Say something bad about Sam Harris

Zoolander 2 did not live up to the original

hes not a real neuroscientist even though people call it his expertise.

Tell me more

Harris somehow got into a top neuroscience program without any scientific background whatsoever, since he majored in English and then Philosopgy. He also didn't do a single experiment for his PhD thesis according to the credits on the paper itself. Since receiving his PhD, Harris hasn't published a single paper. What kind of neuroscientist doesn't do research?

Something bad about Sam Harris.

That was easy.

HARRIS BTFO
critical-theory.com/sam-harris-awkwardly-debates-with-noam-chomsky/

Prescribing a code of morality after saying that there's no free will is contradictory.

It's like saying: these are the choices that should be made. Oh you can't actually make any choices btw.

Harris is a fag.

can't even debate a cartoonist
samharris.org/podcast/item/triggered

underrated

Sam Harris' entire area of "study" is some bullshit mystical pseudo-science he made up.

I have read all the replies in this thread and I have to say I am not impressed.

He thinks p-zombies can exist.

Hume pls go

Harris doesn't claim to be an active neuroscientist. He calls himself a writer, which he is. I'm a big fan of his, but he tends to be to erudite in his use of language for his own good and I feel this can discourage a general audience from accessing his work

>critical-theory.com

That's exactly what Tyson said to him in a podcast.

Neil's an educator, so he's sensitive to how the public needs language dumbed down for them and said Sam's problem is he doesn't do that. He talks like everyone is a Oxford-worthy orator like he is.

Neil compared speaking to basketball: When you pass the ball, it's on you to make sure it gets to the target. No matter what happens, whoever passed the ball is responsible for where it ends up. If you're speaking, it's on you to be understood. You can't just blabber on and expect everyone else to work to understand you.

I thought that illustrated both of them very well.

he comes across as completely brainwashed in the scott adams interview.

also he had on a FBI or NSA guy and was just 'yes sir' the entire time while only a few weeks earlier was getting bogged down in semantics with jordan peterson.

It always astonishes me that people can read that exchange and conclude that Chomsky came out on top. On top of taking a questionable moral position; that the US bombing of the al shifa pharmaceutical factory was morally equivalent to the al-queda led 9/11 attack; he came off as a complete jackass about it.

How is it not true

p-zombies do exist. you're one of them
prove me wrong

this and imo in his jordan peterson interview he came across as a total autist who couldn't get past petersons darwinian concept of truth to let the interview go any further.

imo both scott adams and jordan peterson are higher tier intellectuals than sam harris

Explain how the scientific method can answer a moral question about economics, ethics, interpersonal relationships, etc.

I'll give you a headstart. What does science say about "goodness"?

Morality is subjective

Seriously? It was Chomsky presenting empirical evidence versus Harris presenting a ridiculous thought experiment that ignores the fact that Harris does not have insight into the motives and knowledge of US officials. Although I often disagree with Chomsky, it is obvious that he has been around the block compared to Harris and his naive belief in his corrupt government, and he has written extensively on issues that came up during the debate, which Harris never bothered to read. Despite Harris aggressively pestering him for a "conversation", Chomsky still had the politeness to BTFO Harris without too much rudeness, and Harris still had the nerve to complain on his log about the "limits of discourse" instead of owning up to the fact that he didn't do his research. Harris came off as a superficial, blockheaded, and pseudo-intellectual bitch as he usually does whenever he tackles somebody above your average pundit.

Just because science can't prove that morals exist, doesn't mean they're subjective. Science can't prove that 1+1 is 2, or that other people exist, but we can say that the answers are objective.

it can answer moral questions as well as any other belief system can, since every belief system has to take some moral values as axioms to start their moral hierarchy, for example " minimise the suffering of humans and then of other conscious creatures".

when he calls it science, he really means deductive reasoning that uses evidence in a systematic way to model and then manipulate our surroundings.

...

He either doesn't understand what the is-ought gap is or he just pretends like he doesn't know.

Tropic Thunder was a great movie but I had a hard time seeing him as a washed up action star.

white supremacist.

i feel like hes trying to fuck me every time I listen to his podcast.

This is false, science is a belief system based only on induction. Morality comes exclusively from logic(1assuming it is objective in the first place), so science can not explain morals.

Yeah but the is-ought gap is kinda baloney to begin with.

Firstly because "ought" statements are a kind of "is" statement.

Tom Scott did the the exact same thing he accused Sam of; prescribing motive to Trump's actions in that he's playing 4D chess. Kind of curious as to why Sam let such a contradiction slip.

Scott did the the exact same thing he accused Sam of; prescribing motive to Trump's actions in that he's playing 4D chess. Kind of curious as to why Sam let such a contradiction slip.

He looks like ben stiller

Me? Err, I'm black. Well brown.

>implying the burden of proof is on me
>implying you can prove anything outside mathematics
>implying the fact that my brain is almost identical to yours isn't evidence that my experience is similar to yours

1. He promotes Eastern religious woo while falsely claiming to be an atheist.

2. As a neuroscientist he refuses to discuss psychiatry though in the past he's spoke of what he calls non-scientific disorders and diagnostic criteria.

3. He brings fallacy users and sophists onto his podcast to speak about nonsensical and non-scientific topics.

He wears the nametag atheist, but he's really just a pantheist with a degree he doesn't use.