Kuba Adamów

Defo Scottish. Sounds like a Southern Highland’s accent but has lived in the central belt (between Glasgow and Edinburgh). Or the other way around. Could be wrong. It’s not particularly strong. By this I mean, completely understandable without strain or effort. Had a plumber in from Glasgow last year, I had to ask him to repeat himself three times…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
The reactor in that last video has a thick accent, as you noted. Can you place it? I’m pretty sure it’s some British regional dialect from the main island or one of the other British Isles (not Ireland, of course).

The guy is from Scotland.  Beyond that, I don’t know.  @davis could tell you.

Unseen wrote:
Philosophy can help you decide what goals are worthy (“If medicine is in short supply, what is the best, most just, way of distributing it?” “How important is setting up a base on Mars vs. alleviating suffering on Earth?”)

But you have to admit, philosophy cannot actually tell us the definitive answers to these things.  Evolutio…[Read more]

Evolutionary ethics is philosophising about science.

Unseen wrote:
It’s the difference between “is” and “ought.” Sociology finds out what is the case. Moral philosophy asks what ought to be the case.

It’s a neat distinction, yet philosophy can’t tell us what we ought to do.  It can tell us what we ought to do if we have certain goals.  Science comes up with those goals.  Is that science or philosophy?

Science and Philosophy have some overlap but are absolutely distinct. Even within Philosophy and Science there are so many different fields with different aims and methodologies.

Science deals with both the physical and the pure sciences, both practical and theoretical. Science heavily influences other STEM subjects (maths, engineering) as well…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Sociology may discover that Spartan society killed deformed male babies without asking if that was really right.  Philosophy asks if a society’s moral system is really right.

Society gets into the question of what a society’s moral system is.  Philosophy looks at that result and asks if it’s justified.

OK, but those are example…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
If that were true, what would the function of philosophy be, then?

I don’t know, it’s hard to tell the difference.  They both derive abstract patterns from the data (theories or hypotheses).  Is it the subject matter?  Is it the technique?  I would venture that science is about the physical world, and philosophy seeks to explain the…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Your scientific methods can only pin down morality with a historical asterisk attached to it.

I can back up the philosophy with scientific data and theories.

Philosophy and science both aim to construct a description of the world, do they not?

Unseen wrote:
“Morality” is a philosophical concept at heart.

It’s also a scientific one.  Is there really a difference?  I think the philosophy needs the science to philosophise about.

I don’t believe the OP was asking a philosophical question.  It’s a physical or scientific explanation that is required.

Unseen wrote:
I’m sorry, but any highbrow discussion of the philosophical foundations of morality collapses in my mind as soon as the word “foraging” crops up.

Is that what is required, though?  To ask where it comes from can mean a number of things.  This is a scientific explanation of the evolutionary forces that gave rise to it (hypoth…[Read more]

This OP is actually a very relevant question.  Where does morality come from?  The hard-won answer is manifold:

1. risky foraging niche of humans

2. requires cooperation to survive in

3. cooperation requires morality to regulate it.

Those are the external factors that give rise to morality.  There is also an internal factor, that you could sa…[Read more]

“Influence” on how people decide to live their lives, infers “choice”. Is choice meaningful or not Pope? If it is not, then influencing someone’s choice is not meaningful either. This is not rocket science.

PopeBeanie wrote:
Logic tells me it doesn’t exist, but feelings tell me it does. I see no reason to deny my feelings, while I’m happy to tell my logic to sit this one out.

What if the factors that compel us to act this way or that, are way below or outside our comprehension?  So we feel like we have free will, but are actually pushed around by f…[Read more]

There is no superficiality about it. If one argues others have no choice to have done but what they have done, have no agency, it is absurd to then, in the same book, go on to try and influence their future choices/agency. The only way around that is magical thinking or special pleading.

If we don’t have free will, we are not responsible for our…[Read more]

I remember reading Sam Harris’s atrocious book on free will. In the first half he dismisses free will. In the second half he talks about how we “should” look at the world in a different way. And then advice about how to best live your life. He still stands by it. One half of his book talks about how we have no choice but to do what we do, and then…[Read more]

There is a common concern that without free will there’s no accountability. Nonsense. We will go on holding people to account because we have to, in the sense that this is how we respond to acts that displease or enrage us. We respond in this way because we have to. Literally. We have no real choice but respond that way.

That’s such a cop out. B…[Read more]