Thoughts?

>He's highly intelligent and highly educated.
He's intelligent, and he's highly educated, just not on the matters he's most known for speaking about.

He's right about everything though

The foundation of Islam is different than every other religion. It's basic principle is that Muhammad was the last prophet and the teachings are final.

The problem with Islam is Islam. It's impossible to moderate it like you can with Christianity.

Is he a religious scholar? Has he studied the Quran his entire life? No. But has studied it (and other holy books) and the socio-political consequences of them extensively enough to have a logical viewpoint on them. He is also highly educated in philosophy and neuroscience, which is an extremely important lens to look at these issues through. What about his arguments or viewpoints do you believe is flawed?

>philosophy
what's his credentials?

>The problem with Islam is Islam. It's impossible to moderate it like you can with Christianity.

To be fair, Harris has never said that Islam is impossible to moderate. In fact, he believes that the only hope IS to moderate Islam, as he acknowledges the fact that they can't all be converted to atheism, and he does not at all advocate eradicating them.

He has a BA in philosophy from Stanford and a PhD in cognitive neuroscience from UCLA.

>It's impossible to moderate it like you can with Christianity
Religious moderation is what happens when people stop being real followers of the faith. Moderate islam has existed in the United States' black communities for decades. I think the real difference is that the leaders of the christian faith - the catholic church - have a history of conceding to the progress of culture and changing the doctrine of their faith. Islamic leaders in Saudi Arabia still do not fully accept that the earth revolve around the sun. Muslims are unwilling to change, but Christians are. They're both dangerous faiths, and the majority of both faiths are not practicing it correctly.

So that's what qualifies as "highly educated in philosophy" nwadays?

Idiotic brainlet with bad, unoriginal ideas. No one intelligent takes him seriously not even in philosophy, neurosciene, or cognitive science.

Jesus, Veeky Forums's quality threshold for nuthugging based on someone's education an intelligence is now BA in philosophy and PhD in cognitive science? Seriously? Dude got cucked by Noam Chomsky, of all people....

>hudd durr it's just a BA

I knew that was coming. Perhaps "highly" educated in philosophy was a stretch, I'll concede that. But the fact remains that he holds a degree in philosophy from one of the highest respected universities in the world. It qualifies him more so than 90+% of people in the world to apply philosophical viewpoints to issues he studies and speaks about. And you don't know how much studying he's done on the subject in addition to his formal education.

In any event, he doesn't profess to be an expert philosopher. He uses philosophy in his arguments but his primary talking points are through the lens of neuroscience/psychology, which even you couldn't discount his expertise in.

If all you're going to do is question his credentials without addressing any of his arguments, I think that's pretty intellectually dishonest on your part.

>No one intelligent takes him seriously not even in philosophy, neurosciene, or cognitive science.

Can you back up this claim?

He's talked extensively about genetics. Concluding that "you can study IQ by race, but what would be the point? What good will eventually come of it and you would have to really look at who was doing the research" -paraphrasing.

He sucks dick at philosophy, which is terrible since it's what he's most known for.

You're such a fucking stereotype, kek

I like how he lets the content of his speech do the talking and doesn't rely on any verbal or emotional theatrics to carry points home. It's just an honest presentation.

pretty good

>Veeky Forums unironically likes Sam Harris

Top kek

>He sucks dick at philosophy

Awesome argument.

>which is terrible since it's what he's most known for

He's most known for being atheist neuroscientist and author who is critical of Islam mostly, but also all religion. He's never once, as far as I know, referred to himself as a philosopher. The vast majority of his arguments are based on psychology, sociology, and science - not philosophy.

>Awesome argument.
I wasn't arguing shit.
>who is critical of all religion
On ethical grounds.

He wrote books on ethics and free will, which were rather terrible. Consequentialism is true because it's true, Science can solve ethical problems (if you include philosophy in science, le xd), and misunderstanding the free will argument that even his friend had to step up and call him out on it. Sam, of course, said he was being taken out of context. Like every fucking time he's argued against.

>Sam, of course, said he was being taken out of context. Like every fucking time he's argued against.

He does say this often. The thing in, it's true 99% of the time in his case. He does argue from a philosophical standpoint, which confuses some people who aren't familiar with philosophical argument, and is easily taken out of context, He has clarified his views many times after being misrepresented.

>He has clarified his views many times after being misrepresented.
Yeah, and people still think he's fucking wrong

It's like he actually thinks his arguments are foolproof and noone could disagree once they read him "correctly"; he can't accept that smart people (some smarter than him) understand and disagree with him, and not just on philosophy

>Yeah, and people still think he's fucking wrong

Gee - someone taking a controversial stance on a complicated subject and there's people who think he's wrong?? Get the fuck out of town! He must be completely fucking wrong then!

>It's like he actually thinks his arguments are foolproof and noone could disagree once they read him "correctly"; he can't accept that smart people (some smarter than him) understand and disagree with him, and not just on philosophy

I'm sorry, but I don't get that sense from him. Perhaps to some degree this is true, as I can't recall him ever correcting himself or admitting he was wrong. But I've never heard any of his opponents or detractors on the other side of the argument ever admit any of their views were wrong either.

I certainly don't agree with Harris on everything he says. I think he downplays the socio/political/economic influences that result in terrorism and puts too much emphasis on religious doctrine alone, for example. BUT his arguments are still, for the most part, well researched and logically sound - which is much more than I can say for many other "famous" people who speak on the subject. To sit there like so many armchair philosophers on the internet do) and call him a fucking idiot or a hack with nothing to back it up is ridiculous, and happens constantly. His opinions on these matters are researched and logical enough to be considered at the very least.

Knowing fuckall about a topic and still commenting about it could be described as controversial. Also could be described as idiotic.
> he downplays the socio/political/economic influences that result in terrorism and puts too much emphasis on religious doctrine alone
Yeah, he does. That's barely the surface of it.
Don't take this as a defense of Islam/religion in general either, because I really dislike both. This point alone makes me doubt the "well researched" part of your post. Other shit, like his free will book ("let me completely ignore compatibilism") just about confirms it. His book on ethics does the same for the logical part, it's basically circular reasoning and the bait and switch of science determining morals still irks me a lot.

Also he's such a naive moral realist (uncharitable view, maybe, but idrc), anyone else with the same position would get laughed here

>Knowing fuckall about a topic

What topic does he know fuckall about and how can you demonstrate that as fact? I'm genuinely trying to learn here.

ITT : determinist losers.
Determinists are closet believers who think destiny is written and the fate cannot be changed. literally no different than religious people

I'm not sure you know what literally means. That or you're completely out of your mind.

Philosophy in general (I know he has a BA). The problem of Free Will and Ethics in particular, with some demarcation problem being thrown in. Dismissing compatibilism and "consequentialism is true because it's true" are the biggest offenders.

And you already know about how much he focuses on Islam over the other shit on the complete mess that's the Middle East (and religious fanatism in general).

not Veeky Forums
tool

I'll have to look more into his philosophical views in general to have a discussion on that. I'm more interested in his recent commentary on Islam, regressive leftists, the idea of free speech, and so on.

To be fair to his position, he does not completely discount the sociological problems that exist in the middle east. He does, however, point out the many problems inherent in Islam as a belief system. Is he wrong for doing that? I don't think he is at all - and that's what gets him the most criticism - how "mean" his is to Muslims and how he "paints them all with a broad brush" (which he doesn't - he's careful to mention which type of Muslims he's addressing).

The fact that people get so up in arms about someone like Harris pointing out FACTUAL inconsistencies and immoral/incompatible values within the Islamic faith itself shows just how dangerous and ignorant far-left thinking can be. It's an important point to make in a Western society that's become so used to NOT questioning diversity and politically correct thinking. As far as I'm concerned, he's doing the world a service in that regard. We need to be real about the danger that religious doctrine poses - ESPECIALLY when it comes to Islam. Maybe by talking about it, we can begin to push Muslims themselves towards the reformation that their religion clearly needs in order to exist peacefully in the 21st century. I don't see any other alternative excluding escalating violence, honestly.

I consider myself a liberal - and in order for liberal ideas to flourish, we need to be real about issues we discuss without applying PC blinders to them. Sam is one of the many liberals who are leading the way in this regard. That's why I like him - even if I don't agree with him on every issue.

His philosophical views are really a shitshow, yeah. If you do become interested in hard determinism or consequentialism, there are better authors out there.

I haven't seen much people complain about him pointing out the dumb stuff muslims believe, but I've seen a lot of people salty about various other shit. Like advocating racial profiling, nuclear first strikes, and borderline thought police. Of course, the discussion of these goes deeper than what this broad-ass overview, but stilll.

>some other board told me I have to hate on Sam Harris

top kok

What SH books should I start with if I'm interested in hearing his side of arguments/observations? Doesn't matter if it's philosophical or religious I just find it all interesting.

...

>Like advocating racial profiling, nuclear first strikes, and borderline thought police.

I've heard him clarify a few of these views, and while I don't agree 100% on all of them, they do make sense to a certain extent, and are not as "insane" as his detractors make them out to be. Racial profiling, for example, makes perfect sense in screening for terrorists. Statistically, terrorists are more likely to be of middle eastern descent, and far more likely to be Muslim. So of course security officers at airports are going to look more closely at brown people - let's be real about that. This is ultimately about safety and saving lives - not protecting the feelings of Muslims who get a little extra scrutiny at airports.

And as far as his nuclear first-strike comment, he's not advocating a nuclear first strike on anyone - he's saying that in an extreme circumstance (which has not yet come to pass and hopefully never will), it would be foolish to not at least consider a first-strike as an option. Now even this is hard for me to swallow, but again, he's speaking hypothetically from a philosophical standpoint - same as when he speaks about torture being justifiable in extreme circumstances. It's the age old moral/ethical argument regarding a cure that kills 100 but saves a million. Agree with him or not, it's a discussion worth having.

make it happen

99% of the arguments I hear against this rely on taking out the context. They never mention that Harris wants torture illegal or that the nuke situation is if they are going to kill millions guaranteed. I laugh every time someone calls him a neocon.

"Imagine how fatuous it would be to fight a war against the IRA and yet refuse to profile the Irish?"

>anglos

wew lad...

> sam harris bombed middle east

>Noam Chomsky
Dude, Chomsky is a boss. Don't be disrespecting.

To be fair, he explicitly said that he would favor killing someone for their free speech, and cited Osama bin Laden as an example of someone who we did kill because their speech was dangerous. He event went so far as to say that Laden did nothing else wrong, blithely ignorant to the loads of real criminal charges that would apply, such as money launderying, conspiracy to murder, etc.

I don't believe a word he says, in my defense neither does he.
He's a sensationalist who realizes his credentials make it easy for him to pump out books telling the hungry masses what to think and why.
I can synpathize with that, but I'm not going to accept it.

Smart people are good at making themselves believe things that aren't really true.

Maybe. I do think he believes that. I think Harris is supremely full of it, and doesn't do enough self critical thinking and listening to critiques.

this cenk meme is the worst

Is calling for someone's death really "free speech"? Also wasn't Bin Laden killed for conspiracy as well? Not too mention funding and supporting terrorism and death.

literally means figuratively now
you can literally use literally in place of any adjective now

People have no fucking idea what free speech was meant to be.

Free speech used to be a long distant dream for oppressed people under authoritarian governments. They perceived free speech as what it was truly meant to be, the right to call out any oppressor on his crimes and end tyranny. Today edgy kids think free speech is all about insulting Islam's prophet, praising the Holocaust, and calling black people n*ggers.

Is it not a fair point though? Who cares if he missed out some details in one of his many analyzations, he was primarily focused on the issue of free speech vs the ability to harm using words.

Islam, terrorism, and other calls to violence are all heavy-weight arguments against the idea of free speech. Free speech to me is the most important thing that I value, my reasoning is that a culture where people aren't afraid to share ideas (even if most ideas are bad) helps find and refine the best ideas.

But with that said, I can still admit that it's a completely fair argument that having free speech will do varying degrees of harm.

You can't have only the good. There's a spectrum of shit when it comes to free speech, and most of what you'll find is shit, but it only takes one diamond in a dumpster for it to have value.

This is why I liked when the ACLU defended NAMBLA's free speech when everyone else was "how could they do that?! God they're advocating pedophilia groups! These people don't deserve free speech!"

Got pwned by Chomsky

samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse

alternet.org/books/what-happened-when-sam-harris-tried-and-failed-embarrass-noam-chomsky

>>>/thrash/

This is hilarious. I had no idea someone bothered to make retarded comics about this stuff.

>lol religion

AI is a vague subject though. I feel like most speculations about the future of AI are bogus and will never come true.

youtu.be/aof6h6KTOs0?t=1m

>alternet.org/books/what-happened-when-sam-harris-tried-and-failed-embarrass-noam-chomsky
>muh vagina
stopped reading there

Dumb person's idea of a smart person.

See

>alternet.org/books/what-happened-when-sam-harris-tried-and-failed-embarrass-noam-chomsky

What a pointless interchange. Chomsky is autistic as fuck and Harris is an idiot.

What exactly is a smart person's idea of a smart person like?

> Harris is an idiot.
why?

It seemed to me that the entire time Chomsky refused to have an open and honest discussion. Every time he responded he acted like he performed a take down on Sam.

turbo meme

Did you read the correspondence?

Chomsky absolutely (autistically) destroys him piece by piece.

Because Harris kept pretending that Clinton was innocent, and kept pretending that Chomsky wasn't clear (YES, INTENTION MATTERS). Just how dense can you be?

A lot of these "really smart" people, I dont think they were THAT much smarter than you or I. I think they were just far more clever than you or I. They figured out tricks and asked better questions than you and I do.

Thats just my humble opinion.

Also, there are absolute savants out there that are obviously very smart and very clever, but you can tell something is also very wrong with these people. Or very right, its up to your interpretation.

If you ask Veeky Forums, there are unequivocally no intelligent people who are also public figures. Any such person who achieves sufficient public awareness will automatically trigger Veeky Forums's underlying feelings of inadequacy and get them decried as a pseudointellectual.

> some dumb retarded fraud comments on a neuroloscientist
I'm not even gonna waste my time lol

>chomsky
>dumb retarded fraud
This is what ignorance

Ignorance means not wanting to get informed on the knowledge you're lacking.

Just like your misuse of the word.

The dishonesty started when Harris said he had no intentions of publish their discussion. Harris is half his age and with insignificant production compared to Chomsky. I think he was just bothered by the fact that Harris arrogant is out of proportion to his work - he's pretty much the bill nye of philosophy

>Ignorance means not wanting to get informed on the knowledge you're lacking.

Simple Definition of ignorance
: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorance

do us a favor and read a book, undergrad

> merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorance
> merriam webster
Now that you have proved you're retarded, you can keep talking about Noam - fraud - Chomsky.

Ignorance is not unwillingness to learn. Being purposefully ignorant is not equatable to just being ignorant.

>Now that you have proved you're retarded
surely your opinion is more accurate than the dictionary
lol

> there is one dictionary
Now that you've proved you are extra retarded, you can stop posting now.

show ONE dictionary that doesn't give the definition given by merrrian webster (which is the same def. in the oxford dictionary, and cambridge dictionary, etc)

pro tip: you can't
that's why you won't

you're wrong kiddo
save yourself the shame and go to play your pokemon

youtube.com/watch?v=KZ1ylGxGBF4

dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ignorant?q=Ignorant

onelook.com/?w=Ignorant&ls=a

Just shut up dude, you are a terrible troll or very ignorant yourself. You cant even comprehend a simple definition.

>hehe jokes on you, hehehe, i was only pretending to be retarded XDXD lulz

I don't consider him to be a scientist. As in, he doesn't publish through peer review and isn't quite in touch with the latest developments in neuroscience. There is a substantial difference between people who continue to do science after their PhD, and those who chose to leave academia. He falls in the latter category. He's a science communicator, and in that respect he does to some extent contribute to scientific development. Bringing people in touch with science is a good thing, and in fact a necessary thing, but it can become counter productive when you mix it in with strong personal opinions.

This probably goes without saying, but the above is of course also a strong personal opinion and should by no means be taken as fact. I'm biased because I myself did continue in academia after my PhD in neuroscience, and I tend to have a (probably unfounded) aversion to people who present themselves or are regarded as scientists when they are not actually doing science. You're free to disagree.

Chomsky was clear that intentions matter, but not at all clear to how much it mattered. This is what Sam was doing his best to clarify, to which Chomsky out right refused to have an open and honest discussion about.

Where is the dishonesty there?

A thoroughly nice chap.

This is just embarrassing.

Chomsky answered every question; however, he did so in a very brief and dismissive way which seemed to confuse and irritate Harris.

I could see where Harris was getting lost; therefore, I do understand his frustration.

Now, why did Chomsky do this?

It's very simple: Harris accused Chomsky of not considering the intentions behind and ethical implications of the Al-Sharif bombing.

This is ridiculous, as Chomsky is known for doing exactly that.

Chommers and other prominent critics of US foreign policy have spent decades uncovering and analysing actions/events resultant of official US foreign policy, as well as covert intervention/ acts of destabilisation.

Harris stated:

>I assume that Clinton believed that it was, in fact, a chemical weapons factory—because I see no rational reason for him to have intentionally destroyed a pharmaceutical plant in retaliation for the embassy bombings

An understanding of the history of US overt and covert military action over the past century, informs us that retaliatory action and indiscriminate bombings are unfortunately common occurrences.

The notion that the US is a good intentioned - powerful - giant who tries its best but doesn't always get it right, is not only naive: it's deceptively false.

An overview of US foreign intervention ranging from the end of WWII to the mid-eighties reveals a history rife with the destabilisation of democratically elected regimes unsympathetic to US desires, through the use of covert military action, assassinations and cripplingly exploitative forced economic arrangements.

This is hardly surprising, as every empire in history has acted in a similar fashion; those who stand in the way of imperialist progress are eliminated.

The reason I mentioned the period between 'the end of WWII to the mid-eighties', is simply due to documentation of events that took place during this period being based on the government's own declassified files, rather than mere speculation.

The 25 and 30 year legal limits on the classification of documents has allowed for dedicated researchers to meticulously analyse and document the actions of the American and British establishments, in relation to intervention in the affairs of foreign sovereign nations.

This research is available to anyone who cares to look.

Harris is clearly ignorant of not only the work of Chomsky, but seemingly anyone who has contributed to this field of research.

If he had bothered to look into any of this, he would have realised that a retaliatory bombing is not only not unthinkable, but is instead all too predictable.

Therefore, it's not a case of Harris being naive; it is rather a case of ignorance.

If I were Chomsky, I'd like to think I would have had more patience and would have taken the time to explain a few things to Harris.

However, Harris is known as a popular intellectual, which perhaps indicates that he should have been more tentative when speaking about a topic of which he has little understanding; a topic on which Chomsky literally wrote the book(s).

As an afterthought and in addition to the references to declassified government files ranging from the end of WWII to the mid-eighties:

While files relating to actions/events occurring after this period typically remain classified, information uncovered by diligent investigative journalists over the past 25-30 years indicates that the US establishment has not deviated from its modus operandi.

Thetefore, we have no reason to believe that anything has changed.

Also, Harris' naive understanding of foreign policy and military action could almost be pulled straight out of a comic book.

This is best displayed when he makes comments (elsewhere) such as:

>killing children intentionally is an entirely different thing to attempting to kill child killers and inadvertently killing children in the process

In relation to the Al-Sharif bombing.

These statements are built upon a naive and fallaciously dichotomous world view, that is best suited to the creation of comic book superhero archetypes and their respective villains.

It's plain childish and detracts from his otherwise rational disposition.

Are you the user who made a thread on /int/ about the history of Anglo-American military intervention the other month?

Talking about the 1954 Syrian coup attempt and the more recent color revolutions?

I didn't make a thread; I replied to a thread.

But, yes.

Ok cool. I thought so.

>Harris is known as a popular intellectual, which perhaps indicates that he should have been more tentative when speaking about a topic of which he has little understanding
Being a popular intellectual made him overly arrogant

salon.com/2016/03/07/my_secret_debate_with_sam_harris_a_revealing_4_hour_dialogue_on_islam_racism_free_speech_hypocrisy/

Well, you could infer the statement that 'he should have been more tentative when speaking about a topic of which he has little understanding' as a subtle accusation of arrogance and pretentiousness.

If you did, you would be correct.