Philosophy & Ethics

Dear readers, Rationally Speaking is soon going to be (also) a podcast, produced by New York City Skeptics, and co-hosted by Julia Galef and yours truly. Before each (initially biweekly, starting at the end of January) episode we will publish a “teaser” like the one below, introducing the topic of that episode and inviting comments from our readers. Your comments will provide us with additional food for thought, and the most interesting ones will be read and discussed during the show. For our inaugural episode, we’re going to kick things off by asking: Why is “speaking rationally” a…

Why science is a better way to explore morality.We think of science as a noun, in reality it is a verb, a process. The scientific method is a codification of a specific technique of handling and processing information. This method involves meticulous documentation of observations, and clear transparent analysis. More than the individual scientist performing the experiments, it is the integrity of this process that we as a society hold sacrosanct. Because it is this process that ultimately allows us to derive an understanding of our world, which remains consistent from one experimenter to…

We think of science as a noun, in reality it is a verb, aprocess. The scientific method is a codification of a specific technique ofhandling and processing information. This method involves meticulousdocumentation of observations, and clear transparent analysis. More than the individual scientist performing the experiments,it is the integrity of this process that we as a society hold sacrosanct.Because it is this process that ultimately allows us to derive an understandingof our world, which remains consistent from one experimenter to another. Our relationship with our scientists is…

I recently re-read a classic piece by J.L. Mackie (April 1955), entitled “Evil and Omnipotence,” a stupendous philosophical essay about why theologians like Richard Swinburne are forced by their belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevelont and omnipowerful god into incredible and rather painful feats of mental gymnastics. One of Mackie’s minor points in the essay is that the so-called “free will defense” for the existence of evil in the world is problematic because the concept of free will itself is incoherent. Although, sometimes accusations of incoherence are thrown around a bit too easily in…

The question was just raised in a previous blog entry about what a research scientist could learn from philosophy.  Perhaps this article, "Mad Science? Growing Meat Without Animals" can provide some insight. Particularly telling was this quote: "In principle, we could harvest the meat progenitor cells from fresh human cadavers and grow meat from them," Post said. "Once taken out of its disease and animalistic, cannibalistic context — you are not killing fellow citizens for it, they are already dead — there is no reason why not." Still, Post suggests that marketing could overcome such…

Attentive readers of this blog may have noticed that those who post comments to my entries often show two interesting and complementary attitudes: a fundamental distrust of (if not downright contempt for) philosophy, coupled with an overly enthusiastic endorsement of science. Take, for instance, my recurring argument that some (but not all!) of the “new atheists” engage in scientistic attitudes by overplaying the epistemological power of science while downplaying (or even simply negating) the notion that science fundamentally depends on non-empirical (i.e., philosophical) assumptions to even…

In my younger years, the belief in a world populated by divine entities plagued my thoughts. To the eyes of an atheist, I was a religious adherent, albeit not as devoutly as some of my contemporary acquaintances. What underlay my faith in Buddhism was my familial connection to its tradition. The early exposure to the rituals, the teachings, the occasions celebrating the many aspects of the religion endorsed my confidence in the existence of deific figures. Blindly, I called myself a Buddhist without ever enquiring my parents if we truly were. Their answer was, astoundingly, "No, we are not.…

(Essay 3 in the Evolution and Morality Series) Religious morality is by no means the only source of moral reasoning available to us. There is in fact a long history of secular philosophy dating all the way back to the 5th century BC.  And not just the materialist philosophers of ancient Greece, mind you. The non-theistic religions of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism all date back to around the same time period in history. In a sense, it probably isn’t strictly accurate to call these philosophies secular. Unlike the later philosophers of the modern era, these ancient philosophers…

Massimo had an interesting post on his “Rationally Speaking” blog last week about the rift between science and philosophy. He feels that too many of the “new atheists” are being over enthusiastic in their support of science as the only means of understanding our world. This enthusiasm is often accompanied with an open disdain for philosophy. He argues science and philosophy should inform each other and work in complementary ways. It just so happens that the next two posts on my planned Wednesday column addresses this very issue. So I thought I’d add my 2 cents to the discussion. First, I…

Thursday, September 10, 2009 Yes work will be good for you. Some times "we" think too much. I know I do. Instead of living in the moment we project our fears into the future and create a reality that doesn't exist. Then we hold on to resentment and regrets from the past. When we do this we can't experience any peace today. We must let go of the past and realize our future is in the now. What we choose now effects our future. Therefore we need to train our minds to focus on what is in front of us now. Do the next right thing. Whatever it is. Just treat people like you want to be treated.…