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. =