What Scientific Concept Would Improve Everyone's Cognitive Toolkit?

Recently The Edge published their annual Question, "What Scientific Concept Would Improve Everyone's Cognitive Toolkit?" which they posed to 164 people.

"The term 'scientific"is to be understood in a broad sense as the most reliable way of gaining knowledge about anything, whether it be the human spirit, the role of great people in history, or the structure of DNA. A "scientific concept" may come from philosophy, logic, economics, jurisprudence, or other analytic enterprises, as long as it is a rigorous conceptual tool that may be summed up succinctly (or "in a phrase") but has broad application to understanding the world."

Here are just a few excerpts that I think you might find interesting:

Sam Harris: We Are Lost In Thought

...Thinking is the substance of every social relationship and cultural institution we have. It is also the foundation of science. But our habitual identification with the flow of thought — that is, our failure to recognize thoughts as thoughts, as transient appearances in consciousness — is a primary source of human suffering and confusion. ...
...Our religions are clearly false, even if certain classically religious experiences are worth having. If we want to actually understand the mind, and overcome some of the most dangerous and enduring sources of conflict in our world, we must begin thinking about the full spectrum of human experience in the context of science.
But we must first realize that we are lost in thought.

P.Z. Myers: The Mediocrity Principle

...The mediocrity principle simply states that you aren't special. The universe does not revolve around you, this planet isn't privileged in any unique way, your country is not the perfect product of divine destiny, your existence isn't the product of directed, intentional fate, and that tuna sandwich you had for lunch was not plotting to give you indigestion. Most of what happens in the world is just a consequence of natural, universal laws — laws that apply everywhere and to everything, with no special exemptions or amplifications for your benefit — given variety by the input of chance.

Logical Fallacy Land Revisited

Last week I shared a crazy email I got from some crackpot (yes, that's a well deserved ad hominem attack there) trying to sell me noni juice.

Now, I think I can safely say that juice is good for you, to a certain extent. In many ways, it's way better to eat the whole fruit, because juice usually has a very high glycemic index since it no longer has any fiber in it, and usually has a lot of sugars that get metabolized quickly, spiking your blood sugar levels. But, most juice does have vitamins, some minerals, and antioxidants. While it's good to consume your vitamins and minerals in food, antioxidants have lately been under a lot of study, some positive, some negative. So while it's good to get them in food, it's probably not beneficial to go out of your way to consume huge amounts of them.

So noni juice, which comes from the noni tree in Southeast Asia, probably has some basic goodness to it. But it's not a miracle cure. See the above link to the wikipedia article that says that noni juice has never been proven to do much of anything and can't be sold as a medical cure for anything. It's just juice, people. Overpriced and sold as a multi-level marketing scheme.

The crazy email I shared the other day really tickled my funny bone because it was so ridiculous though. Some of you commented with great rebuttals (thank you very much!), but I thought I'd go through it myself with the name of the logical fallacy in bold after the false claim made. Here's the letter again:

I am an old guy who has lived in more places than most even visit, done more different types of things than most even consider doing, much actually less do. And I have had many more professions than most. (Appeal to Irrelevant Authority. So he's an active old guy who can't hold a job. Irrelevant)

Starting To See Moral Relativism As Clearly Flawed

Most people don't think much about morality, in my observation. They are given their morals from their parents, pastors, teachers, and peers, etc. They don't need to know terms like "moral relativism". I have done just fine for 41 years without ever thinking about the definition of the term.

I think even once you eschew God and the bible, unless someone challenges you, you'll still rely on your basic moral code which you got when you were younger (and probably indoctrinated). A lot of that might evolve into what "feels" like the right thing to do, more than what the bible said.

Then there are those who think about this sort of thing all the time. I'm not one of those people, normally. I don't like philosophy very much. I prefer science and testable claims to pontificating about things that can't really ever be known. But as I venture on my Quest for Knowledge, lately I've run into philosophy more often.

I've even subjected you to it, such as the whole Free Will vs Determinism argument (which I still have plans to continue).

I think we are best served with examining our ethical code and reevaluating what's in there and why. I did that some time ago with my personal Principles. It was a challenging but rewarding exercise.

Side Note: The Rationally Speaking podcast recently interviewed Joshua Knobe about his new field of Experimental Philosophy (x-phi), which was fascinating. Joshua even made them (and me) gasp with the results of one study that was very surprising! Here's a link to the episode.

The book club I'm in, as I've mentioned, is going to be reading The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. I lost interest in our current book, so I've started in on this one and so far Sam Harris is speaking my language, that science can determine values for conscious beings.

The following excerpt from the book shows what moral relativism basically is (the woman in it is definitely a moral relativist), and why it's clearly flawed. This is an anecdotal story from Sam. But I think it's quite important to share:

Excerpt from The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris. - Highlight Location 765-83 (chapter 1)

We already have good reason to believe that certain cultures are less suited to maximizing well-being than others. I cited the ruthless misogyny and religious bamboozlement of the Taliban as an example of a worldview that seems less than perfectly conducive to human flourishing.

The Moral Landscape: A First Look

I just started reading The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris for my local book club. I'm not very far into it. So far I'm just getting an idea of where he's coming from and what he proposes to convince me of as I read along.

Before I started reading, I listened to Professor Massimo Pigliucci and Julia Galef talk about the book on their podcast, Rationally Speaking episode 20, from 18:29 to 27:30. Both of them find fault in Sam Harris’ logic and principles.

Massimo also wrote a blog post back in April titled, About Sam Harris’ claim that science can answer moral questions. This article is based on the TED Talk that Harris gave back in February.

Massimo is a former scientist and is now a philosopher, so he is well equipped to address this subject.

I thought I'd share it and ask you, have you read the book? What do you think? Can science answer moral questions?

12 Questions About Morals By Sam Harris

Sam Harris wrote an article answering 12 questions relating to his book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, which is due to be released October 5th:

1. Are there right and wrong answers to moral questions?

Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world -- and there clearly are -- then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.

2. Are you saying that science can answer such questions?

Yes, in principle. Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors -- ranging from genetics and neurobiology to sociology and economics. But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world. Wherever we can have an impact on the well-being of others, questions of morality apply.

3. But can't moral claims be in conflict? Aren't there many situations in which one person's happiness means another's suffering?

Four Interesting Videos Supporting Reason

I have four videos to share with you, and they all have to do with Sam Harris, one of the Four Horsemen (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett are the other three). Remember the other day I posted the actual TED talk Sam did about science and morality.

The first video is on CNN Opinion and therefore it's just a link to its page. Sam talks to CNN (at the TED conference) about how religion discussions distract us from truly important issues. It's almost 4 minutes long. If you go there to the page, it has a lot of what he said under the video.

Project Reason, which Sam Harris helped start, had a video contest recently. So here are the winners.

Winning Video: The Values We All Stand For

Science Can Answer Moral Questions

Sam Harris gave a talk at TED recently and it's now available. He talked about morals and how science doesn't have to stay silent when it comes to what is best for conscious beings. It was very interesting. Please share it around if you like what he has to say. I'd love to hear your opinions in the comments. I agree with him.



About the talk:
Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.

Sam's project: Project Reason
His homepage: SamHarris.org