Talk:Sam Harris/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 18 August 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Bad and prejudiced writing

Just to exemplefy a fair rewriting of a section of the extremely biased and ungrammatical article:

Harris advovates that adherence to certain religious beliefs is a powerful indicator of the propensity to commit terrorism. Harris debated Scott Atran, a French-American researcher who has allegedly done fieldwork with terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists. Harris warned of religious dogma that called for its followers to practice suicide bombing as martyrdom. Atran offered data and statistics claiming to show religious belief is not a predictor of radicalization and terrorism.[7][8] Further, Harris has rhetorically asked: "Where are the Christian or Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?" The best Atran could offer was that Hindu Tamil Tigers (who are not Tibetan) have undertaken some 400 suicide bombings, or that the Japanese Kamikaze wereShinto/Buddhists or that a few Christians have carried out suicide attacks on behalf of the Popular Front For the Liberation Of Palestine despite the fact that suicide is a violation of every mainstream Christian doctrine (or that, in an unrelated claim Robert F. Kennedy was murdered by a Christian Palestinian[wp]). Moreover, Harris "never quite stoops to articulate why suicide bombing is objectively worse than more common variants of homicide like the monopoly enjoyed by Christians and Jews on aerial bombing which rubbles entire nations with far more loss of life than a semtex in a rucksack."This was probably because Harris believed the argument is obviously a strawman. Harris endorses bombing that will almost surely result in casualties of innocent Muslims (in Muslim-majority countries that is), declaring that both drones or units of Navy Seals conduct actual warfare: "you’re going to kill some number of innocent people and that’s terrible; and the terrible truth is there is no alternative to that."[9]Ariel31459 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The main article is total horse shit.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Passage

Though I'm no fan of Harris, I've removed the below rebuttal because the groups and people mentioned were all motivated by political causes, not religious ones. Harris is concerned that Islam has a tendency to lead people toward violence. The below rebuttal does not make sense because though these groups and people did/do subscribe to a religion, their religion was not what motivated them to violence.

"Further, Harris has rhetorically asked: "Where are the Christian or Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?" apparently not understanding that the Hindu Tamil Tigers have undertaken some 400 suicide bombings, or that the Japanese Kamikaze were Shinto/Buddhists or that Christians have carried out suicide attacks on behalf of the Popular Front For the Liberation Of Palestine (or that Robert F. Kennedy was murdered by a Christian Palestinian"

--CkkhxHHAdB5y (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And I've reverted you. What evidence do you present that Muslim terrorists are not at all motivated by political causes, and the cited groups are not at all motivated by religion? This is especially risible in the case of the kamikaze, because Imperial Japan espoused State Shinto and the idea of the Emperor as a living god whose duty it was for all Japanese to obey unquestioningly. --Ymir (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

See this article about Suicide Bombing. It begins by referencing a footnote in Sam Harris' book "End of Faith", where he acknowledges that the Tamil Tigers "were not fighting a religious war, but rather were part of an ethnic and nationalistic conflict". Apparently the footnote was put there by his editor because Sam says the footnote's clarification is irrelevant, because "though they weren't motivated by religion, their longstanding ethnic/nationalistic war produced something just like religion. Therefore religion is still the problem."

This is the rational wiki, so I hope you can recognize how bad that argument is and that he's just redefining his terms.

As the rest of the article states, there is lots of easy-to-find scholarship in the fields of history and political science that show that terrorism is rarely legitimately motivated by religion. Often religion is used as an excuse but 95% of the time, its really due to socioeconomic factors, like poverty and lack of economic opportunities, or a threat to their culture/way-of-life. Research has shown that terrorism is almost always an action of last resort, when a relatively weak group of people fighting against a large and powerful country.

If religion was what compelled those 4 groups to be violent, like some mental illness that was controlling their behavior, then their history of violence should be continual and constant. But Buddhists are famous for their peace. Non-aggression is one of the most fundamental tenements of Buddhism. That the Tamil Tiger's war was a political war motivated by a desire for self-determination is commonly known. Sam(who is not a historian) is the only person who disagrees with this.

For Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, go to their wikipedia page. The very first thing it says is it was a secular Palestinian Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary socialist organization. It had nothing to do with religion.

Sirhan Sirhan, the Palestine man who killed Robert F. Kennedy said "My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel and his deliberate attempt to send those 50 bombers to Israel to obviously do harm to the Palestinians." If he had said he was angry at Kennedy's support for the Jews, then that would make it easier to describe the assassination as motivated by religion...but he didn't.

Finally, Shintoism is possible an even more peaceful philosophy than Buddhism. In Shintoism, an abstract divine presence is worshiped that lives in nature, manifesting as rocks, trees, streams, ect. If Shintoism was a religion that motivated violence, then the Emperor, as a god himself, should have been constantly directing the country into war. But Japan has had long periods of peace and their invasion of China and the pacific during WW2 was due to threats to their economic wellbeing. The Emperor was a god, but he was also simply the emperor, and even Buddhist Japanese who did not follow Shintoism, were compelled to do whatever he said, because he was the supreme military commander. So there were multiple reasons to commit violence at his bidding, especially when the socioeconomic resistance of the country was threatened, and so its illogical to try to blame the violence, which happened in the middle of a war of survival, on the peaceful shinto religion.

Revert it or not. I don't care.

--CkkhxHHAdB5y (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Scott Atran

I think this sentence could be edited for clarity: "Atran countered with data and statistics that show religious belief is not a predictor of radicalization and terrorism." It's slightly misleading as to what Atran was actually saying, and what Harris failed to understand. Atran was pointing out that in terms of regression analyses, the data him and his colleagues have gained (and which is consistent with prior literature) shows that belonging to a social group based around productive action (support networks, sports teams) is a better predictor of whether or not one is likely to engage in jihadist action than merely being religious. Harris completely failed to understand the point that was being made here - it was not that jihadist terrorists don't have beliefs and ideologies, but that in order to make the leap from extreme religious conservatism to violent action, there needs to be something more. It's quite frustrating that Harris still thinks to this day that Atran was saying "soccer causes terrorism". Mycatsnameismittens (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Mind correcting the article and adding the above explanation (though slightly reworked from first-person talkpage text to article text)? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Done - edited for a bit of clarity and further highlighting the nature of the disagreement, which to my mind is based almost entirely on Harris failing to even make a good-natured attempt to understand what Atran is saying, and instead relying on misreading and caricature you'd expect from a tabloid journalist or talk radio host. --Mycatsnameismittens (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Source to mine

Sam Harris on Milo and the Alt-Right. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Harris an "hysterical bigot"?

Under the heading Anti-Islam or Islamaphobe?: On Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, someone wrote
"These views seem to fundamentally align Sam Harris not with progressives, but with the right wing, reactionaries, and true regressives. This is not because he criticizes Islam, but rather because his criticism is merely an intellectualized version of anti-immigrant xenophobia and crosses into bigotry based on religion. Criticism of Islam -- or any religion -- is warranted. Not warranted is Harris' hysteria about refugees posing a danger to your community (the fifth column/demographic ticking time bomb). Also unacceptable are notions that native born Muslims are spies and potential jihadis who need to be locked away (a la treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII). If anything, arguments like Harris' help to inflames [sic] religious fundamentalists of both Islamic and Christian varieties by giving Islamic extremists more fodder and Christian whackjobs an intellectual 'ally' in their hatred of other faiths." (emphasis mine)
This is just a laughably stupid collection of claims and characterizations, supported by nothing more than handwaving. Naturally, there are no citations to reliable sources provided to back any of these claims up; they're just pronouncements from some keyboard ideology-warrior, and an insult to any organ whose name includes the term "rational". Harris has never displayed any "hysteria" or bigotry. Pointing out that a percentage of Muslims will be jihadis is anything but a "notion"; it is a statistical fact. Harris has repeatedly made that statement and backed it up with both logic and supportive sources. The onus is on the jackanape who says "nuh-UH!" to provide evidence to refute Harris' assertions. Ockham (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Calm down, dude. You're taking things a little personal here (kind of a turnoff). Secondly, sure — there's certainly some nuancing to be done to this article. Like the article on Dawkins and Shermer, it was written by somebody who was rather pissed. But please don't pull the "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! gambit, or you'll have slid way off the track here (and it makes you sound pretty full of yourself dawg). So, for example, why don't you make some test edits on the article (without chopping it up into an editorial mess) and we'll see where that takes us? Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@RBP: "It was written by someone who was rather pissed." Pissed in the sense that they were more than a quart along at the time of writing it?Ariel31459 (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, drunks tend to be cheery, so that's prolly a negative. Could be an angry drunk, though. How could I know? Was I there? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you comfortable with the often hysterical social-justice virtue signaling in this article? Like most educated people, I have very little understanding of the views of Mischelle Malkin, who is what? A contributor to Fox News?Ariel31459 (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Islamophobia as a pejorative term

According the the DSM-5 Islamophobia is not a mental disorder as the term is popularly used in public discourse, e.g., the Sam Harris article in this wiki. The following excerpt shows why:

Diagnostic Criteria Based on criteria from the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013)

1) A persistent fear that is excessive or unreasonable, that occurs by the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation (e.g., flying, heights, animals, receiving an injection, seeing blood). 2 Exposure to the feared item or situation almost always leads to an immediate anxiety response, which may take the form of a panic attack. In children, the anxiety may be expressed by crying, tantrums, freezing, or clinging. 3) The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or out of proportion to the actual threat posed. In children, this feature may be absent. 4)The phobic situation(s) is avoided or else is endured with intense anxiety or distress. 5) The avoidance, anxious anticipation, or distress during the feared situation(s) interferes significantly with the person's normal routine, work (or school) functioning, or social activities or relationships, or there is marked distress about having the phobia. 6) The fear is persistent, typically lasting for at least six months. 7) The anxiety, panic attacks, or avoidance associated with the specific object or situation are not better accounted for by another mental disorder, such as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Separation Anxiety Disorder (e.g., avoidance of school), Social Phobia, Panic Disorder, etc.

It would be much better to use terms well understood as being pejorative, such as "skunk", "Mook", "Shit Heel," "Dirty Rat Bastard", etc., rather than presenting pejorative arguments couched in pseudoscientific terminology. It is an easy exercise, given the medical criteria, to establish that being a serious critic of X is never enough to diagnose an actual phobia with respect to X. Real fear and anxiety must be involved. I forget, was there not something in this wiki's mission statement about not liking pseudoscience? Ariel31459 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Today's use of islamphobia describes a moral panic. People probably mean anti-Islam instead of a mental disorder but are trying to use loaded terms to promote their cause.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 17:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been told by misguided progressives that there is no difference between anti-Islam and anti-Muslim. This lack of discrimination suggests a blindness to the real problem: criticism of the legal traditions and cultural restrictions of Islamic civilizations which cannot be teased apart from common religious practice.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, if you got some good sources for that, go right ahead and add it to the wiki! —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 18:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

And I've been told by misguided conservatives that me protesting both Islamist fundamentalism and Islamophobia means that I'm actually part of the problem and secretly in favor of a global caliphate, or something along those lines. I'm not even kidding. I think everyone who approches issues as complex as these with their splitting on autopilot will be frustrated fast. Yes, Islamophobia is very real, it's a despicable racist/xenophobic hate movement which causes real violence against innocents. No, Islamic teachings are not above criticism, monotheism does not make sense, Allah does not exist and I get to draw Muhammed if I want. But people seem to get lost along the way towards these fairly plain facts. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Islamophobia is real? Yes, in the medical sense. It is just very uncommon. In America, you would be more likely to be the victim of a hate crime if you were Jewish. Anti-Islamism is real, prevalent and unlike antisemitism which is more like a mental disorder, i.e. the delusion that Jews have the money, control all the banks, cause all the problems in the world, etc. The fear ( I prefer distrust) of Islam is based on the prediction that the presence of a majority Muslim population would cause a regression of the standards of western civilization making it compatible with Islamic civilizations which always present with theocratic cultural standards, both implicit and explicit: e.g., once you are in, like the Mafia, you can never get out again, alive. This prediction is not likely in America because of the American constitution, barring laws that favor one religion. It also may happen that Islam in the west adjusts to European traditions satisfactorily. It is my hope such a benign Islam would be warmly received. The phenomenon of Trump (fool that he is) suggests a true moral panic is in progress. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ideological Privilege Blindness

See the treatment of the above section for an excellent demonstration of ideological privilege blindness. Very similar to P.Z. Myers:

The Absolute Law

I AM THE BOSS, and don’t you forget it. I have sole and absolute power here; I can ban you, I can destroy your comments, I can shut down whole threads. I am a being of caprice; I don’t have to justify anything I do. So when I tell you to stop doing something, stop. Don’t argue with me. You don’t like that I banned your friend? Tough. Don’t complain to me. I will do as I will to make this place the kind of party I want to attend, and that’s all that matters.

This law supercedes all other rules. ---P. Z. Myers.............An heroic position for one in no danger whatsoever.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Harris or Malkin

This feels like quote mining, especially the quotes of 1-ish sentence, and especially since many of the quotes seem to be pretty old. The recent / in-context ones could probably be worked into a very solid section on Islamaphobia or potential Islamaphobia. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I support having this discussion, for starters. Harris has his set of certifiably stupid quotes, and they deserve attention, but the fact is that the article was written by his detractors. I mean, the guy's spent a lot of time dissecting Trump with quite some wit, and we're not even mentioning that. It all reeks of out-of-date New Atheist bash. Keeping in mind, again, that Harris has his set of certifiably stupid quotes, and they deserve attention. We're atheists and skeptics before we're political partisans. This fact seems poorly reflected in the current article. Stuff like this demonstrates the disaster climate in which the current article saw much of its writing. Even refering to the guy as a philosopher (not exactly a prestigious title, and TOW does it ffs) led to a Ruylong-level shitstorm-in-a-glass. *shudder* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Consider the first quote: "The only future devout Muslims can envisage — as Muslims — is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed."

Let me paraphrase, admittedly on the mitigating side, "Devout Muslims envision the future as the entire world united in the Islamic faith." The modifier "devout" can not be neglected here. Surely Reza Aslan is indifferent to such expectations. How do we suppose such devotees would hope to accomplish such an end? Polite conversation? The quote is qualitatively equivalent to the claim "Devout Catholics oppose abortion, and envision a world where it is not allowed." The quote may be offensive. I cannot see how it is likely inaccurate.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So, why did this section get removed? I liked linking to it as a quick explanation for those unfamiliar with Harris & why I might consider him odious, & it's not really clear from this log why it was apparently deemed unfit.97.119.205.78 (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Because Harris is taken seriously by American intellectuals. Few even know who Malkin is. And it is a serious case of quote mining.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictures

How do you add pictures like the one of Sam Harris here on this page? I don't get it. Is there a simple way to do it? JorisEnterStopBlockingMe (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The Alternative State of Harris

So we all know about the growing populations of brolibertarians, libertarians in general, randroids, etc. We know about this slow rightward shift over the past two or three years in many circles. Sam Harris has not escaped this although I do honestly think he was shocked by how large his following of alt-righters was. (And worringly, still is!) It's like someone popped his bubble or something.

To be honest, I think this is an example of the chickens coming to roost. Sam Harris has made a not-too-small part of his career on being 'that one atheist who agrees with us', much of his rhetoric is repeated by alt-right or those with alt-right sympathies. Even with his stated distate of them, they'll either excuse it in some way or say it doesn't matter because he agrees with their most deeply held beliefs that he helped stoke. This was probably years in the making. What I'm saying is that Sam Harris shouldn't be surprised by how nasty his fanbase is, and it might be worth putting into the article how some parts of his fanbase have taken his (admittedly already rather extreme words) and ran with them as well as Sam Harris' reaction to that. I can only imagine his horror realizing what he helped spawn. Hollow (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Libertarianism is not a right-wing ideology.

Please sign your comments with four tildes, BoN.

Also I've changed my mind. Harris knows fully well what he's doing and who he is courting, the Murray podcast makes it quite clear the direction he's going in and that he's aware of it. The podcast was not a debunking or a hard rebuke of Murray's poor handling of data or the weird sources or the conclusions drawn from it, he didn't have a long debate with Murray about it. It was a gentle "some of it's kind of weird but otherwise you were unfairly maligned by the terrible regressives who don't want to listen to your rational statements" I mean when he literally said 'The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists' in like 2006, we probably should have understood that. But no, we're just going to pretend Sam Harris is always being misunderstood. Because Sam Harris never says what he actually means, he just says things that sound really bad regardless of context and then he and his fans claim that it's not what he actually meant when he said the fascists are right. Sam Harris is increasingly moving to the fringe, and is taking much of the younger atheist community with him. Hollow (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

When he said "The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists", if you read it in context you will see the point wasn't "Go fascists!" but that it's a problem that liberals, whom he is more generally aligned with, are allowing fascists to gain credibility by not talking sensibly about the subject themselves. Regarding Murray, your summary is deliberately uncharitable. Murray was prevented from giving his scheduled talk, then he and university staff were surrounded by protesters, their car was blocked, and at least one staff member was physically attacked. This was at a university. You try to make it sound like the whining of someone with a victim complex, but the trend of refusing to allow people to talk if you think they might say the wrong thing, or even using violence against people you disagree with, especially in universities, which are supposed to be places of learning, debate and exposure to other ideas, is a problem that Harris is justified in criticising. 194.82.210.244 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point that Sam Harris can never be taken at face value, instead we must carefully consider the context of his words and the company he keeps, but only when his words look bad on him. Anything else we can take at face value because only then does he clearly mean what he's saying. His podcast with Murray was not a vigorous debate/talk on the nature of Murray's research, its funding conflicts, and the fallout of such research. It was a gentle rehashing with some very mild critique if anything. He presented Murray uncritically to his followers as another researcher unfairly maligned over good research. Hollow (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

So you mean we can't take one short sentence and infer everything we need to know about the speaker? That's a problem for you? You must be a fan of miniature books.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Harris knows full well what The Bell Curve advocates, and it's a 17th century belief that the poor are born that way and should stay that way. He never talks about the content of Murray's book, merely that somehow Murray has been de-platformed for it, when that is simply false. Harris likes to frame everything in the same vein as Dave Rubin: the left wing is too PC and we must somehow insist that right wing bigots are not right wing bigots, because Islam, somehow. This is the real Sam Harris, and it's high time we finally accept that. There's no more ambiguity when he defends and agrees with Donald Trump that both sides were violent at Charlottesville. This is unacceptable. This is inexcusable.Serocco 06:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

CJ-Moki has been edit warring with everyone, use the talk page please. Christopher (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What could I do to try and resolve the edit war? I'm unhappy with the current article, but I'm not looking forward to being involved in further warring. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Try and convince people you're right in this thread, it'll probably stay like it is now for a while though. Christopher (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

How long is "a while"? CJ-Moki (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I really feel like Harris' defense of the right wing (saying Milo is neither bigoted nor right wing), support of Charles Murray and the Bell Curve, his apologia on Cruz and Carson, and his ridiculous defense of Trump's "both sides" comments, are necessary because it delves into Harris' political views vis a vis Islam and so-called political correctness. I see no reason why they shouldn't be included. Serocco 01:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The tone of this article seems highly inflammatory, in a very non-rational manner. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not inflammatory. It is pointing out that, for instance, Harris said Milo isn't right wing or bigoted, except Milo was a Breitbart stooge who hates trans people (among many others). It's addressing the black spots of Sam Harris.Serocco 05:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Philosopher and Neuroscientist?

I take issue with the first sentence of this article characterizing Harris as a philosopher and neuroscientist when he is neither. Since when did receiving a Bachelors in Philosophy grant one the title of philosopher? Moreover, Harris' one supposedly "philosophical" work, The Moral Landscape, has been dismissed as a complete joke by academic philosophers (Harris' friend Daniel Dennett among them). Problems with Harris' one work in neuroscience is already well-documented on the RW article. Also, as far as I know, he has stopped conducting research in these fields. I suggest instead referring to Harris as an "author and internet podcaster." Thoughts?

Many people regard the word "philosopher" to be an honorific. It is not. It denotes a person who does work in an area generally agreed upon as being philosophical. I think Plato was a deeply mistaken philosopher. Nevertheless, he is a philosopher. You don't respect Harris. Other people seem to be respectful of his philosophizing. How could we decide? Better to just say we think he is not a good philosopher. Also, please sign your comments.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that Harris does philosophical work. In The Moral Landscape, he outright refuses to engage the prior philosophical work done on the subject, claiming that it would "only increase the amount of boredom in the universe," or similar such nonsense. So not only does he refuse to participate in philosophical discourse, he openly disparages it. Impreza (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

What you have argued is "Harris does not provide historical perspectives to his work." Not all philosophers do so.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

No, analysis of prior arguments accompanied by a defense/critique of said arguments is how philosophy is done. Any serious work of philosophy will reference prolific thinkers in a particular area. For instance, good luck finding a modern, serious work on ethics that does not at least refer to arguments made by any one of Kant, Mill, Bentham, or Aristotle. Have you read any critiques of The Moral Landscape by academic philosophers? They all agree that Harris' arrogance in refusing to engage with prior philosophical work on ethics is what ultimately gets him in trouble. Impreza (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No. You continue to ignore the point. You don't like the way he does philosophy. There's no harm in that. Your Platonic ideals are not satisfied. OK. You know book reviewers that are unhappy. Cool. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Where did quotes go?

I see in "talk" above a long list of Harris quotes disappeared and the reason given is "This feels like quote mining." As one with along history fighting creationists who DO quote mine, and as one who also has for years referred people here to the now disappeared legitimate (non-mined) Harris quotes, I'd like a defense of this wrong disappearance. Do I get disciplined if I return the Harris quotes?--Tea Sagan (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, you have a whole section (a good one) on how Harris and his defenders constantly claim to be misunderstood. Where are all the quotes this site built up showing why this happens?! Who agreed, and why, that all that hard work should just go?--Tea Sagan (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary paragraph

Cenk Uygur has particularly received flak for his criticism of Harris, receiving a relentless barrage of negativity on Twitter and Youtube. Some Harris disciples accuse Uygur of not understanding Harris or, as some sort of personal vendetta, of intentionally misrepresenting him. When Uygur received word that Harris would honestly vote for "an imbecile" like Ben Carson rather than Noam Chomsky, and that he defended Ted Cruz's preferring Christian refugees over Muslim ones from Syria, Uygur became unhinged.

I don't think it matters whether or not Uygur received flak for his criticism, so the first two sentences offer nothing of substance. The final sentence shows that Uygur and Harris disagree but does not elaborate (the following paragraphs concern their disagreement on nuclear strikes). There are also no references in this paragraph. CowHouse (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The entire criticism section is riddled with ostensible statements. The real problem, I think, is Harris should be confronted by better critics than Myers, Greenwald and Uygur, who are themselves not widely respected. Neil deGrasse Tyson and Daniel Dennett, for example.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Blatant lack of neutrality

The entire "Defense of the right wing" section reads like a poorly written emotional hit piece that comes nowhere near meeting the neutrality guidelines.

Examples: "Milo's infamous anti-trans diatribes" - infamous according to whom? Article is not about Milo. "notorious racist Donald Trump" - notorious according to whom? Stamement of opinion presented as fact. Article is not about Donald Trump. "Let us repeat:" - who is "us"? Blatant opinion. Article is not about "you".

That's just the first paragraph. The rest of the section reads similarly and provides nothing but unsubstantiated opinions presented as facts. Has no academic value whatsoever therefore I am deleting it.^{— Unsigned, by: 188.232.6.83 / talk}

We don't have a neutral point of view (NPOV) here. We have SPOV. Part of that includes blatantly calling out bullshit. —Kazitor, ^pending 10:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I came here from, in retrospect, a poorly worded google search and thought I was on the regular wikipedia. That's why I was stunned at the low quality of the article about such a prominent individual. Now I realize my mistake. Obviously you can follow whatever rules you wish on your resource, but in all honestly I would have expected much higher standards from a place called "rationalwiki". To "call out bullshit" it's not sufficient to say that I and "everyone" else disagree therefore bullshit. And word such as infamous, notorious, etc. have no place in a rational, skeptical conversation. But I digress.^{— Unsigned, by: 188.232.6.83 / talk}

Must... resist urge... to transclude... RATIONALwiki... regardless, your concerns are valid and I will admit that not all of our articles are excellent. This one only gets bronze on our rating scale. Don't feel discouraged from making suggestions on how to improve the article, if you wish. —Kazitor, ^pending 11:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Something to add: most of our efforts are spent on debunking nonsense/other "crank" beliefs, so articles like this aren't shining examples of what our content is like. —Kazitor, ^pending 11:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears loads of people think this article is bad so it probably is, try improving it instead of just blanking it though. Christopher (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is fine. If anything, it probably is too light on this fraud and intellectual dilettante. Would you like to see it replaced with an article that heaps praise on Harris and dismisses all his critics as "regressive leftists"? Impreza (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

People who criticise or acknowledge problems in an article don't necessarily want it to be a hagiography. Assume good faith. CowHouse (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hagiography: The ultimate word - Sincerely, a concerned citizen ^{— Unsigned, by: 135.23.63.79 / talk}

/r/samharris is... somewhat pleased?

https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/7ywoig/rationalwikis_take_on_sam_harrisis_it_fair/ Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Sam Harris' views on 'The Bell Curve'

Noticed a distinct lack of discussion of Sam Harris' defense of 'The Bell Curve', the heavily debunked racial intelligence book from 1994, wherein Harris accused anyone who dare question it of being "The PC Police" despite the fact that the major sources for The Bell Curve include Richard Lynn and his studies funded by Mankind Quarterly and grants by The Pioneer Fund, known White Supremacy supporters (through the ideal of Race Realism)

https://theoutline.com/post/4024/andrew-sullivan-sam-harris-jordan-peterson-the-bell-curve?zd=2&zi=gc3wesmy ^{— Unsigned, by: CommieGIR / talk / contribs}

https://twitter.com/Lowenaffchen, Alex Nichols retweeted "I stand for the flag, I kneel for the cross." Another interesting one is "rip barbara bush. whoever told her it was safe to go down an escalator in a wheelchair should be criminally charged." What a wonderful fellow. Ariel31459 (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a decent reason for that - The Bell Curve wasn't "debunked" in any scientific sense, since 3 of the 4 key arguments of the book are fully supported by the available data:

1. - IQ is a valid, informative psychometric
2. - Current IQ tests do a pretty good job of measuring it
3. - Different ethnicities have different statistical averages in their IQ scores

The only part of Murray's argument that's really in dispute, scientifically speaking, is #4, which is: If you control for all known environmental factors, there's still a remaining difference that's logically attributable to genetics

1-3 are about as controversial, in terms of the hard data, as the shape of the Earth. Charles Murray claims to have built into his analysis sufficient safeguards to ensure that all environmental impacts on IQ have been fully controlled for (eg. comparing IQs between old-money black kids to old-money white kids, to control for the impact of growing up in poverty), and on that basis argues that #4 is true, i.e. that the ethnic differences he's identified are genetic in origin. He then uses this finding as an argument to cut welfare, restrict immigration, and a bunch of other standard items off the GOP to-do list.

Sam Harris' interest is really not on the political implications, but on whether Murray is factually correct about the underlying data. Sam's worry is that Murray's analysis checks out, but is being suppressed for political reasons, as a sort of left-wing "noble lie".Milesmcstylez (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Request of source directly contradicting the notion in this page that Sam Harris defends Lawrence Krauss

Here is the video discussing Sam's actual take on the matter where he actually condemns Lawrence Krauss and accepts the allegations against him, in contrast to the notion currently displayed on this page, which borders on slander and is using dubious sources.

I will request if not taken down altogether, at least add this additional information to it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vuBhKPy1As ^{— Unsigned, by: 73.202.238.33 / talk}

Looking at the tweet and the video references it does not appear that Harris is trying to claim Krauss has been falsely accused. He does claim the article is unclear as to some of its accusations, though he says some are "if true, very serious.". What seems to be causing a spurious problem is his use of "assault" as a synonym for verbal attack. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sam Harris seems like a reactionary

I thought I'd see some criticisms of Sam's ridiculous beliefs on RW, odd that he's called a "philosopher" on the first line.

Good takedown here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/comments/4i89pc/whats_wrong_with_sam_harris_why_do_philosophers/

If you look up philosopher you'll see one doesn't have to be good at it. Also, "reddit" is not a very academic source. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think as more atheists have flirted with reactionary politics, the news cycles has accelerated and RW has somewhat fallen behind. So I had to update Harris's page to add his latest agnosticism about whether you can know if various alt-righters are racists. It now covers the things Harris has said about Sargon, Stefan Molyneux, and his jaw-dropping comments about how Trump's comments about how Ilhan Omar should go back to her own country wasn't necessarily racist. With this there will be less obfuscation and obscuration. --Hitchensiniraq (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Islamophobia?

I think it is wrong to classify Sam Harris as Islamophobia.

He has never made false-truth-based Islamic criticism like alt-lite figures, nor does he look like Ben Shapiro to make a clever argument to ostracize Islam. Moreover, it is not the same argument as Richard Dawkins does for cutting Islam unconditionally.

He is looking critically at Islam from a scientific skepticism point of view, but only leaving room for improvement. Of course, some people may disagree with Sam's view, and neither do I fully agree with Sam Harris's view. But I don't think he's Islamo"phobia". Never

The alt-rights denigrating non-Western areas are fuck. But I am not sure if there is any need for special political consideration in the non-Western region.(I am speaking as a person who actually lives in Asia.) What I'd like to say is that Muslims are minority and persecuted in the Western world, but not in every region they are minority. RationalWiki is a wiki that is known "internationally" to some extent, not only white or Western.

The bottom line is that Sam Harris believes that simply grouping into the category "Criticism of Islam" is enough. Using the category "Islamophobia" for it is subjective and controversial.--BluePink (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No he doesn't. He popularized a bunch of Islamophobic tropes, and has flat out been told by experts that he's talking out of his ass on subjects he doesn't understand. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This is utter bullshit. Pointing out that Islam has bad beliefs that other religions simply do not have isn’t Islamophobic. It’s a fact. And as for those “experts”? Well, they have their critics, too. And those critics are also experts. So you can’t use the fact that some “experts” disagree with Harris to hand wave away his valid arguments.80.192.130.177 (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Could an expert link you to a critique of Sam Harris? I'm going to put that part on Korean wiki.--BluePink (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Islamophobia is a proper category for the idiot, I think you aren't getting the full context here, Blue. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh.... Sam Harris, was he an jack-asshole? There are a lot of Sam followers on the Korean Internet. Can you tell me specifically what Islamophobic arguments you made? Of course, it won't clear the category of "Islamophobia." I'm sorry..--BluePink (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct errors. I will no longer delete the category 'Islamophobia' from the document.--BluePink (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

He's a bigot that knows nothing of politics. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

CJ Werelman is a hack fraud plagiarist. Some “expert”.

That article is by C.J.Werleman. One of our own articles calls Werelman "regressive." He is said to equate Osama bin Laden with Daniel Dennett. I feel a headache coming on.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed paragraph because of whataboutism?

Concerning https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Harris&type=revision&diff=2206311&oldid=2206309 , I don't see how this paragraph is whataboutism. Whataboutism usually says that you cannot criticize X if you don't criticize all the Y. This paragraph says nowhere that Harris cannot criticize restriction of freedom of speech in Western countries because he does not criticize problems in Russia or China, it says if we apply to Harris the same rule he applies to feminism, then .... This whole section is arguing that Harris' argument is stupid, so obviously it is not saying that Harris is right when he is saying that you cannot criticize X if you don't criticize all the Y. It's more like a reductio ad absurdum: to verify if his own rule is making sense, we try to apply his own rule consistently everywhere, and we see that it leads to contradiction, so his own rule is not working. I think it's worth mentioning (because it shows Harris is not really rational, attacking people for not doing something he does not even do himself). Maybe it can be rephrased: "This argument is a whataboutism fallacy and it is easy to demonstrate its absurdity: if his argument was valid, surely, Harris would be as guilty for spending more time complaining about restrictions of freedom of speech in Western countries than actually pushing for freedom of speech abroad, even though free speech is far more restricted in autocratic countries like Russia and China, or many Muslim countries whom he criticizes. It also shows that Harris does not seem to hold himself to the same standards that he holds others" 90.246.231.37 (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Why do I have to take my edit to the talk page?

Sam Harris is legitimately scum. This article needs a rewrite anyways. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@IveBeenFrank @Twodots Why is my edit so bad that it needs to be reverted? There are other parts of the article with scathing criticisms of him. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There, hostile rhetoric removed. Y'all happy now? — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, seems fine now. Carry on doing whatever it is you do! Twodots (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Technically A Neuroscientist

I've always been skeeved out by Sam Harris, I'll admit, even when I was first introduced to him through a math teacher. So I'll try to keep that in mind. And I find a lot of his moral/ethical/etc. frameworks to be repugnant. Regard;ess, I feel like there are some pretty damning things out there about Sam Harris's research in particular. He is, frankly, from what I have read, a neuroscientist only in name. He had other people do research for him on things he didn't really understand and recieved a PhD. I'd have to go digging for sources, but I recollect reading that Sam Harris had pretty much instructed the scientists working under him to fudge the numbers to validate his beliefs. (I remember being pretty gobsmacked by this piece.) Monochroma (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like fun.

Other threads on view in the rhizzone:

• Good news: More blacks identify as conservative than liberal
• Reminder to Amerikans: Your Government Wants You to Die.
• I Come to Bury Liberalism, Not to Praise It

All righty then DocYankem^{Prevent Truth Decay!}00:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Gaffe or bigotry?

Hey RW community quick question Would Harris leanings towards considering racialist science(the bell curve) and obvious disdain for groups such as Black lives matter be considered an inverse stopped clock moment or geniune bigotry? I ask because I have only heard a few interviews of him speaking on these subjects and it just seems to me that he is uneducated in what groups like BLM stands for and that he has some negative biases in regards to black people. I want to clarify that I do not believe he is a racist but rather just a little privilege blind toward African-American struggles in my opinion. SensaurC-137 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

But that is racism. Granted it's a more passive form of racism, but it's still racism. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

He’s not racist, he just has some negative biases in regards to black people. Christopher (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know of any strictly racist ideas, i,e., white supremicist ideas, that Harris would agree with. The stopped clock and ISC categories are often excuses for including the odd or surprising fact, and not generally taken as serious commentary, at least not by me. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok just wanted some feedback on this, I just felt that his views fell more along the line of being a bigot(which I know sometimes can be used interchangeably with racist depending on the context) rather than a straight up racist(along the lines of Jared Taylor and other white nationalist and alt right figures) The article doesn’t state very clearly what side of the fence he is on in regards to that, which is why I put it in the discussion. Also, I know he is still highly respected throughout the atheist community despite it so i was wondering whether it would just be an ISC moment or whether it could be considered problematic SensaurC-137 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Using "racist" as a standin for "white supremacist" is misleading. A racist is someone who espouses racist views, policies, etc. A white supremacist is um... Way fucking more than that. And a Neo-Nazi is a bit more than just a white supremacist. Etc, etc, etc. I reject your dichotomy and viewed it as fundamentally flawed. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok well u got a fair point there. I guess im just so used to hearing white nationalist/Racialist bullshit that I consider it my version of what racist is. Thanks for the clarification SensaurC-137 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump

Added a brief section to clearly explain that Harris is a very vocal Trump opponent. This is important context because there are certain sections of the article which, if read uncharitably, could imply that Harris supports Trump, or is at the very least ambivalent to his Presidency. This couldn't be further from the truth. ^{— Unsigned, by: 217.73.42.10 / talk / contribs}

Everyone and their mother, and their mother's mother, knows Sam hates Trump. He bloviates about Trump for hours on his podcast...possibly even days ^{— Unsigned, by: 135.23.63.79 / talk} Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

Right, the refs on this thing

So I'm dressing up the bare URLs and whatnot, but I don't actually follow this guy so I'll post requests for a bit of help here. Maybe some of you are his regular listeners/readers? If so:

1. I presume the full episodes of his podcast used to be on SoundCloud for free in the past, but now you have to be a subscriber of his to get full episodes? This link is dead. I replaced it with this, which appears to be only a sample of the full thing? Are the relevant segments we are referencing present in this partial episode? The thing is an hour long, I'm a bit too busy to be listening to all of it, but maybe his more regular listeners would know if it's good enough?
2. His long ass response to controversy... I see that the date is April 4, 2013, but it was last edited July 29, 2019? Is this thing like continually edited by him? If so, is the present version a suitable reference for our article, or is there some older revision available on the Wayback Machine which would be better? Like, is the present version drastically different from the old ones? I don't know which revision was the one being referenced when this article was being written.

I'll add to this thread later as I come across stuff. If you have better refs hidden up your sleeve, let us know!

Ciao. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 22:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sam's podcast used to be free and supported by donations until about a year ago when he paywalled half of them, and retroactively limited the episodes so you can only listen to the first half unless you help him pay for his mansion. Yes, he keeps updating the response to controversy (see Internet Archive) seemingly whenever it has been criticized by mainstream publications, probably to make them look dishonest, because he's that slimy. The older version is the one that was most criticized by secondary sources before he tried to sanitize it years later and call his critics dishonest after they had direct quoted him, and you should link to the original and more controversial version. He also has in the past edited his podcasts to remove clips of things he has said, and made no note of what he has changed like when he shared an Andy Ngo video and then called BLM violent psychopaths (at the start of episode ""#162 - Medical Intelligence."), but then removed the most inaccurate section from that episode without ever acknowledging that Andy Ngo was a lying propagandist for the Alt-right and his story had been wrong. It's hard to even share the original clip from the podcast because he controls the copyright, but I have compared the two clips side by side and heard what he removed. In another instance he also removed an extended clip when one of his guests, Christian Picciolini, which criticized the white supremacist Stefan Molyneux,) and then predictably called Picciolini dishonest, as opposed to the white supremacist who has been banned from Twitter and Youtube. (Who Sam still is officially agnostic about. )

This is the level of dishonesty you're dealing with so always save the receipts, because you never know when Sam Harris will delete his own record to protect himself from criticism or to make his racist allies look more reasonable. He always needs to "put himself in context" by changing the record so he can still win the debate game. -191.96.121.188 (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The disputed section

It's poorly written, rambles, and is excessively hyperbolic. As most regulars of the site know, I'm not opposed to articles picking a side in a debate, but also prefer they be grounded in reality and utilize decent sourcing. Apparently some people find such a low bar too much bother. My opponent can respond if they want. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The source is in the second sentence, "episode 207," have you even listened to it yet? It's an accurate reflection of Harris's views if you know anything about him and his aggression. It's easy to include a URL to the podcast instead of deleting an entire paragraph and simply claiming, "poor grammar," which anyone can say while not talking about the arguments. The sections that call out his support for military and police funding should also be reflected somewhere in the article and not omitted. I don't care about the exact words used. I do think its excessive how you reacted to a new edit that added a new sentence by removing the existing section. If you didn't like the sentence about how Fox News endorsed that episode then you should have just undone that, I admit it was tacked on at the end. 191.96.121.188 (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course you don't care for the finer details of actually writing the damned article. As for the latest edit, that's what brought the section to my attention, whereupon I read entire section from start to finish, realized there was fuck all to salvage without a complete rewrite, and then acted accordingly. If you think the section had a point buried under that hyperbole (it did, I fully acknowledged that even as I deleted it), then rewrite the damned thing. But don't whine at me like a child and accuse me of wanting to delete the entire page (I don't) or accusing me of being upset by the section (only in the sense that the writing was poor). As for the accuracy of the section, it conflates Liberalism with leftism, had only one source, minus timestamps, before the latest round of hyperbole, includes the jaw-droppingly cartoonish lines "He is a master of dog-whistling and passing off his love of authoritarianism as just an impartial exploration of the ideas as long as he speaks in a calm voice and uses the right SAT words." and "Many liberals have been persuaded by his soft-spoken voice that resembles a Buddhist monk into thinking he is more enlightened than most" and was (again) overall rambling and hyperbolic. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m with GrammarCommie on this one. There could be a section written about his views on the police, but this isn’t it. Christopher (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

" it conflates Liberalism with leftism,"

The point is that Sam Harris calls himself a liberal (in the American sense where he is from,) but takes conservative/reactionary positions. Sure, you can easily argue a lot of liberals oppose BLM and want law and order, and aren't really left, but I think you can tell by looking at the evidence that Harris isn't even actually a liberal. "He is a master of dog-whistling and passing off his love of authoritarianism as just an impartial exploration of the ideas as long as he speaks in a calm voice and uses the right SAT words." But do you honestly think he doesn't do? Again, have you not listened to the episode which was praised on Fox News and heard how he spent most of it defending the cops and calling for more funding while calming attacking BLM, and the left, and denying that systemic racism still exists? Do you disagree with any of this? This man defends Charles Murray, but have you listened to his episode on BLM and not thought he made any dog-whistles to the far-right?

I don't mind rewriting some parts for brevity, but I don't think I should rewrite everything that you are pointing out, and don't think the lines you object to are hyperbole once you understand how the man operates. I'm not even sure if that's his natural voice, and not something he cultivated after being impressed by the hypnotic tones of the meditation gurus who use tricks to convince students they're holding the secrets of the universe. There should be a new section also on how meditation hasn't worked for him, and has seemingly only made him more conceded and incapable of changing his mind, which he is poor at doing even when he was offered $10,000 to change his mind on at least one thing. 191.96.121.188 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Look at this section. Notice the phrasing, wikilinks, tone, sourcing for all assertions involving the article's focus, and the fact that you can clearly follow the writer's line of thinking. Notice also that it doesn't alternate between "this person is ignorant" and "this person is dishonest". Now, compare it to the disputed section as well as your own comments. Firstly, in the linked example multiple sources were used, and where possible, the subjects own words were used to prove they said what they said. Wikilinks are used to steer the reader towards subjects that would have required massive asides to explain. There's clear linearity, and the narrative is easily checked by using the sources provided. Personal attacks are avoided, and instead the best faith effort is made to steel man all parties. If the primary author had linked video sources, its likely said author would have included timestamps to make sure the reader can follow along, while also making sure said author can (again) be fact checked if needed. In short, The author tries to adhere to Rapoport's Rules and similar criteria as much as possible. The disputed section does none of these things. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)