1. Since getting his PhD, he has conducted no scientific research

1. Since getting his PhD, he has conducted no scientific research.
2. Since getting his PhD, he has taught no university/college courses in neuroscience.
3. Since getting his PhD, he has devoted his efforts to his anti-religious think tank and publishing books, such as the one on using drugs and meditation to discover truths about our reality.
4. He received his PhD through partial funding from his own atheist organization.
5. He didn’t do any of the experiments for his own thesis work.
6. His PhD thesis was about how science can determine what is right and wrong and he turned it into a book for sale.
7. Since publishing his thesis/book, Harris has yet to use science to resolve a single moral dispute.

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/gp/product/1451636016?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1451636016&linkCode=xm2&tag=wwwsamharris03-20
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

never cared about this faget desu.

He is a known intellectual fraud. Why restate the obvious?

Is that Ben Stiller?

Only passingly familiar with Harris, so don't take these as the counters of a fanboy:

1. I wasn't aware that ongoing research was a requirement for having a PhD. News to me.

2. See 1, and consider that someone might consider their time and effort better suited to educating a broader public through larger ripples of influence instead of devoting their energy to small courses and individual students.

3. So he's followed his primary interests while diversifying his efforts instead of restricting his work to scientific research? Why is this a problem?

4. Sounds like a smart hustle for supporting himself instead living on a graduate student's shoestring grants and departmental allocations. Are you suggesting an ethical dilemma between pursuing a PhD and funding it with supplementary income?

5. This isn't uncommon, and it's absolutely not necessary to receive a PhD.

6. And so have many others. This isn't uncommon if the thesis can be reworked into a more accessible format for broader audiences. I know a professor right now reformatting and supplementing his thesis on Whitman and aging for publication. Why is this a problem?

7. And I'd wager that over 99% of other PhDs in his fields haven't either. You have unrealistic expectations.

Anything other qualms?

Harris is a hack, and his PhD is an epic fail intrinsically, but your points are retarded and suggest you don't understand what a doctoral actually is.

I don't care, I still like Dodgeball: A True Underdog story

He was great in Zoolander though.

Yep, just one more bourgeois charlatan - completely pretentious - even more so than Nye.

>t. fanboy

You're pathetic. Quit defending a man who is exasperatingly symptomatic of Western academic decline.

I shouldn't have expected any other response. Weak shit, user.

>1. I wasn't aware that ongoing research was a requirement for having a PhD. News to me.
You actually need to renovate your PhD every few years by proving that you're doing research in the field you work.
Academia is a fucking scam.

>He received his PhD through partial funding from his own atheist organization.
I mean, that's probably where people wanted the money to go. Ask a pop athiest what we should find, and science is going to be one of the first answers you get.

>His PhD thesis was about how science can determine what is right and wrong and he turned it into a book for sale.
Going off of these questions, it sounds like he was doing atheist shit before he got a PhD to wave around. His PhD might have been a waste, but I doubt he thinks people with STEM PhD's are the only ones who can talk about atheism with credibility.

>He didn’t do any of the experiments for his own thesis work.
Not important.

>Harris has yet to use science to resolve a single moral dispute.
Same goes for the entire fucking world pal. Until science has something definitive to say about free will it isn't going to resolve moral disputes in academia. I'd rather scientists stopped trying to take philosopher's jobs but you really don't know what you're talking about.

>Are you a fucking pussy user?! Don't you take super male vitality?!
lol

I used to detest Harris and everything I thought he represented, but after listening to his podcast (initially for some of his guests) he's really begun to grow on me, even if we still disagree on a lot. He doesn't deserve his bad reputation at all. Yes, his politics may be naive and ill-informed but in general he's a thoughtful, articulate, level-headed man who still believes in the classical ideals like the Good, the Noble, and the Beautiful.

I'll take Harris's boring clarity over Zizek's entertaining obscurantism any day.

I too did not use to take Sam Harris seriously. But after I picked up his book on Amazon

amazon.com/gp/product/1451636016?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1451636016&linkCode=xm2&tag=wwwsamharris03-20

and listened to a couple episodes of his wonderful podcast, I realized that my previous doubts were unfounded. I'd almost say that he's a voice of calm reassuring reason in a world of confusing ideas. I'll admit that sometimes I don't understand his intellectual arguments (not that I disagree with him, he's sometimes just too smart for me, and perhaps most people? I'v'e heard it's difficult to be understood when you're genius level IQ) but it doesn't stop me from trying lol!

8. HE STILL BTFO CHUMPSKY!!!

>Ask a pop atheist what we should find
fund, I mean. There are other typos but only this one struck me as potentially misleading.

>I'll admit that sometimes I don't understand his intellectual arguments (not that I disagree with him, he's sometimes just too smart for me, and perhaps most people? I'v'e heard it's difficult to be understood when you're genius level IQ) but it doesn't stop me from trying lol!
Is this post ironic, a very obvious shill or plainly sincere? I can't even tell anymore.

Would you do his mom?

He was good in Tropic Thunder though

part of the fun is never knowing

She looks trashy AF.

How do you do, fellow unpaid admirers of public intellectuals?

pls explain?

He's advocated a potential objective morality in much of his work and got butthurt over being told that Ayn Rand had already succeeded. He admitted to never reading her.

If you expected it, you should have held your tongue.

this is not literature, fuck off

>Anything other qualms?
What did he mean by this?

>I have an autistically narrow limitation of what I believe constitutes acceptable discussion on a literature board and if my preferences are ignored I will self-indulgently make a whiny shit post indicating my displeasure
Wow has really made me think

Ben Stiller is a talentless hack

...

more like

>Harris is a hack, and his PhD is an epic fail intrinsically
explain

He said he noticed what a terrible writer she is and couldn't finish any of her books

His PhD is now widely used as an example of how to *not* do neuroscientific research.

I'm sure that that was his rationalization, sure.

...