Writing Scala is, as a matter of fact, one which can be analysed, critically, unethical.
-
His conjectures on objective morality are interesting, but the scientific method requires proof. I have seen no objective measure of good vs evil, or positive and negative state of mind. The fact that he admits most intellectuals don’t agree with his conjecture says a lot!
No, the scientific method requires evidence. There is a critical difference. The fact that many people disagree says nothing. Most people disagree that Scala is a total waste of time. That's because they are demonstrably wrong. This fallacy can go and on, and on.
-
-
Technically true, I used the wrong terminology. I'd love to see some scientific evidence then, can you point me at any?. Sam Harris' argument really boils down to traditional secular moral reasoning, nothing more.
-
The fact that many people disagree doesn't mean much, but the fact than many experts in the field disagree, and have valid and logical arguments about why they disagree does.
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.