3/ And it can’t make sense of itself, by answering questions like “what is truth,” “what is knowledge,” “what is being,” and so on. To make sense of her science—as such, let alone in the scheme of wider life—the scientist must go beyond science. As we’re doing here.
That's what the discussions are for, yes. Was anyone arguing for following them indiscriminately? I thought the difference was over whether our evolved morality was enough to explain why we set moral premises & then seek facts about how to implement them.
-
-
Again, no need for any kind of ghost in the machine, or metaphysical entities.
-
No, not if you're just talking about evolved brains, culture (which is a lot of evolved brains negotiating with each other) & environment. I don't know why anyone would disagree with this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Of course our evolved morality is enough for that. But then you have reason and other cognitive processes, and morality is more than just a evolved moral sense + scientific facts to inform it. Even though it's also that, of course.
-
Yes, of course. Is anyone arguing otherwise? Let's clarify: Are you arguing that human moral values come from anywhere other than human brains & their evolved capacities expressed through language and mediated in groups in relation to other humans & things in the environment?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.