He has not responded to the review to my knowledge.
Note: in my opinion, this review is hardly even worth responding to. Pigliucci uses the word, ‘seems’ over and over which seems that if he indeed read it, he read it poorly, failing to understand the thesis enough to accurately iterate it, and proceeds to waste the readers time with unctuous annotations about harris’ regard for metaethics and similar approaches to discourse. As a philosopher in part, pigliucci is apt to be incensed by harris, because part of the aim of the book was to start a conversation concerning the science of morality that the layman could have a shot at participating in not to water it it down, but to allay the unnecessary complications that tend to accompany discourses about moral questions once metaethics and the like are brought into it. And seeing as how pigliucci’s kneejerk reaction is to make a weak assumption that harris doesn’t give a damn about moral philosophy, it may be just as well, that massimo cuts himself out of the conversation.
Pigliucci fails to make or at least note, the distinction between the sciences, and the first principles of science; curiousity about the natual world, respect for evidence, intellectual honesty, logical consistency and parsimony, tools which in short enable all the other tools we use in our understaning of the universe and the excercising of our reason, whether or not we are neuroscientists or philosophers.
This review was extremely dishonest.
‘of course, that’s just my opinion i could be wrong.’