Search Episodes
Listen, Share, & Support
Listen to the latest episode
Subscribe via iTunes
Subscribe via RSS
Become a fan
Follow on Twitter

CHOOSE MEMBERSHIP LEVEL

E-mail Updates

Enter your e-mail address to receive updates about the Rationally Speaking podcast and NYC Skeptics

Related Readings
  • Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life
    Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life
    by Massimo Pigliucci
  • Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
    Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
    by Massimo Pigliucci
  • Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
    Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
    by Massimo Pigliucci
Sunday
Nov042012

RS73 - Live! Answers for Aristotle

Release date: November 4 2012


Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life In this episode Julia interviews Massimo about his new book, Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life. Massimo's central idea is that a combination of science and philosophy, what he calls "Sci-Phi," is the best guide to the big questions in life, from issues of morality and justice to the meaning of love and friendship. The book's title derives from the fact that Aristotle was the first philosopher-scientist, adopting the sci-phi framework and posing a number of questions with which we are still struggling. What is the best way to live one's life? What sort of society do we want to live in? How do we relate to our friends and loved ones? Two and a half millennia later, modern science and philosophy have come up with some of the answers to Aristotle's questions, or at the least with a better way to think about them.

Reader Comments (7)

I have surprisingly found myself in an e-mail dialogue with a Senator from Iowa while talking about voting, I mentioned that there are more effective methods of voting (because I'd heard it on here just hours before this e-mail correspondence began). Can you guys post me some links to the data Massimo eluded to when he mentioned those more favorable voting systems, and in particular whichever is "objectively" the best (if I remember hearing him correctly)? I'll be forever grateful! Thank you :)

November 5, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterChance

@Chance, I didn't listen to the episode yet, but there is no voting system that's objectively the best. Rank order systems aren't totally fair because of Arrow’s impossibility theorem. Range voting gets around it, but it can degenerate into plurality voting if people just give their top choice the highest score and all other candidates a zero. In addition to maximizing fairness, you also have to keep it simple enough for old folks in Florida to use.
In any case, it's good to know that a senator is interested in this stuff. Is it Harkin or Grassley?

November 6, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterMax

Hmm I've embarrassed myself it seems. Mark Chelgren is the "Senator"'s name, though apparently he's not a senator in the sense you are referring. He signed his name "Senator Mark Chelgren" and I knew nothing about who was actually a senator in Iowa (I also know virtually nothing about how our government offices are arranged), hence my mistake in calling him a Senator in a misleading way.

I brushed over Arrow's impossibility theorem on wikipedia but couldn't really follow what would be wrong with it. Thanks for the help anyway, Max! I'll get caught up on this stuff eventually.

November 6, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterChance

Massimo: I don't know how often you read comments, but in the case that you read this one, I have a question for you. You say that ethics is less about providing answers, and more about thinking or reasoning our way through things of ethical import. In your view, then, what distinguishes meta-ethics from ethics proper?

November 8, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterArmando

Regarding the trolley/train thought experiment: another reason people are more inclined to divert the train away from 5 children toward the 1 person rather than push somebody off the bridge onto the tracks is because that guy is SITTING ON THE RAILROAD TRACKS! He's already putting himself in danger by his reckless behavior and practically asking for it! In fact, so are the 5 children (unless they've been put there by Snidely Whiplash) - tell me their parents never told them to stay off the railroad tracks. The guy on the bridge isn't doing anything wrong and you are injecting him into a situation he otherwise wouldn't be involved in.

November 9, 2012 | Unregistered Commentertwh

@Chance
Ok, he's a state senator.

@twh
That may be a small part of it, but you'd also steer a crashing airplane away from a populated area into an unpopulated area, even if the few residents there did nothing wrong. The intuition is that it's bad luck that the plane happened to be heading toward the populated area when the engine failed. It could've just as well been heading toward the unpopulated area, so why leave the number of casualties to dumb luck?

November 10, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterMax

This was a really good episode. Very thought provoking and it has sparked a number of conversations around my home. It is unfortunate that Massimo repeated the now largely discredited story that Isaac Newton's Shoulder's of Giants quote was intended as an insult to Robert Hooke. Read in context this seems highly unlikely. I think that such remarks should be analyzed skeptically before being repeated.

But I still really enjoyed it.

November 15, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJerry

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>