There has been some back-and-forth in the comments of my blog, and I wanted to let the discussion out for a bit more air.

Jason has been arguing that he thinks that Sam Harris fails to make the case for a scientific morality.

I think my criticism is more damaging to Harris' argument than you acknowledge. He defines "the wrong values" as "values which lead toward, rather than away from, the worst possible misery for everyone." He says this is necessary, or else "ought" has no meaning at all. That is the foundation he wants to establish for his scientific morality. It's not enough to just have something everybody agrees is bad: Harris needs to establish a method for analysing all moral conflicts. We could all agree that torturing and killing small children in front of their parents is bad. That does not establish a scientific basis for making moral judgments. -- Comment on Going from Is to Ought

It's a common criticism of Sam's talks and his most recent book, The Moral Landscape.

I think Sam's next move (and mine because I'm sympathetic to his cause), would be to ask by way of analogy whether nutrition, or health, is something that lends itself to the scientific method?

Can science tell us that eating vegetables and exercising is healthier than a sedentary lifestyle with a diet of Twinkies? Is that a scientific question? Can it be addressed with the scientific method? I think the answer to all of those questions is "yes".

Now, to argue by analogy with morality:

Can science tell us that educating children in compassion is more moral than torturing them? Is that a scientific question? Can it be addressed with the scientific method? I also think the answer to each question is "yes".

All that's required for the scientific method to be able to answer the health question is that we can recognize that dying at a young age of obesity-related heart disease is at the "unhealthy" end of the health spectrum.

Ditto for morality. If we can recognize that the worst possible suffering for all conscious creatures is at the "immoral" end of the moral spectrum.

If you think that that recognition is an unscientific move, then can you come up with a scientific endeavor under your definition?

Just to tip my hand about where I'm headed with this argument:

If you want to argue that there is an element of arbitrariness to say that the science of morality is about avoiding "the worst possible suffering for all conscious creatures". I'd argue that it is just as arbitrary to say that the goal of the science of physics is about accurately describing and predicting the states of matter and energy of the universe.

I wrote a previous entry which was based off a comment I sent to a theologian that I've been chatting with. He responded to me here.

Theologian RD says: Mathematics maps onto the world but our intuition of which mathematics maps on is not infallible. The problem is with Conversational Atheist's apparent view that mathematics does not map onto the world at all. That's the view that needs defending.

Whether mathematics maps onto the world is a very interesting question. Of the infinite number of mathematical models that are able to be constructed, a few map onto the world in very useful ways. If you come up with a mathematical model, the question immediately becomes: DOES your abstract mathematical model map onto the world?

Re-read a section from the comment that prompted this entry:

Conversational Atheist says: However, Einstein, placed in a box before the first experiments in quantum mechanics were done, would never end up CONCLUDING Quantum Mechanics. He might, given infinite time, detail hundreds of thousands of possible physics on small scales [mathematical models] that includes our modern conception of QM, but he would be in no position to choose one from the others with any confidence at all. He might even pick what he thinks is the most beautiful physics at small scales, but what counts is not beauty or arguments, per se, but whether his physics [mathematical model] matches reality. -- Emphasis and [mathematical note] added

What counts is whether your mathematical model matches reality. That's the $64,000,000 question for a physicist. Long ago a person could have come up with the mathematical framework of modern day quantum mechanics by doing math. Lots of math. Now, that person hasn't done PHYSICS unless he is either consulting data others have taken, or going out and doing experiments himself.

To answer some of your questions raised in the entry itself:

RD: How do we gain knowledge of this realm? That appears very mysterious, indeed somewhat revelatory.

Are you equally perplexed by how we gain knowledge of chess? It doesn't seem very mysterious to me. We consider the relationships and interactions between entities in chess-space. Are these relationships, rules, interactions all contained in a self-consistent chess-realm similar to the relationships, rules, and interactions in the self-consistent mathematical-realm? Yes. Does this mean that there is a supernatural chess-realm, mathematical-realm, tic-tac-toe-realm, and scrabble-realm? Um... only in the most abused sense of the word "supernatural". The chess-realm does not exist in any physical way.

Is the pawn, real? Well, you can hold a wooden piece in your hand that people call "pawn", but then you should realize that you are just holding a representation of a pawn. Does this upset anyone? It shouldn't.

Is 7 real? Well, you can hold 7 apples in a bag and call it "seven", but then you should realize that you are just holding a representation of a number. Does this upset anyone? Apparently, yes.

RD: Second, what is the ontological status of this realm?

I'd say that mathematics has the same ontological status as the game of chess.

RD: And if you accept the existence of abstract numbers and their relations which are irreducible to and independent of the physical world, what about other entities like souls, spirit beings, and God? What rational reason does Conversational Atheist have to believe the supernatural realm, like the natural realm, does not far transcend his limited experiences?

If a pawn is irreducible to and independent of the physical world, what about other abstract entities like souls, spirit beings, and God? -- Sure. I'd say they have the same status as "real pawns". Could there be a supernatural pawn out in the "vast supernature of things that I don't fully comprehend"?

Sure. He might be playing Chinese Checkers with God and the Easter bunny.

But seriously, considerations in the fully abstract might have something to do with external reality -- but you have to actually check to have any confidence that your favorite abstract reasoning maps onto external reality in a useful way.