you said, 'you have to recognize the limits of science'. Since you are certain that science has limits (based on what evidence?) please state examples of phenomena which are intrinsically beyond the capacity of science to explain. And please give your evidence for that claim. Also, remember that the success of science is fundamentally measured by its power to predict outcomes based upon data and the models and equations developed to explain the measured data.

remember that we should be talking about the scientific method, not about scientists. both scientists and philosophers can be arrogant, misguided assholes because humans are all flawed, weak, and irrational. but the scientific method is designed to overcome (collectively and over time) precisely the pitifully foolish, limited, and irrational nature of weak-minded human beings. philosophy by its nature never makes progress. the scientific method realist in continuous expansion of knowledge and predictability. please address the real issue - not universal human weakness but the best methodology for understanding the nature of the world (of which, human minds are a part).

sam harris tried to outline a framework for studying morality and values, which he called 'the moral landscape'.

it was ridiculed and dismissed pre-emptively and reflexively by lots of scientists and all philosophers, but without actually examining his argument.

please discuss harris' moral landscape framework.

thanks,

greg slater

It is not clear that science can or cannot ever have a theory of moral value, or explain emergent phenomena, but we can say definitively that philosophy never can give a definitive theory.
so, we can give an endless list of the accomplishments of science in explaining the world, but can you give a single example of a definitive accomplishment of philosophy or religion in explaining the nature of the world? I don't think so. philosophy and religion are always reacting to the latest discoveries from science and desperately re-working their doctrines to keep up with science.
can it possibly be you and Pigliucci fail to recognize this?
- Greg Slater

Pigliucci, without apparently realizing it, just made the case that philosophy (at best) is like mathematics in that you can have any number of mathematical theorems derived from certain postulates, but which say nothing predictable about the world, only that they have self-consistency (though, see godel, of course).

I did not read the previous comments on this post. I shall try to keep my own brief. Firstly, I do not know that science has a lock on acquisition of genuine knowledge. There are many facts which are obtainable, without resorting to scientific method and inquiry. Those who are anti-science may argue the over-reach viewpoint. They may be doing so, however, based on some system of ethical or moral belief, arguably unrelated to a scientific approach. As a practical matter, any notion of curtailing science is passe in a modern world. There is too little to gain; too much to lose...

I hope science One day finds wisdom too. =

Looked back at what I wrote in 2018. Thought about the original question on overreach. Inasmuch as a lot has happened, I wonder if that question was the wrong one. Should it rather be asked: Is overreach by science beneficial of harmful, or do the benefits outweigh the harm? I guess, technically, those are two questions?

Humanity is dependent on science at this point. Without the Haber-Bosch process to fixate nitrogen, we wouldn't be able to feed ourselves. With this process alone, science has perhaps over-reached by allowing human populations to grow unchecked.

I know this isn't what is being discussed, but when human activities like this become so vital, they tend to over-reach. Agriculture would be a similar type of behavior.

This podcast, however, is talking about scope. Greg above has asked some excellent questions. I'm no Sam Harris fan, but I intend to delve into that to answer Greg's request to discuss Harris' moral landscape framework. It is interesting if categorically faulty.

The fact that people like Greg and others can be so taken in by Harris is science over-reach to an extreme. With science comes a commitment to reading the textbooks, papers and doing the work. Belief in science without learning has serious founding issues. Science and math are not fundamentally sound in a Godelian sense. The rewards come from understanding and building on the work of others. Insert shoulders of giants here. Blind faith in science is going to get us in profound and deep problematic if not fatal space. It already has. Let's call that over-reach if that will help.

These are heady times for science. SARS2, genomics, CRISPR Cas9 ... so many wondrous learnings are coming. I'm hoping we don't lose our humanity pushing on at Elon speeds with Zuckerberg's ethics. That also would be over-reach.

Good show. I wasn't happy with the lack of response to some of the callers. Current pre-recorded methods are integrating listener feedbacks into discussion flow. Please don't ignore odd questions... that is where the beauty lies.

Tim:
Found your comments helpful. I think your assessment regarding dependence is especially spot on.
We find utility where we may, and create it when we must.

Did not find a post where this comment might fit. Inasmuch as Harris' name arose here, thought it the best venue. In his recent podcast. Sam talks about some confusions. The post parodies, or appears to do so, John Searle, by presenting a sketch of his face in a cloud...the picture coming from the cover of one of Searle's books.I said I found the representation offensive. Doesn't matter much, I
suppose.. But, I find it offensive. And, my opinion is unnoticed. Others, with whom I have disagreed, are fair enough. This is comforting. I guess my best point is: John Searle has/had a successful life as a philosopher. If Harris, or anyone else, seeks to discredit him, this must be due to their own insecurity or wish to advance their own agenda. IMHO, There it is, then. This is not simply a matter of philosophy. IT asks questions. Then, it does not like the answers. Argues with itself. Drags down its own. Crabs, in a bucket...Is that all we've got?