Science and morality – a panel discussion

This is the panel discussion at the Great debate “Can Science tell us Right from Wrong?” (See Telling right from wrong? for more details of this debate and workshop).

The panel includes Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Patricia Churchland, Lawrence Krauss, Simon Blackburn, Peter Singer and Roger Bingham. They respond to questions from the audience (and the size of the audience for such a subject is heartening).

Their interaction is useful as it helps to overcome any misunderstanding any participant may have had about others points of view. Its a useful supplement to the individual presentation I have posted during this week (see Telling right from wrong – unreligiously, A philosopher comments on science and morality and A physicist comments on science and morality).

This video is 42 min long.

TSN: The Great Debate Panel, posted with vodpod

Similar articles

Related articles

• Telling right from wrong? (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• A philosopher comments on science and morality (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• A physicist comments on science and morality (openparachute.wordpress.com)

A physicist comments on science and morality

Another video from the Great debate “Can Science tell us Right
from Wrong?” (See Telling right from wrong? for more details of this
debate and workshop).

This time a physicist, Lawrence Krauss. He is always a stimulating speaker.

He starts by claiming that it is impossible to tell right from wrong without science. And then goes on to explain. I find myself agreeing with a lot he says.

Listen for his explanation for the intriguing slogan on his T-shirt.

Again, only 14 min long.

TSN: Lawrence Krauss, posted with vodpod

Lawrence Krauss is a Foundation Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Department of Physics in ASU’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. He also is director of the ASU Origins Project. He is the only physicist to have received the highest awards from all three major U.S. professional physics societies. His popular publications include “The Physics of Star Trek,” “Quintessence,” “Atom : An Odyssey from the Big Bang to Life on Earth…and Beyond,” “Hiding in the Mirror: The Quest for Alternate Realities, from Plato to String Theory (by way of Alice in Wonderland, Einstein, and The Twilight Zone),” and due out in 2011, “Quantum Man: Richard Feynman’s Life in Science (Great Discoveries)” and “A Universe from Nothing.”

Similar articles

Related articles

• Telling right from wrong? (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• A philosopher comments on science and morality (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• Can science shape human values? (openparachute.wordpress.com)

A philosopher comments on science and morality

Here’s another video from the Great debate “Can Science tell us Right
from Wrong?” (See Telling right from wrong? for more details of this
debate and workshop).

It’s the presentation by Pat Churchland. She is a philosopher who gives qualified support to the concept that science can tell us right from wrong. Its interesting because she does spend some time discussion issues which probably concern many people about this suggestion. Things like the possible arrogance of such decision making and the fact that scientific knowledge is not absolute. Her presentation, which is only 13 min long, also outlines the origins of human morality.

TSN: Patricia Smith Chuchland, posted with vodpod

Patricia Smith Churchland is a Professor Emerita of Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego. She is also an adjunct faculty member at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. Her research focuses on the interface between neuroscience and philosophy. Her books include “Brain-Wise: Studies in Neurophilosophy,” ”Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain” and “On the Contrary: Critical Essays, 1987-1997,” with husband Paul M. Churchland. Her newest book, “Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality,” is due out in spring 2011.

Similar articles

Related articles

• Telling right from wrong? (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• Waking up to morality (openparachute.wordpress.com)

Telling right from wrong – unreligiously

Stephen Pinker participated in the Great debate “Can Science tell us Right from Wrong?” (See Telling right from wrong? for more details of this debate and workshop).

His answer to the question was “Yes and No!” His wasn’t placing a bet
each way – just stressing that the answer depends on how “science”
is defined. Science interpreted in the narrow way it normally is
can’t answer these questions. However, it can – if science is
interpreted to mean “unreligion.” And many people is this debate do
interpret science that way. Pinker starts by explaining how
religion cannot tell us right from wrong. He then goes on to argue
that why while science, determined narrowly, can’t either it has
helped us make these decisions. Its an interesting presentation -
only 12 mins long.

TSN: Steven Pinker, posted with vodpod

Steven Pinker is Harvard College
Professor and Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard.
His research is on visual cognition and the psychology of language.
Among his books are “The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language,” “How the Mind Works” and “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.” He has been named Humanist of the Year, and is listed in Foreign Policy and Prospect magazine’s “The World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals” and in Time magazine’s “The 100 Most Influential People in the
World Today.” His latest book is “The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature.”

Similar articles

Related articles

• Telling right from wrong? (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• Can science shape human values? (openparachute.wordpress.com)

Another local climate change denial meme

I commented in Painted into a corner? that the release of NIWA’s report of the recalculation of New Zealand’s 7-station  long term  temperature series had called the local climate change deniers’ bluff. It was time for them to apologise, withdraw their slanderous attacks on NIWA and move on.

Yeah, right! That may have been the sensible thing to do, but of course they are in it for the politics, not the science. So the attacks continue.

Gareth at Hot Topic has an excellent summary of the action (see A Christmas cracker for the cranks). And of course the denier trolls have descended on his post with quite hilarious arguments. One is their claim “this new series shows no warming has occurred here since about 1960.”

Well, of course the series shows nothing of the sort. They appear to basing this incorrect claim on a paragraph in the report which says:

“The unusually steep warming in the 1940-1960 period is paralleled by an unusually large increase in northerly [air] flow during this same period. On a longer timeframe, there has been a trend towards less northerly flow (more southerly) since about 1960. However, New Zealand temperatures have continued to increase over this time, albeit at a reduced rate compared with earlier in the 20th century. This is consistent with a warming of the whole region of the southwest Pacific within which New Zealand is situated.”

Never the less these trolls and their public spokespersons, Richard Treadgold and Brian Leyland are working hardto push this meme. And they claim support from their “eyeball” analysis of the graph in NIWA’s report.

But all the data is available (Seven station data and 11 station data) and anyone can do their own analysis to check these claims.

Wine and the Watchtower

This photo has always impressed me. A fantastic view from the International Space Station. Locals will recognise our prime wine growing areas of the Wairarapa, Blenhiem, Nelson, Waipara and Canterbury.

It also reminds me – I saw some god botherers in our street the other day. They stand out like a sore thumb, don’t they?

However, they must have got the message. They seem to have stopped knocking on my door.

Thanks to Pundit Kitchen: Would You Like A Copy Of The Watchtower?!

Similar articles

It’s that time of the year

Book review: Christmas – Philosophy for Everyone: Better Than a Lump of Coal. Scott C. Lowe (Editor), Fritz Allhoff, Fritz Allhoff (Series Editor) Stephen Nissenbaum (Foreword)

Price: US$15.56
Paperback: 256 pages
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell (October 19, 2010)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 144433090X
ISBN-13: 978-1444330908

OK, this book is topical. Not only because of the timely subject. It’s also  appropriate to review now because it’s the sort of book one might consider giving or receiving as a present on Saturday. And it’s the sort of book one might enjoy reading next week.

Well, it’s obviously not your usual philosophy book – it’s far more approachable. It is, after all, part of the “Philosophy for Everyone” series. In fact, the philosophy is not obvious in some articles – it looks more like common sense. And the approach is slightly ‘tongue-in-cheek,’ especially with the essay titles and the notes on contributors (called “Santa’s Elves”).

A handy app for your iPhone, iPod touch or iPad

If you often find you read articles on the Richard Dawkins’ Foundation web site, watch videos or listen to audio on the site you might find the iPhone app useful. And it’s only NZ$1.19.

It provides access to all that useful material direct from your iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad. With it you will be able to read articles, watch videos or listen to interviews while filling in time at the dentist’s waiting room.

For those who don’;t normally look at that site – why not try it. it’s not a Richard Dawkins fan site. More a collection of material of interest to people interest in science, reason and atheism.

The screen shots below give an idea of the material the app makes available.

See: Richard Dawkins for iPhone, iPod touch and iPad on the iTunes App Store.

Similar articles:

A philosopher’s Christmas present

Here’s something for readers interested in the philosophy of science. A special issue of the journal Synthese with a collection of papers discussing evolutionary science and the opposition to it.

And the Christmas present? These papers are freely accessible and pdf forms downloadable up until the end of December. ( Important point for those of us who aren’t institutionalised).

Worth downloading and to read over the holidays. And if you get an eReader as a present this will give you plenty to start with – more than 220 pages.

The papers can be accessed an downloaded at Synthese, Volume 178, Number 2.

The journal Synthese covers topics of Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science.

Content of special issue:

EVOLUTION AND ITS RIVALS

Introduction: Glenn Branch
Can’t philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited: Robert T. Pennock
Are creationists rational?: John S. Wilkins
Foiling the Black Knight: Kelly C. Smith
Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s “complex specified information”: Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit
Design and its discontents: Bruce H. Weber
The science question in intelligent design: Sahotra Sarkar
Intelligent design in theological perspective: Niall Shanks and Keith Green
The non-epistemology of intelligent design: its implications for public policy: Barbara Forrest
Evolution and atheism: Has Griffin reconciled science and religion?: James H. Fetzer

Similar articles

Painted into a corner?

Looks like the local climate change deniers/sceptics/contrarians have painted themselves into a corner. Their bluff has been called and any honest person would now acknowledge their error, apologise and move on.

This all started with the local “Climate Science Coalition” and their blog site “Climate Conversation Group” releasing a report, “Are we getting warmer yet?” last year to coincide with all the media hype over “climategate”.  This report was shoddy – the author Richard Treadgold first denied any scientific input or review and then claimed he had a team of scientists who “wished to remain anonymous.” One of the Coalition’s members, Vincent Gray, acknowledged reviewing the document but admitted that he had missed the basic error in the report – the claim that no adjustments were required for site and other changes.