dinsdag 3 juni 2014
Er is een winnaar in de wedstrijd die Sam Harris had uitgeschreven en waar ik heb aan deelgenomen.
Uit het juryrapport (Er werd gejureerd door Russell Blackford):
"The criticisms put forward in the essays varied considerably, although there were some popular themes. Some entrants attacked the validity of The Moral Landscape’s central argument as Sam represented and summarized it on his website in announcing the challenge. For me, this raises an interesting question as to whether the book’s actual argument may be more complex and subtle than the website suggests. Even if the argument as presented there is invalid, that is not necessarily fatal to the book or its overall thesis."
Even in herinnering brengen:
1. You have said that these essays must attack the “central argument” of your book. What do you consider that to be?
Here it is: Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds—and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, fully constrained by the laws of the universe (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science (in principle, if not in practice). Consequently, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life.
"Ben" ik een slechte verliezer?
Mijn God nee. Ik leef !
(ik zou ook nooit een gelukkige winnaar "zijn")
"The book's actual argument may be more complex and subtle than the website suggests."
I think Sam Harris will rephrase this as:
"The book's actual argument must be more complex and subtle than the website suggests."