This is how things ought to be, alas it isn’t. But since that is a problem of valuing the truth over comfort/ideological purity/faith/tribal loyalty/etc., it’s well worth fighting the good fight over.
Exactly. Science can’t define values, but if it doesn’t inform judgments you wind up with stupidly formed bad judgments. If the science is telling you something that conflicts with your accepted beliefs, then your beliefs are wrong.
Didn’t you hear that Sam Harris solved this is/ought problem in The Moral Landscape and finally put Hume to rest? It was easy since he used Utilitarianism as an assumed framework to prove it. 
Yup! That’s exactly where this goes. This is just the image that will have a lot of text associated with it, and actually you described it better than I had in my draft!
Yup! And in the co-opernation standpoint, we’re just going with ‘if you don’t like it, then try something new, you can always come back’
Yup, I think I’ll be going with @Kimmo’s observation and be changing the ‘needs science’ and incorporating ‘thinking responsibly’ (which is actually the file name of the visual)
This topic was automatically closed after 262 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
