Is Sam Harris a "neuroscientist"? Or a scientist at all? At least not a good one.

[HUNTERMANIA]

For the record, I didn't read the article and I don't plan on it.

Still: Sam Harris was never my friend.

 

[Grenz]

This will without a doubt trigger a lot of people pretty badly but it's an interesting read.

With Sam Harris consistently being promoted as “a neuroscientist,” and using this label to bash religion and other leading scientists, perhaps we should take a closer look at Sam Harris’s PhD work. After all, since Harris abandoned science after securing his PhD, it is the PhD work alone, all by itself, that Harris uses to self-label as “a neuroscientist.”

It’s not clear how long it took Harris to get his PhD. According to Wiki, he received his BA in Philosophy in 2000 and his PhD in Neuroscience in 2009. He, along with several others, published their work in PLoS ONE: The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief

Statistician William Briggs analyzed the contents of this paper in an in-depth, 7-part series that begins here.

"During the course of my investigation of scientism and bad science, I have read a great many bad, poorly reasoned papers. This one might not be the worst, but it deserves a prize for mangling the largest number of things simultaneously. What is fascinating, and what I do not here explore, is why this paper was not only published but why it is believed by others. It is sure evidence, I think, that scientists are no different than anybody else in wanting their cherished beliefs upheld such that they are willing to grasp at any confirmatory evidence, no matter how slight, blemished, or suspect that evidence might be.

I do not claim, and I do not believe, that Harris and his team cheated, lied, or willfully misled. I have given sufficient argument to show the authors wore such opaque blinders that they could not see what they were doing and so choose to write down that which they imagined they saw, which was a preconceived, incoherent concoction about how “Christians” would differ from “rational” thinkers."


The post covers much more and concludes:

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.


I'd say rather than 'a neuroscientist', let alone 'the neuroscientist', he's somebody who got a PhD in neuroscience with an extraordinary bad dissertation, sponsored by an organization he started himself and which doesn't really exist anymore (in its original sense) and hasn't done any scientific work at all other than his not so valuable dissertation. I mean that doesn't make him a fraud, he has his PhD after all but it's a bit cringy.

The blog post isn't new and the author clearly has an agenda but his claims are bulletproof facts.
https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/neuroscientist-sam-harris/

TLDR:

Sam Harris figured out that he can make a lot more money (and with a lot less effort) writing books and arguing than he ever could being a scientist.

 

[mrsenor]

Sam Harris was never my friend.


No but seriously, guy has never impressed me at all.

i lol irl

 

[Fatchops]

Of course if Sam Harris only criticized Islam instead of all religions the War Room would gush over him.

 

[Fawlty]

Of course if Sam Harris only criticized Islam instead of all religions the War Room would gush over him.

He recently made the mistake of eviscerating Jordan Peterson on Waking Up, so Harris is temporarily out of favor with the far right, until the next terrorist attack at least.

 

[Execute]

You're the only one that sounds triggered, bud.

 

[forum poster]

I haven't followed the thread but what do you mean by the part in bold ? What are you referring to?

He's probably referring to the fact that libertarianism in the US mostly just the ideology of cranks and charlatans. I don't know if being a Libertarian makes you tend to believe stupid things to keep your ideology intact or whether being a crank draws one to libertarianism for obvious reasons.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

He's probably referring to the fact that libertarianism in the US mostly just the ideology of cranks and charlatans. I don't know if being a Libertarian makes you tend to believe stupid things to keep your ideology intact or whether being a crank draws one to libertarianism for obvious reasons.

Libertarians aren't socially 'in' like Republicans and Democrats are. It has nothing to do with the soundness of the ideology, it's that people already on the cultural fringes are more likely to consider it, thus, a lot of wackos get in. Libertarians > republicans/democrats in terms of ideology by far, though. We need a much stronger liberty movement in this country, especially now.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Bullshit. Knowledge doesn't make a scientist. Scientific contributions and research do.

But he did contribute through his PhD thesis and he got the PhD so he's a neuroscientist.

Just like if I wrote a 60 page memoir and self published it I would be a published author like George Orwell or Ernest Hemingway.

 

[TSO]

I don't care about Milo, I disagree with Spencer, you don't have to listen to me since I didn't write the post and to dismiss an argument based on characteristics you assign to a person is called ad-hominem.

So much irony. This entire thread is an ad-hominem attack on Sam. You are so ill equipped to argue against his points you are trying to discredit him as a scientist...lol

 

[lecter]

So much irony. This entire thread is an ad-hominem attack on Sam.

No, by definition it's not.
"Ad hominem" doesn't mean to talk about somebody's academic background or even question it.
It also doesn't mean attacking somebody on a personal level.
It means dismissing an argument made by a person based on attributes assigned to this person or based on character attacks.
No argument made by Sam Harris was discussed in this thread, therefore it's not 'ad hominem'.
Sorry.

You are so ill equipped to argue against his points

I'm not even familiar with "his points".

you are trying to discredit him as a scientist...lol

There's not much to discredit.
He's not engaging in any form of scientific work for years and the work he does nowadays isn't scientific.

Altogether your post isn't very good.

 

[MicroBrew]

This will without a doubt trigger a lot of people pretty badly but it's an interesting read.

With Sam Harris consistently being promoted as “a neuroscientist,” and using this label to bash religion and other leading scientists,

He does not bash religion per se , he promotes rationalism and criticizes *some* religions, those which are intolerant & supremacist and have made the largest impact on our lives. He has mentioned that if Jains were to become fundamentalist/extremist, they would only become more passivist. Whereas a Muslim who becomes fundamentalist/extremist has a high chance of become violent and intolerant.

 

[Metusalemi]

He does not bash religion per se , he promotes rationalism and criticizes *some* religions, those which are intolerant & supremacist and have made the largest impact on our lives. He has mentioned that if Jains were to become fundamentalist/extremist, they would only become more passivist. Whereas a Muslim who becomes fundamentalist/extremist has a high chance of become violent and intolerant.

They tried to hide their true purpose in their symbol, but I was too clever to be duped.

 

[Islam Imamate]

He's not a practising scientist, that's for sure.

While Harris is certainly one of the better representatives of the kind of people who make their living by talking in conventions, podcasts and such, his body of work ought to be subject to criticism like anyone elses.

I would regard him as more of a philosopher than a scientist. He seems to be more interested in that which cannot be proven through science, than that which can be.

But he claims his philosophical arguments can be proven through science.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

But he claims his philosophical arguments can be proven through science.

Yup.

I watched him debate William Lane Craig a few years ago, like 2011 I think, and he didn't even try to debate WLC, he just launched into emotional tirades against religion (debate was about whether objective morality could exist or what the basis of it was -- WLC said Christianity/God, obv, and Harris said science). WLC mopped the floor with him. It wasn't even close. And I DEFINITELY wasn't a Christian then. Harris just showed no regard for actually countering anything WLC said... it was bad. He's also completely stuck on a material understanding of the universe and tries to apply to spiritual issues, which is a kind of delusion, IMO.

Not a fan, never have been.

 

[CC's left foot]

He's very good at sounding convincing. But I've found the science lacking in many of his discussions.

Clearly a very smart guy though.

 

[Pwent]

Oh, look, our resident white supremacist doesn't like Sam Harris.

Pew pew.

Awesome argumentation.
I guess he is a real neuroscientist now.

 

[BVG]

Bullshit. Knowledge doesn't make a scientist. Scientific contributions and research do.

So your argument is "bullshit"?

I'm done with this thread.

 

[evansusmc2]

I care about his intellectual speaking and who he is as a person.

Could care less about what the TS is trying to claim.

 

[Madmick]

He recently made the mistake of eviscerating Jordan Peterson on Waking Up, so Harris is temporarily out of favor with the far right, until the next terrorist attack at least.

See, when you position a man like Jordan Peterson as "far-right", I have trouble taking the sentiment seriously.

Challenging gender pronouns makes you far-right?