John Hamby has a Ph.D. in Psychological Foundations of Educations from the University of Florida. Now retired, he was a teacher, principal, and college professor. He helped found the National Dropout Prevention Center at Clemson University and served as its assistant director for five years. Dr. Hamby’s academic interests include child development, learning, motivation, and valuing. He has read widely in religious scholarship, especially the origins of Christianity. He has been a member of the Skeptic Society for twenty-five years.
In his March 25, 1965, speech on the steps of the Montgomery, Alabama, capitol building, after a five-day march for civil rights, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously proclaimed: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”1 Most students of morality have focused on the latter part of that statement—the arc bends. But how do we influence that bending and why does it seem to bend so slowly?
This article provides three possible reasons along with examples: (1) disagreements among scientists and philosophers over facts and values; (2) the multitude of individuals who reject some or all of the results of scientific research; and (3) differences in individuals having differing perceptions of reality. Several suggestions are presented to mitigate these issues so the moral arc can bend more rapidly.
Disagreements About Morality
That there is much disagreement among scholars studying morality should not surprise anyone. Here is how the political scientist and philosopher George Bragues describes the problem (in a review of Science and the Good by James Hunter and Paul Nedelisky):
[D]isagreement still prevails on even the most basic moral questions, despite two and half millennia of reflective effort by Western philosophers. No knock-down argument, no decisive piece of evidence, has yet been produced to firmly establish a theory of ethics.2
Many disagreements separate scientists and philosophers. A major difference centers on these questions: can science and reason serve as the foundation of morality and, more specifically, should science even be involved in questions regarding morality? Can moral questions be tested by the scientific method?
A new breed of scientist—called the new moral scientists—are attempting to revitalize previous efforts to construct a long-sought science of morality.3 These new moral scientists are interested in how innate characteristics interact with cultural and educational factors to influence moral thinking and behavior. They employ the most advanced technology and research methods. They study babies, psychopaths, serial killers, Nazis, and chimpanzees, and they use fMRI scanners, internet surveys, agent-based modeling, and ultimatum games.4 Much of their work is focused on the evolutionary origins of instincts, intuitions, predispositions, and neural correlates of morality. Jonathan Haidt has called this “the ‘golden age’ and ‘a new synthesis in ethics…an age of consilience’ among social psychologists, cognitive neuroscientist, primatologists, developmental psychologists, experimental philosophers and economists.”5
In Science and the Good, Hunter and Nedelisky disagree with these new moral scientists, as evident in the book’s subtitle: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality.6 They argue that the empirically-derived moral concepts being put forth by the new moral scientists leave out too much of what true morality is about. They believe that moral concepts that capture real morality derived from history, literature, poetry, philosophy, sociology, and religion are not empirically detectable. They believe that the new moral scientists have produced only a descriptive science of thought and behavior that really says nothing prescriptive about how we should act.
The sociologist Gabriel Abend argues that the modern technology and research methods used by some neuroscientists and psychologists have restricted their research to ideas of what he terms thin morality, such as social norms, rather than what he calls thick morality—concepts such as dignity, integrity, cruelty, and exploitation.7 He believes that studying such things as innate and universal moral concepts is easier than studying thick concepts.
The psychologist Marc Hauser also rejects the idea that scientific reasoning can lead to a science of morality, because humans have an evolutionary-based instinct that determines moral judgments independent of experience, gender, education, culture, or religion.8 The philosopher and bioethicist Brian Earp contends that science, whose role it is to describe nature and develop laws about the workings of nature, cannot inform us about right and wrong, because questions about how we should live fall outside the domain of objective science.9 The philosopher of mind Jan Slaby takes a similar view in his review of books by the new moral scientists, concluding that he could find little factual grounding to support many of the value judgments these authors presented.10
Michael Shermer especially has been bombarded with criticism for his views expressed in his book, The Moral Arc.11 Shermer defines morality as “how we think and act toward other moral agents in terms of whether our thoughts and actions are right or wrong with regard to their survival and flourishing.” (Italics in the original.) He states that his aim is to show that the moral arc bends toward justice, and that it can be traced through empirical data from many lines of inquiry. He contends that people are more moral than ever, and that most moral development of the past several centuries has been the result of secular forces, the most important of which have been science and reason. Shermer believes that there is an empirical basis of morality by saying that most people would rather live and flourish than to suffer and die. He claims that these preferences are universal and part of human nature and, therefore, are open to empirical study. Science and reason can not only play a major role in determining moral values, but they can also provide provisional moral principles that serve as a foundation for a more peaceful and civilized society. Examples of the types of disagreements philosophers and writers have with Shermer’s views include the following.
Marc Hauser agrees with Shermer that the moral arc might be guided by reason, but he is opposed to the idea that the moral arc has been and will continue to be guided by scientific evidence.12 In her review of The Moral Arc, Sally Satel argues that science can’t determine values, but can only find better ways to achieve outcomes.13 By doing so, however, science cannot determine which outcomes people will desire, however. Satel takes Shermer to task for presenting definitions and concepts that depend on philosophical issues rather than empirical data.
Massimo Pigliucci argues that science can study evolutionary-based instincts to see where they come from, and that science can determine how our brain functions when making moral decisions, but that only moral philosophers can determine when moral reasoning is logically sound.14
Shermer has replied to these criticisms on a number of occasions,15,16,17,18 and in a forthcoming book he presents his most comprehensive and empirically-based rejoinder to his critics.19 Here are several examples of his arguments. He explains how there can be moral facts without reference to divine commands, and he defends the position that the survival and flourishing of individual sentient beings can be the foundation for establishing values and morals. Shermer has been particularly criticized for using philosophical premises as his starting point for scientific arguments, thus violating the Is/Ought Naturalistic Fallacy. He answers this criticism by utilizing what he calls “a public health model of moral science” as an analogy for moral reasoning. Science has made outstanding progress in public health over the past two centuries so that more people in more places are now healthier and long-lived. Therefore, the way something is (diseases cause suffering and death) means that we ought to prevent them using all the medical technologies at our disposal. Analogously, Shermer argues that the way nature is (individuals struggling to survive and flourish in a multi-faceted environment) guides us to the way it ought to be (given a choice, it is more moral to act in a way that enhances the survival and flourishing of other sentient individuals).
Sam Harris has also garnered abundant criticism. In his book The Moral Landscape,20 Harris provides a definition of morality similar to, but not as specific as, Shermer’s. He believes that the only way to understand morality is to find the degree to which actions increase or decrease the “well-being of conscious creatures.” Harris’s concept of well-being includes health, happiness, relationships, and anything else we might value. He argues that questions about moral values can be understood as facts that can be scientifically studied. He goes so far as to say that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science.
As with Shermer, Harris is soundly criticized by a number of scientists and philosophers. The cosmologist Sean Carroll, for example, gives three reasons why morality cannot be part of science, and provides three arguments to make his point: (1) there is no single definition of well-being; (2) well-being is not the proper goal of morality; and (3) there's no easy way to combine well-being over different individuals all over the world.21 The philosopher Massimo Pigliucci contends that while science has a tangential role, ethical questions are essentially philosophical in nature, not scientific.22 He asserts that Harris’s disregard for this distinction is a disservice to both science and philosophy. Pigliucci particularly upbraids Harris for saying that moral judgments are a kind of fact, and, thus, amenable to scientific inquiry, which he says is a clear violation of Hume’s Is/Ought Problem. Bioethicist Brian D. Earp argues that science cannot tell us what is right or wrong, or how we should live, because these are value judgments that fall outside of the domain of science.23
Harris has responded to these criticisms.24,25 Against the criticisms that science has nothing to offer the study of morality, Harris states that morality and values are dependent on conscious minds; that conscious minds and their functions are natural phenomena that can be studied like any other natural phenomena; thus, the study of morality and values falls within the domain of science in its broadest sense. In his response to other major criticisms, Harris explains his arguments against the restrictions imposed upon scientific study of morality by the Is/Ought Problem, and he reiterates his belief that morality can only be understood by determining the extent to which actions increase or decrease the well-being of conscious creatures.
Taken together, these criticisms and retorts, along with debates on related issues, highlight just how much essential disagreement remains among moral scientists and philosophers.
Rejecting Science
A second reason why I believe that the arc bends slowly (and science has trouble making it bend faster) is the extent to which many individuals reject the findings of scientific research. Philosopher Lee McIntyre believes that such rejection poses a lingering problem everywhere.26 For example, in a survey across 23 countries concerning COVID-19 vaccinations, Jeffrey V. Lazarus and his colleagues found that only 75% of respondents were accepting of vaccines.27 The remaining 25% were skeptical of vaccines, stating that they were unsafe, not effective, posed a risk, and/or were being promoted by untrustworthy governments and health officials. Two separate polls showed that between 34% and 44% of Americans believe that no significant global warming had occurred over the last 100 years.28
When a Gallop poll conducted in May 2024 asked respondents about their belief concerning evolution” 71% believed that God played a part, 37% said that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago, while 34% believed that humans evolved but that God guided the process. Only 24% said they believe that humans evolved and that God was not involved.29 McIntyre’s book on rejecting science,30 and Shermer’s book on conspiracy theories,31 provide additional evidence of scientific findings that many individuals refuse to accept.
The Individual
In The Moral Arc, Michael Shermer insists that the individual is the moral agent, not the community. I want to describe some ideas about the individual harvested from the field of life-span human development that might provide some insight into why the moral arc bends so slowly and why science and reason advocates struggle to speed moral progress. I derived the following definition of development from the findings of a variety of theorists, researchers, and practitioners—behavioral, cognitive, humanistic-perceptual, developmental, neurological, and others:
Development represents the changes over time in the biopsychological structures and functions of the human organism as a result of genetic forces interacting with environmental influences as the individual attempts to adapt to the environment in an effort to survive.
Individual human existence is unitary, so we should view human characteristics as existing along dimensions rather than as dichotomous categories. Humans are biopsychological creatures. I define biological as the physical, hormonal, neuronal aspects of the body that don’t require thought, or even consciousness to function, and are, therefore, not very amenable to learning. I define psychological as those mental processes, both conscious and unconscious (including thought, memories, sense of self, and so forth), that are more susceptible to cultural and educational effects. It is difficult, and, in some cases, impossible, to determine where biological functioning ends and psychological functioning begins. For humans are concerned, there is no psychological without the biological, while from an individual perspective, biological without psychological is meaningless.
The Environment
I use the term environment in this context as anything outside or inside of us with the potential to affect our actions. I divide the environment into four parts, because we interact differently with these features: natural environment (all things not made by people); cultural environment (anything people have created or devised); social environment (people and animals); personal environment (feelings, thoughts, memories, bodily sensations, etc.). Throughout the remainder of this article, I will include to these four divisions as simply parts of the environment.
Survival
Given a unique, developing individual interacting with a varied and constantly-changing environment, the underlying motivational energy of the human individual derives from its built-in, genetically-programmed struggle to survive. For Michael Shermer, survival and flourishing are the cornerstones of his definition of morality. I agree with Shermer about his emphasis on survival, but I want to add another component to his concept. I contend that we should view survival along the biopsychological continuum. It is true that the individual strives to prolong biological existence. It is also true that the individual struggles to protect and preserve a psychological sense of self as well. Psychologists Arthur Combs and Donald Snygg believed that the most basic need of humans is the preservation and development of an adequate “self.”32 The concept of self is as controversial today as it was when Combs and Snygg advocated for it.33,34 However, there is something happening in our brains that makes us seem to have sense of self or self-consciousness. Cognitive neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene contends that self-consciousness is part of the higher-order neuronal activity we call consciousness, and that it is bound closely with what he calls “language of thought.”35 Whatever this “self” is, it allows us to talk and think about ourselves and about others.
According to Lee McIntyre, this ability allows us to posit a special identity to ourselves.36 He believes that individuals can find an identity in a political party, a church, a school, their family, their job, or with any other group or institution. Each of us has a physical body that while similar to all others in species-specific ways, is, nonetheless, distinct. Just so, each of us has a unique set of psychological characteristics called the “self” that is just as much a part of us as our physical body.
Adaptation
Biopsychological survival is achieved through adaptation, the dynamic interaction whereby the individual changes the environment and is changed by it. My concept of adaptation is partially derived from Jean Piaget’s concepts of equilibrium, assimilation, and accommodation.37 As newborns are bombarded with environmental information, they begin to construct ideas, categories, beliefs, values, etc., about the world. As they are confronted with new information, they can adjust what they know, or they can transform the new information so it fits into what they already know without making significant change. Because of heritable personality traits, some people tend to develop an experimental approach to environmental information, keeping a portion of their beliefs open to change. Others tend to solidify their beliefs early, making them less likely to adapt to new information and to change their view of the world. Regardless of how we respond to environmental information, we are constantly trying to change the environment to produce biopsychological comfort, safety, and security. This moment-by-moment interaction continues throughout life.
Meaning and Values
As we interact with the environment we are inundated with a myriad of external and internal information. We not only attempt to identify this information; we want to know what it means to us. We determine meaning through an affective valuing process. I contend that we are born with a “stimulus evaluation system” that allows us to determine the degree to which something is enhancing or threating to our biopsychological survival (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: A stimulus is anything in the environment or inside an individual (including thoughts) that impinges upon the individual. Each person judges (places a value on) stimuli as to the degree to which they are enhancing or threatening to his or her biological or psychological survival. Once this judgment is made, the person attempts to move away from threatening things and toward enhancing ones. Valuing is a process. A value is the belief that something is either threatening or enhancing and the individual’s decision about what to do about it. It must be remembered that the degree to which something enhancing or threatening is a function of individual perception.
Dehaene describes it as a specialized process of evolved neural networks that constantly monitor incoming stimuli and assign positive and negative values to them.38 As we grow, mature, and have experiences with the environment, we come to develop a storehouse of affects and information based on personal experiences and what we have been told about things that are threatening or enhancing. Richard Firth-Godbehere, a psychologist who studies emotions, states that these affects “aren’t emotions, but, rather, judgments of value that create pleasant or unpleasant sensations in the body, either making us excited or calming us down.”39
Affective meaning, then, is the worth or value something has for our biopsychological survival. Objects, events, situations, and conscious thoughts are not inherently valuable to us; we must assign value to them. I propose that what we commonly call a value is a belief about whether something is enhancing or threatening to our biological or psychological survival. (Of course, for some biological threats and enhancements, the body acts automatically to deal with them.) Furthermore, a moral value is a belief about what is right or wrong, good or bad. Although humans are born with certain predispositions to develop beliefs we call moral, most moral beliefs are learned like any other type of belief.
Perceived Reality
As we interact over time with our environment, we slowly develop a personal view about what we think the world is like. The philosopher and consciousness researcher Anil Seth calls reality “controlled hallucination,” and that what we perceive is not a true account of reality.40 Our brain actively constructs our inner version of what reality is like. According to Seth, “We don't just passively perceive the world. We actively generate it.”41 The world we experience comes as much, if not more, from the inside out as from the outside in.” Also, because each of us has a slightly different brain and our experiences differ, so our brain-based construction is different.
Neuroscientist Jeff Hawkins calls this our “model of the world,”42 while Snygg and Combs label it the “phenomenal field”—our subjective reality and the world of which we are aware.43 I call it “perceived reality.” I would add that perceived reality includes what we believe about ourselves and our relationships to the environment. According to neuroscientist Miguel Nicolelis, on a moment-to-moment basis, we compare our perceived reality with new information to reshape our world view as well as update our sense of self.44
Perceived reality is extremely important for understanding individual behavior, why we value things differently, and why we have varying beliefs about moral behavior. Individual perception of the world affects behavior, and, thus, how well we adapt. Also, it doesn’t matter whether or not something is actually enhancing or threatening to an individual, it’s the person's perception of things that is important. Furthermore, although survival is the basic motivating force in human behavior, individuals may differ as to what constitutes survival. They may have similar goals in mind, (freedom, rights, justice), but differ greatly in how to define them as well as what actions they should use to achieve those goals.
Differences in perceived realities among individuals, and thus groups, can cause conflicts, because what people believe is not just a matter of content, but also a matter of the affect connected to that content—that is, the feelings, emotions, and values bound to objects, events, thoughts, people, ideas. I propose that most conflicts between individuals and groups are, in fact, conflicts between value-laden perceived realities.
I suggest that the moral arc bends slowly, and that science and reason may not be able to make it bend more rapidly, because: (1) differences among scientists and philosophers about what morality is, how to study it, and how it develops; (2) the swarms of science deniers; and (3) differences among perceived realities of individuals about what is enhancing or threatening and about what survival means, how to attain it, and how to preserve and protect it. Taken together, these differences combine to keep the moral arc bending more slowly than any of us would like.
Is there a solution to this conundrum?
Disagreement Among Philosophers and Scientists
Massimo Pigliucci contends that, in spite of the significant differences between science and philosophy, a combination of the two is the best approach for “a more rational and compassionate humanity.”45 John Rawls believes that we can teach people to be fair by having them pretend to sit behind a “veil of ignorance” that allows them to ignore who they are and their own personal circumstances.46 If scientists and philosophers employ this approach, maybe they could decide to compromise and come up with some agreed-upon definitions in the study of morality. Instead of pressing for a science of morality, would it be possible for scientists to work together with philosophers to develop a “theory of morality” that would include the best of philosophy and science? And, given the findings from empirical studies in neurology, psychology, and child development concerning the evolutionary predispositions toward moral behavior, is it possible that insistence on Hume’s Is/Ought Problem is actually a stumbling block to collaboration?
Shermer makes a very important point related to the concept of morality, namely, we are social creatures and morality has to do with social interactions.47 In dealing morally where others are concerned, we must be able to see things from their perspective if we are to foster cooperative and reciprocal behavior. Shermer emphasizes Steven Pinker’s principle of interchangeable perspectives as one avenue to accomplish the goal. This is similar to the Golden Rule, but it’s a fifty-fifty proposition. I like to think of it as the Golden Rule Plus—a sixty-forty perspective, with me taking forty and you taking forty, with both sides being willing to give up more than they receive. This approach might allow scientists and philosophers to more readily cooperate rather than compete in order to achieve more mutually-beneficial outcomes. There are many questions and issues that scientists and philosophers must cooperatively consider if progress is to be made in bending the moral arc.
Dealing with Science Deniers
Lee McIntyre believes that science and reason are important in studying morality, but that science denial is a lingering problem everywhere.48 However, he contends that people can be convinced to change their minds based on facts if we understand that emotions are important in people’s decision-making. McIntyre observed that the reason many people distrust science is because science doesn’t make them feel the way their own beliefs do. Research by psychologist Liane Young suggests that at least some moral judgments are driven by emotions.49 To change the beliefs of those who deny science, it may be necessary to appeal on an emotional level as well as a cognitive one. Evidence from research by Michael Spezio, Ralph Adolphs, and their colleagues suggest that both information and emotions are required for the formation and modification of beliefs.50
This is important, because research suggests that education alone is not sufficient to change some beliefs. Psychologist Vladimir Hedrih reports research indicating that education and cognitive abilities are not related to social intolerance.51 Low social intolerance is found more often in people who are inflexible and insistent and, thus, are more likely to be prejudiced against others with different political, religious, sexual, and ethnic attitudes and life styles. Social intolerance is associated with cognitive styles, so it might be beneficial to pay attention to how an individual processes knowledge.
It is also possible that science deniers believe that science is threatening to their core beliefs, including their moral convictions (note how the theory of anthropogenic global warming became politicized after Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, thereafter bundled with the Democratic Party as a “liberal” belief). Holding onto and protecting those beliefs is enhancing to them, however unscientific, inaccurate, or absurd. Personal beliefs become a basic part of an individual’s identity. Their beliefs, including their values and morals are, to a significant degree, a deep part of their identity. Therefore, for someone to give up something by which they define themselves, for something quite different, can feel like losing an arm or leg.
David Dunning tends to agree with my assessment when he says that deep-seated misbeliefs may not arise from errors in thinking or intuition, but from the values and philosophies that define who individuals believe they are.52 When we tell them that their beliefs are wrong, they might not take it as a correction, but as an attack on their identity. When trying to change people’s beliefs and values, we must convince them that the change is more enhancing than threatening.
McIntyre thinks that when we try to change people’s beliefs, we should talk and listen.53 He recommends engagement on a one-to-one basis with trust and respect. He says we don’t have to agree with others, but we should treat them with compassion.
The Effect of Perceived Reality
Finally, individuals’ different perceived realities make it difficult to find common ground on what goals and actions are best for a safe and secure life, but researchers see a silver lining behind the clouds of doubt. Taking a tack from Charles Darwin, suggests that we teach generosity and altruism to our children at all levels of schooling, as well as try to convince adults that these character traits are worth the trouble.54 In other words, make acts of giving and caring enhancing to everyone. Anil Seth has conducted experiments that lead him to believe that people can learn to change their emotional responses and reactions to things they unconsciously perceive in the environment.55 So, although we might disagree with others, understanding that every human has a sense of morality, a cherished sense of self, and a set of values should help us as we try to convince them to cooperate to bend the moral arc toward justice—and to do so more rapidly. In the end, moral progress may come down to two simple acts: kindness56 and cooperation.57
References
1. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “How Long? Not Long” (March 25, 1965), Voices Of Democracy. https://t.ly/CNkhD
2. Bragues, G. (2020). [Review of the book Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality by J. D. Hunter and P. Nedelisky]. The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy, Volume 25(1), p. 1. https://t.ly/GYeWE
3. Hunter, J.D. and Nedelisky, P. (2018). Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality. Yale University Press.
4. “The New Science of Morality” [Seminar]. Edge, July 20, 2010. https://t.ly/WLBu7
5. Haidt, J. (2010, September 17). A New Science of Morality, Part 1. Edge. https://t.ly/dY6Qo See also: Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Pantheon.
6. Hunter and Nedelisky (2018), op cit.
7. Abend, G. (2011). Thick concepts and the moral brain. European Journal of Sociology, 52(01), 143-172. https://t.ly/7RJKW
8. Hauser, M. (2006). Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. Ecco/HarperCollins Publishers.
9. Earp, B. D. (2011, November 17). Sam Harris is wrong about science and morality. Practical Ethics. https://t.ly/YvyPj
10. Slaby, Jan (2013). The new science of morality: A bibliographic review. Jan Slaby.com MoralityHedgehohReview. https://t.ly/7rXD0
11. Shermer, M. (2015). The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity Toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom. St. Martin’s Griffin.
12. Shermer, M. (2015, April 18). Can science determine moral values? A challenge from and dialogue with Marc Hauser about The Moral Arc. https://moralarc.org/ https://t.ly/lKqVf
13. Satel, S. (2015). It’s getting better all the time: Review of Shermer’s The Moral Arc. The Wall Street Journal. https://t.ly/AhzXK
14. Pigliucci, M. (2018, April 30). Michael Shermer on moral philosophy, second round. Ethics: Footnotes to Plato. https://t.ly/DEUsy
15. Shermer, M. (2021, March 2). Can science discover moral truths? Henry Center. https://t.ly/v5PBR
16. Shermer, M. (2013). The is-ought fallacy of science and morality. Edge. https://t.ly/UcGAU
17. Shermer, M (2015, March 4). Counter refutation—Shermer responds to book reviews. https://moralarc.org/ https://t.ly/vbWw9
18. Shermer. M. (2018, April 19). Moral philosophy and its discontents. Skeptic. https://t.ly/CilIR
19. Shermer, M. (forthcoming, 2026). Truth: What it is, How to Find it, Why it Still Matters. Johns Hopkins University Press.
20 Harris, S (2010), The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. Free Press.
21. Carroll, S. (2010, May 4). Science and morality: You can’t derive “ought” from “is”. NPR, 13.7 Cosmos and Culture. https://t.ly/3OLr2
22. Pigliucci, M. (2011, February 2). Science and the is/ought problem. Skeptic. https://t.ly/6WLZK
23. Earp, Brian. (2013), op cit.
24. Harris, S. (2011, January 20). Response to critiques of the moral landscape. Podcast transcript. https://t.ly/S7iqD
25. Harris, S. (2024). Facts & Values: Clarifying the Moral Landscape. Podcast transcript. https://t.ly/3ynPj
26. McIntyre, L. (2021). How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Deny Reason. The MIT Press.
27. Lazarus, J.V., Wyka, K., White, T.M. et al. (2022). Revisiting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy around the world using data from 23 countries in 2021. Nat Commun 13, 3801, https://t.ly/ah059
28. Thayer, L (2023, April 20). Truth, lies, and the consequences of science denial. Association for Psychological Science. https://t.ly/VN6sV
29. Gallop (n. d.). Evolution, creationism, intelligent design. https://t.ly/8eGqW
30. McIntyre. (2021), op cit.
31. Shermer, M. (2022). Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational. Johns Hopkins University Press.
32. Combs, A.W. and Snygg, D. (1949). Individual Behavior. Harper and Brothers.
33. Himma, K. E. (2005). The problem of explaining phenomenal selfhood: A comment on Thomas Metzinger’s self-model theory of subjectivity. Journal Psyche, 11(5), 1-19. https://t.ly/xRT4t
34. Niebauer, C. (2023, June 9). Eastern philosophy says there is no “self,” Science agrees. John Templeton Foundation. https://t.ly/SYYpg
35. Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts, Penguin Books.
36. McIntyre, (2021), op cit.
37. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child, Orion Press.
38. Dehaene, (2014), op cit.
39. Firth-Godbehere, R. (2021). A Human History of Emotion: How the Way We Feel Built the World We Know. Little, Brown Spark.
40. Hernandez, S. (2022, November 22). Anil Seth: “Reality is a controlled hallucination.” Lab.Cccb. https://t.ly/O3cHr
41. Raz, G. (Host). (2018, October 5). Anil Seth: How does your brain construct your conscious reality? NPR: TED Radio Hour. https://t.ly/giweR
42. Hawkins, J. (2021). A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence. Basic Books.
43. Boeree, C. G. (1998). Donald Snygg and Arthur Combs. Webspace.Ship.Educ. https://t.ly/bgGFo
44. Nicolelis, M. (2020). The True Creator of Everything: How the Human Brain Shaped the Universe as We Know It. Yale University Press.
45. Pigliucci (2011) Science and the is/ought problem. Skeptic, https://t.ly/6WLZK
46. Veil of Ignorance. Ethics Unwrapped. University of Texas, Austin, (n.d.). https://t.ly/MkG4E
47. Shermer, M. (2026), op cit.
48. McIntyre, (2021), op cit.
49. Palmer, C. (2021, June 1). The science of morality: Liane Young’s Boston College lab explores how people interpret the moral actions of others and the brain regions underlying these judgments. APA. https://t.ly/ibYo9
50 Spezio, M. Adolphs, R., (2010). Emotion, cognition, and belief findings from cognitive neuroscience. CalTechAUTHORS. https://t.ly/9kYPk
51. Hedrih, V. (2023, February 9). Contrary to popular opinion, people with higher education level and cognitive ability are not more tolerant. Psypost. https://t.ly/Ctl_z
52. Nichols, T. (2017, March 2). How does the public view of science go so wrong? Scientific American, https://t.ly/IjiKg
53. McIntyre, (2021), op cit.
54. McCullough, M. E. (2020). The Kindness of Strangers: How a Selfish Ape Invented a New Moral Code. Basic Books.
55. Mediavilla, D. (2023, May 7). Anil Seth, neuroscientist: ‘The notion of the soul may already have outlived its usefulness’. El Pais English. https://t.ly/4TKHE
56. Kumar, A. (2022, December 12). Kindness can have unexpectedly positive consequences. Scientific American. https://t.ly/YLXLo
57. Curry, O. S., Mullins, D. A., and Whitehouse, H. (2019). Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 societies. The University of Chicago Press Journals. https://t.ly/I0m5B
“When we tell them that their beliefs are wrong, they might not take it as a correction, but as an attack on their identity.”
Well said. The issue of how our identities are formed and reinforced (or challenged) should be of great interest to those who want to persuade.
This is for michael on the drone story. What is a “laserstrike?”
Thank you
Dave milman