Pseudo Science, amatuer philosophy!
by Evarist K on July 27, 2011Sam Harris claims in the book that science can be a better source of morality than religion but I never saw how science generates morality. All he does is to explain the states of the brain when somebody carries out certain behaviors. When it comes to explaining the actual source of different behaviors, instead of grounding it in real science, as he seems to claim in his thesis, he resorts to philosophy, especially epistemology and metaphysics.
Maybe Mr. Harris' book will be able to appeal to (or should I say confuse?) those who have no knowledge of philosophy and make them think that he is explaining morality scientifically but to us who are philosophers, he is just a parrot bully. Parrot because while he seems to claim originality, all he does is recycle the philosophies of utilitarianism and hedonism and then combine them to give them the name "WELL BEING". This is crafty plagiarism!
Besides, Mr. Harris is inconsistent when he tries to play philosopher. For instance, he denies that human beings have free will and yet invites us to hold people accountable for their actions. What an absurdity!
You're signed up (and we ♥ you). Watch for our Welcome e-mail and your first coupon. Thanks!