After watching a debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig I decided to examine Harris' The Moral Landscape (2010) to discern whether or not the characterisation of it by Craig was accurate. While I assumed Craig was being his usual distortionist self I was actually wrong in this case. Having made it most of the way through (I find the book rather dense in the 'you never really get anywhere' sense so it's slower going than usual) I certainly believe it merits critical examination. For that reason I will post my examination of it once finished.
By way of lead up I have also been looking at reviews of Moral Landscape. Some of these arrive at similar conclusions to those which I have about the book (mainly negative) and will be addressed as part of the full post. One point I though merited direct attention was a pro-Harris retort from Chris Hallquist [1]. Regarding a comment made by Massimo Pigliucci, Hallquist writes:
"The snark that Harris just doesn’t know any philosophy (“I suggest that Harris would benefit from reading about it” – Massimo Pigliucci) is simply false. Harris did his bachelors in philosophy, and emphasizes in a footnote that he’s read quite a bit of the philosophical literature but just doesn’t think discussing it all would’ve made for a good book."
In the context of scholarship and intellectual debate asserting that you're "read quite a bit" is insufficient. Usually a writer is required to show (that is, evidentially prove) they have a firm grasp on relevant literature. Given Harris' general disdain for philosophy he omits a great deal of said literature that would otherwise be relevant. Even if he wanted to say it was garbage he would still be required to make that case. Therein lays one of the great issues of the book: it is assertive rather than evidentiary. Not very scientific. . .
If we actually look to Pigliucci's review we see that the above quote has been taken out of context. In context, Pigliucci writes:
"So, how do we ground moral reasoning? This is the province of a whole area of inquiry known as metaethics, and I suggest that Harris would benefit from reading about it." [2]
He isn't talking about philosophy in general but a specifically relevant field within it. Harris largely shows only an awareness of the 'big names' of philosophy which would be the expected extent of a bachelors degree in philosophy. Much more would be expected if someone were to be granted status as an authority or relevant voice on a topic. Since Harris speaks of 'moral experts' he clearly possesses the concept of expertise but falls short of justifying his status in that regard. Also, I can't help but wonder how a man with no qualifications beside said BA came to be a PhD candidate in neuroscience.
Further discussion shall need to wait until a future post.
1 http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/01/11/whats-wrong-with-sam-harris-the-moral-landscape-review/
2 http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/about-sam-harris-claim-that-science-can.html