Now that the dust has settled, what's the verdict on this man and his works?

His justification for supporting her is that she's a known entity who's capable of being swayed by public opinion. He doesn't actually like her.

That's not what It seemed like to me when I listened to him. He seems like he genuinely supports her.
Of course she is a known entity (She has been in the public eye for decades and her only real claim to fame was being married to a man that was president), but so was Hitler... Since when does being known make you a fit leader?
And based on her now leaking emails it seems that she is swayed by much more than public opinion... foreign government opinion perhaps.

youtube.com/watch?v=IRghkcEEGO8

Hardly a ringing endorsement

> I don't agree with their world views and policy
> Therefore they are less sane and incompetent

I'll admit that I hadn't heard this video, but I had seen interviews where he came off much more radical than he did here. I think he toned it down here for the purposes of supporting his argument.
What really bothers me though is the old classical fallacy of "If I don't agree with you then you must be a psycho... I would expect Harris to be above that. He wasn't just talking about Trump, he said that the entire republican slate (Which at one time included as many as 15+ people mind you) was less sane than Hillary Clinton or Bernie... That's just simply delusion... and honestly quite sophomoric.
I might not like Hillary's ideas, but that doesn't make her evil. Oldest rationalization in the book.

He got BTFO by Chomsky and Chomsky is fucking retarded when it comes to anything besides language. That should tell you a lot about him.

>btfo
Chomsky just came across as a grumpy old man who was completely unwilling to engage in Sam Harris's main point

>He got BTFO by Chomsky
>not the other way around

I'd love to hear how you came to that conclusion.

Did you read the same email exchange as I did?

I liked Zoolander.

Now that the dust has settled, what's the verdict on this man and his works?

Please tell me there's more of those

Isn't the Selfish Gene the second most cited book in the field of evolutionary biology? I remember reading that somewhere

Yeah, he's great within his field but does that thing of commenting on random unrelated topics as though he's an authority on them too. Needs to get off twitter and do a full book on memetics imho.

fuck sam harris

DEUS VULT amirite?

Why has Zizek got followers?

>Did you read the same email exchange as I did?
Yes I did

youtube.com/watch?v=ObnBHMzIQ_A

bradley cooper looks more like him desu

He's the Steven Pinker of the latter half of millenials.

I challenge anyone in this thread to point out a single thing Sam Harris has been wrong about. Even when I don't want him to be right (usually because it means I'm wrong) he ends up fucking right.

Being tortured is moral but the act of torturing is immoral. Therefore invent a torture pill to replace the torturer.

It's like a wilfully evil Aquinas.

That there is no is/ought problem Sam.

You must be retarded then. Chomsky was humiliated and that's pretty unanimously agreed.

bumping this /r/

>that thing of commenting on random unrelated topics as though he's an authority on them

which is exactly what everyone on this board does, all day every day

He pretty succinctly addresses that in the moral landscape. I can't explain it 1/10th as well as he does but he makes the point there is material explanations for everything, however complicated, and human wellbeing is no different. If we had all the variables of a given situation, we could scientifically determine what actions would maximise human wellbeing, and this can answer the "ought". If you don't believe there's a material explanation, then it's subjective, and there's in that case nothing wrong with for example child molestation simply by being a tradition of a culture. Despite that we can still prove this does not maximise human wellbeing.

No if you're actually educated about politics, history or economics than you'd recognize every single Republican candidate was spouting utter fantasy. Every one of them made W Bush seem like a goddamn moderate and his policies drove us into the fucking ground (granted Obama is so obsessed with being 'centrist' that he basically kept much of the same policies, especially thinking of the worst Bush decision: the bailouts). If any one of those clowns got elected it would be a virtual guarantee of America crumbling into near developing world status.

It's definitely not the most cited thing in biology, I think that's a paper on DNA amplification. Nearly all of the highest cited things are lab methods anyway.

That one book however is fairly citeable in that it mentions memes. It was a very popular book at the time and the guy was like a celebrity biologist. But if it gets citations now I'd imagine they're criticisms.

>If we had all the variables of a given situation, we could scientifically determine what actions would maximise human wellbeing, and this can answer the "ought"
>entirely misses the essence of "is"/"ought" distinction

He's saying what you "ought" to do is whatever maximises human well being which can be scientifically deduced

Or at least that's my best attempt at summarising it, I could be off the mark

Scientific worldview/"metaphysics" if you will, unwilling to compromise in the face of human irrationality and shows disdain for emotionally loaded language and arguments.

>STEMfag
>Analytic flossfer
>real atheist sciencer
>alt right beacon of rationality
Pick your boogeyman.

>I can't explain it 1/10th as well as he does
Don't be so hard on yourself Sam.

That whole thing is retarded anyway. There isn't a subjective/objective dichotomy necessarily, and even if you believe there is it isn't an all encompassing duality (like where does relativity fit in?). If you go down that "we have objective morals from material world" thing you also have the issue of there being no moral actor anyway. And in the end none of those overturns Hume, child abuse only ought to be wrong still because Harris wanted it to be wrong in the first place.

dicky is redpilled as fuck

There is a major issue between every one of those statements.

>human well being which can be scientifically deduced

k dude

Do you have schizophrenia? As you make connections that seem to be not there. No offense, I might have it myself but they think bipolar disorder is more likely.

I think you too are making connections that aren't there bro.