewtopic.php?t=10044&start=6800) I basically recommended it on the proviso that the reviews were part of the "experience" as it were. <br /><br />(And if you want to see some laymen butchering meta and philosphy, we do a bang up job, IMHO. ;))<br /><br />David MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-33515584632036567812011-02-25T17:04:07.515+11:002011-02-25T17:04:07.515+11:00For what its worth , I found your review as intere...For what its worth , I found your review as interesting as the book itself.Deepak Shettyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04324456947895848248noreply@blogger.com