@SamHarrisOrg @lance_farrell Sam, do you think is/ought is a false dilemma?
-
-
Replying to @JeffNippard1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
-
Replying to @SamHarrisOrg
@SamHarrisOrg@lance_farrell if you release a new edition of TML will you elaborate on this point? (because it is a weighty claim)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JeffNippard
@JeffNippard@SamHarrisOrg@Lance_Farrell Sam argues: 'Is' claims can't be made unless we accept certain 'ought' claims,e.g valuing evidence2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @theandrewglover
@theandrewglover@samharrisorg@lance_farrell I mean, on what grounds should we just "accept" certain ought claims?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JeffNippard
@JeffNippard@SamHarrisOrg@Lance_Farrell It sounds like you're asking: 'what evidence can you provide to suggest we should value evidence'?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @theandrewglover
@JeffNippard@SamHarrisOrg@Lance_Farrell The answer to the question, and a visual description of the argument would be as follows: "O"1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @theandrewglover
@theandrewglover@samharrisorg no I am asking how, if what you said represents Harris's view, his morality can be grounded ontologically2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JeffNippard
.
@JeffNippard If you can't base your morality on how the universe IS, just what can you base it on?12 replies 25 retweets 37 likes -
Replying to @SamHarrisOrg
@SamHarrisOrg That is, the objective universe doesn't seem to care about our health.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@b_danyluk ... and how one navigates between them will be entirely constrained by the laws of nature.
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.