Oh my, I thought I was done for a while chastising skeptics like SamHarris on the relationship between philosophy, science and morality, and I just found out that my friend Michael Shermer has incurred a similar (though not quite as egregious as Harris’) bit of questionable thinking. As I explained in my review of Harris’ book for Skeptic, one learns precisely nothing about morality by reading The Moral Landscape. Indeed, one’s time on that topic is much better spent by leafing through Michael Sandel’s On Justice, for example.
What is the evidence for a distinction between synthetic and analytical truths? Is it impossible that what appears to be pure logic has arisen as such due to the idiosyncrasies of our particular empirical reality?
Also, Harris is definitely the weakest of the Horsemen, especially given his recent pro-gun insanity.