Can science teach us anything about morality? Are facts and values two separate realms? Patricia Churchland discusses what neuroscience can teach us about morality in this episode which was originally released on Bioethics Bites. Bioethics Bites is made in association with the Uehiro Centre and with a grant from the Wellcome Institute.
Listen to Patricia Churchland on What Neuroscience Can Teach Us About Morality
Listen to an earlier Philosophy Bites interview with Pat Churchland on Eliminative Materialism
With respect to Patricia Churchland, I did not hear a single successful argument in this podcast that supports the idea that Neuroscience can say anything about morality.
It seems to me that the value of neuroscience is in describing facts to inform philosophers about the way things are, so that they can make up actual arguments for the way things should be. This does not at all say that neuroscience says anything about morality unless when you look at the data provided by neuroscience, you already have presumptions and hidden premises before hand.
Humes point stands, you cannot get an aught from and is.
Posted by: Munashe the Cheetah | November 21, 2012 at 09:13 PM
'It seems to me that the value of neuroscience is in describing facts to inform philosophers about the way things are, so that they can make up actual arguments for the way things should be.'
I wasn't aware that you could 'decribe' a fact,but explain one.Given that neuroscience and the cognate disciplines contribute to a holsitic and or integrative philosophy of mind, in whatever capacity this is in. Even if the purpose (which is what I believe you intially intended to say as opposed to the 'value') was to 'inform' philsophers ,it would not be detrimental to philosophy or science, if this was the case.
I believe philosophers arguments are not included in experimental design.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2013 at 08:24 PM