Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on September 05, 2011, 08:04:12 PM

The scientific method provides the best of any method, because it has no assumptions, it does not require any supernatural belief in unprovable things such as the invisible hand or god(s)

Well, invisible hand of the market can be a useless concept, or outright wrong, but it's not supernatural. I agree that it can be made into something supernatural when used out of context.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on September 05, 2011, 08:04:12 PM

On of the many proofs that others methods we used don't work just as well with societies at large, is that we have more than enough food for everybody. Such a disgraceful misallocations of resources is the result of economic and political activities, deciding what's best for their self-substantiation, and not for the people at large.

I'm not sure what methods you talk about (skimmed through the thread, so I'm guessing), but arguably they involve other values than the well being of society at large. In fact, I think even you would have higher values than that. For me, the misallocation is in fact disgraceful because it prevents humanity from achieving what I think are higher goals. My antipathy towards unnecessary suffering is therefore indirect, as indirect as my antipathy towards unnecessary luxury, both of which are tautologies since I am the one who defines what's necessary (or what's misallocation). This may seem redundant but I see that the free market discussion boils down to this simple nuance.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on September 05, 2011, 02:21:57 PM

Quote

If you get down to the science of it, we do everything to produce some types of neurotransmitters. Even eating is to achieve that "goal". You then end up with the brave new world.

Not in anything that resembles a serious scientific model, such as the Biopsychosocial.

Biopsychosocial model is indeed useful. What I'm worried about is that these models can be brought out of their scope. They are not science, they are helpful for science. If you get results that are useful to reach a certain goal, it's fine. If you use them in a normative manner, or in place of the unknown or unknowable facts, that's a fallacy that paves the way to dystopia. Biopsychosocial model is a perfect path into the Brave New World.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on September 05, 2011, 02:29:14 PM

Scott Atran is a very intelligent person, I saw his argument against Harris years ago at the Beyond Belief conference, here's a backup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VWO6U6248c

However, it deals pretty much only with the comparison to religion, and the sole real line of argument is that he's not sure such a worldview would generate more happiness, compassion or peace, meaning that he agrees these are desirable conditions to strive for.

So far, I see no real argument against using science to maximise well being, as opposed to... what?

I think the argument is not about using science to maximize well being, it's about what we know, what we don't know and what we can't know. "Not being sure" is the key to scientific discipline, and I think Atran's examples and heavy scientific language is to present what science actually looks like. Sam fucking Nobody is a dangerous person and if Hume was alive, he would beat him with a stick. Wink

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on September 05, 2011, 02:29:14 PM

And, in any case, whatever the goal, I am discussing the method, not the goal itself (for now).

I think the discussion of method is secondary to the goal. Do we want to feed everyone? Do we want them to be happy? Do we want them to live longer? Do we want them to be free? These may not be mutually exclusive but certainly are not the same thing. Also, do we have a goal as humanity other than being here until the next impact event? I don't think any of the methods presented are inherently unscientific, they just serve different purposes. I might be wrong though...