nah, the article itself is mediocre, but there are plenty of times it can be worth pointing out that a person making an argument is disingenuous, misrepresenting his credentials, and has a history of engaging with arguments in poor faith. harris is by all accounts a charlatan and a transparent grifter, so it's pretty much not worth engaging with him or his fanboys.
> there are plenty of times it can be worth pointing out that a person making an argument is disingenuous
In most cases, no. In extreme cases, yes.
> misrepresenting his credentials, and has a history of engaging with arguments in poor faith
Cant we make this argument on almost anyone ? I am sure none of the politicians will pass this test.
> harris is by all accounts a charlatan
People are a package. You can always find something you do not agree with in people. That does not make them a 'charlatan'.
> and a transparent grifter, so it's pretty much not worth engaging with him or his fanboys.
If you are so sure about his bad nature, you should be able to convince people rather easily with good arguments.
> I am sure none of the politicians will pass this test.
yes, almost all politicians are craven pieces of garbage, I'm not sure why you'd use this as a counterexample
> That does not make them a 'charlatan'
Lying about your professional credentials to present yourself as having expertise you don't have in order to sell books and build a following pretty definitively makes you a charlatan by me.
> you should be able to convince people rather easily with good arguments
there's no point trying to engage earnestly with somebody who has no intention of doing the same and is relying on you to do so in order to push an agenda or to troll
for instance, you're an unironic 9/11 truther, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince anyone with such a loose-woven relationship with reality of anything.
> I'm not sure why you'd use this as a counterexample
My point was that if one keeps the bar so high, there wont be anyone left. No one is perfect. People make mistakes. Especially people who are motivated to do something. They often commit mistakes on their way. It is natural.
> Lying about your professional credentials to present yourself as having expertise you don't have in order to sell books and build a following pretty definitively makes you a charlatan by me.
Interesting. What is the basis of this argument ? I do not follow Sam closely. Hence I am unaware of what you are referring to. Could you help me with a link ?
> there's no point trying to engage earnestly with somebody who has no intention of doing the same and is relying on you to do so in order to push an agenda or to troll
Well, we have to give up at some point. But that point should be sufficiently liberal enough to allow discussions beyond echo chambers and sufficiently conservative enough to save ones time.
> for instance, you're an unironic 9/11 truther, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince anyone with such a loose-woven relationship with reality of anything
I listen to multiple people and follow multiple groups.
> loose-woven relationship with reality
You are funny.
this is clearly pointless, but there's a big difference between acknowledging that people can make mistakes and observing when somebody has a clear and continuing history as a bad-faith actor. I also don't consider things like genocide apologism or boosting imperialist wars to be the sorts of things you can dismiss as "mistakes".
as for harris, even just the cited article goes into detail about how he bought his credentials and misrepresents the results of his own research in order to use it as a rhetorical tool, and any cursory look at his body of work, for instance his exchanges with chomsky, would show the same level of bad faith.
What do you base this observation on ? Please give me something more than a character assassination article. I have my own disagreements with Sam, especially when it comes to foreign policy and AI. But I do not think he is any worse than other intellectuals.
1. Why don't you give me some credible links instead of making an open ended suggestion like "search that sub" ? Even if I search, how do I know which discussions you are referring to.
2. Some folks at a sub do not hold the authority to decide who is an intellectual and who is not. Sam has a PhD in neuroscience, has written and published multiple books and papers. That puts him definitely above 98 percentile in intellectual achievement ladder.
> L. Ron Hubbard was the most prolific science fiction writer in history. That puts him above the 98th percentile in the intellectual achievement ladder.
Damn right, fuck people with unusual speech patterns, ikr? /s
I’m no fan of Sam Harris, but boy, is this petty.
meh. More like “Personal Hatred towards Sam Harris”. Deal with his arguments. Character assassination is cheap.
The title should look like “Faulty arguments by Sam Harris” or “Why Sam Harris is wrong on X”.
Also check out Chuuni Sensei & the Dragon of Chaos