Main Edition
US
FR
August 11, 2023 - 1:15pm
In a recent appearance on the podcast Impact Theory, author and neuroscientist Sam Harris presented a provocative — some might say risible — hypothetical about Covid-19 vaccines.“Dial up the deadliness of the pathogen, like airborne ebola with a 75% fatality rate,” he said, “and no one gets to make that choice anymore.” More, “turn up the deadliness of the pathogen, turn up the effectiveness of the vaccine, and then you’ve got Robert F. Kennedy Jr. saying on [Joe] Rogan’s podcast not to get the jab — that’s the world I’ve been worried about since Covid.”
The remarks prompted a wave of criticism on X (the site formerly known Twitter), with users claiming that Harris was “completely missing the point” and labelling him “so smart he’s stupid”. The satirical Right-wing publication the Babylon Bee devoted a mocking post to his appearance.
This latest controversy encapsulates Harris’s complex and evolving relationship with the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW), a loose-knit group of commentators ranging from Jordan Peterson to Ben Shapiro to Eric Weinstein that coalesced in the 2010s through shared opposition to identity politics, political correctness, “cancel culture” and public discourse as a whole. Harris has long been known for his rejection of fundamentalism and religious thinking, building an early career as a staunch liberal atheist, and his connection to the IDW further expanded his already large platform.
Well before his recent remarks on Impact Theory, Harris began distancing himself from the group in late 2020, a move that would lead to a self-imposed exile in which he now frequently seizes upon public appearances to criticise his erstwhile colleagues.
The new atheist’s vocal criticism of what he sees as a shift within the group towards conspiracy thinking and contrarianism reveals the growing rift between him and some of his fellow IDW members. The first sign of this divergence came when he publicly rejected what he perceived as false claims by some regarding Donald Trump’s allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 US presidential election. His denouncement extended to critiques of certain IDW figures — though without naming them specifically — who were focusing on Covid-19 vaccines in ways he deemed “completely crazy”.
Harris’s disagreements with the IDW deepened as he began to perceive a “new religion of contrarianism and conspiracy thinking” emerging within the group. Appearing on podcasts to chastise portions of the IDW membership for their theories on subjects like “the terrors of mRNA vaccines”, he expressed frustration with those who once served as intellectual allies.
During one episode of podcast Uncomfortable Conversations, Harris refers to the IDW as “erstwhile smart people” who have been led astray by sinister influences or misguided incentives, and lamented their turn towards positions he found indefensible. Harris even referred to some of his former colleagues’ behaviour as a reason why they were “denied a Nobel Prize”, showcasing the severity of the ideological divide (and possibly a certain level of delusion).
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ strikes me as an absurdly dubious label – those said to be in it are pretty centrist and really not very controversial. I believe the term is an attempt by those on the authoritarian left to defame members of the liberal left who critical of them, wokery etc. The Dark Web is that which exists on the darknets only accessible through a TOR type browser – usually highly illegal sites selling drugs, child pornography, false ids, stolen credit card info, hacking services and info widely deemed to be beyond acceptable free speech.
You are not informed, regardless of the likes. I think the term was coined by Eric Weinstein, maybe a little joke. Anyway, mostly intellectuals they are. Also they are not centrists…. They represent left to right with maybe a couple of centrists. This fostered the debates.
If Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are the IDW, then the IDW is a mildly conservative group. The real DARK web is involved in nefarious activities as Dominic notes.
If Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are the IDW, then the IDW is a mildly conservative group. The real DARK web is involved in nefarious activities as Dominic notes.
You are not informed, regardless of the likes. I think the term was coined by Eric Weinstein, maybe a little joke. Anyway, mostly intellectuals they are. Also they are not centrists…. They represent left to right with maybe a couple of centrists. This fostered the debates.
The ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ strikes me as an absurdly dubious label – those said to be in it are pretty centrist and really not very controversial. I believe the term is an attempt by those on the authoritarian left to defame members of the liberal left who critical of them, wokery etc. The Dark Web is that which exists on the darknets only accessible through a TOR type browser – usually highly illegal sites selling drugs, child pornography, false ids, stolen credit card info, hacking services and info widely deemed to be beyond acceptable free speech.
The heterodox thinker has been busy denouncing his former allies
But not too heterodox.
The heterodox thinker has been busy denouncing his former allies
But not too heterodox.
A lot of what Sam Harris says and does can only be understood in the context of his severe TDS.
He lost a lot of credibility with his support for suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop. We must subvert democracy to save democracy – doesn’t sound very intellectual to me.
As far as I understand that issue, he was not literally saying he didn’t care what was on the laptop, nor that it would be legally ok for some sections of media to supress the story. Rather that his personal view is: ‘Trump is so much more toxic than Biden that such suppression is morally justifiable’. Hold this thought within the reality of nearly all media, which generally mirrors the populace, being highly partisan – it’s absolutely normal now for Fox or MSNBC to heavily skew their reporting for political reasons. At least he admits this. Disagree with his politics or views, but he is not lacking in intellect nor honesty.
Which is why he must be destroyed. Anyone who places political ideology over objective truth and fair elections is incredibly dangerous. And that goes for the Left (Harris/ Biden / Maddow Pelosi / any elected Dem) and the Right (Trump).
Then we must all be ‘destroyed’.
Calling for destruction based on a principle that implicates the majority of all adults, likely even you, is what…safe?
I believe some form of Objective Truth exists, but I very much doubt whether you, I, or any other human can infallibly discern what that is. If that weren’t the case, there wouldn’t be so many “competing objectivities” and warring senses of reality.
OK, bad word choice, AJ, you’re right. However my point stands. People who place ideology over (why don’t we say “the search for”) truth are incredibly dangerous and should not be allowed near power.
That I agree with, Brian. one remaining problem: For many people, their ideology is truth, or at least overlaps with it.
And many people who would never let themselves fall into what they regard as a religion are deeply committed to a fixed political ideology.
That I agree with, Brian. one remaining problem: For many people, their ideology is truth, or at least overlaps with it.
And many people who would never let themselves fall into what they regard as a religion are deeply committed to a fixed political ideology.
I’m pretty sure it is true that we are not communicating with each other right now in ancient Greek. Is this “true”?
There are plenty of things that we can say are true. We use a qualifier like “objectively” to mean something like “indisputably.” If anyone wants to dispute that we are in fact communicating in ancient Greek, I welcome them making such an argument.
Then we would evaluate that argument and determine for ourselves whether it undermined our conviction that we were not. Such is truth, it’s perfectly fine, and we should not qualify or deny its possibility.
You’re talking about matters of verifiable and falsifiable fact, and thus kind of moving the goalpost off the field of what Brian and I were discussing.
I would accept certain truths as absolute by the lights of human understanding, such as: You shall not commit murder and Treat others as you would wish to be treated, and do not treat them as you would hate to be treated yourself. Now, nearly every one of us–even assuming a shared acknowledgement that these are unassailable truths–may fall short of these standards of truth at one time or nearly all the time. But the underlying truth is not eroded just because it is not lived up to or respected in actual practice.
However a question such as whether the State should kill a multiple murderer “in cold blood” fifteen years after the crimes (and maybe after he seems to have undergone a genuine conversion and ministered to other prisoners, stopping fights and winning converts to a path of peace, for example) is not a question that is easily settled by an abstract or absolute appeal to truth.
Many who cite the sanctity of life in opposing all access to abortion do not uphold that with regard to the death penalty, or in a war.
An example: I oppose the death penalty in principle but there is a small percentage of deeply sick people–like Ted Bundy, who escaped from prison and killed more women after his first conviction–for whom I admit that I’d say “give him the chair/needle/gas/noose/firing squad”. The last one-percent of my resistance to State-sponsored killing is hard to kill.
Not an up and down question of clearly discernible truth one way or the other, for me at least. And people for whom it is 100% yes or no to the death penalty may both–on either side, in all sincerity–regard their stance as the True one.
*While there is a element of subjectivity, the statement “the death penalty is controversial in America” is true and pretty silly to dispute, but not in the absolute sense of whether a given person is in London or New York (etc.) at a certain moment.
You are using the word ‘truth’ in a remarkable variety of very flexible ways. That makes it difficult for me to know how to engage.
That is how it used in normal discourse: with nuance ,variety, and uncertainty or disagreement in many instances.
You seemed to reduce it to clears yes or no facts, like “Is she under 200 pounds? Does he have nine or ten fingers? What language are we speaking”
Why don’t you define truth or set parameters for how you think the word should be used? If that’s agreeable and doable, I’ll make me best effort to engage with that in a fair way.
Thanks for engaging, but I’m not able to define truth. (Nor is anyone else, as far as I’m aware.) You denied humans could know the “Objective Truth”; I disagreed. I’m happy enough to leave it at that.
Ok. But a reminder that I “allowed” an ability to know whether a given conversation is in Greek of not, and other things of an empirically certain nature. To me that’s not in same lane as Ultimate Reality or Objective Truth, at least not when you use Capital Letters!
Ok. But a reminder that I “allowed” an ability to know whether a given conversation is in Greek of not, and other things of an empirically certain nature. To me that’s not in same lane as Ultimate Reality or Objective Truth, at least not when you use Capital Letters!
Thanks for engaging, but I’m not able to define truth. (Nor is anyone else, as far as I’m aware.) You denied humans could know the “Objective Truth”; I disagreed. I’m happy enough to leave it at that.
That is how it used in normal discourse: with nuance ,variety, and uncertainty or disagreement in many instances.
You seemed to reduce it to clears yes or no facts, like “Is she under 200 pounds? Does he have nine or ten fingers? What language are we speaking”
Why don’t you define truth or set parameters for how you think the word should be used? If that’s agreeable and doable, I’ll make me best effort to engage with that in a fair way.
You are using the word ‘truth’ in a remarkable variety of very flexible ways. That makes it difficult for me to know how to engage.
You’re talking about matters of verifiable and falsifiable fact, and thus kind of moving the goalpost off the field of what Brian and I were discussing.
I would accept certain truths as absolute by the lights of human understanding, such as: You shall not commit murder and Treat others as you would wish to be treated, and do not treat them as you would hate to be treated yourself. Now, nearly every one of us–even assuming a shared acknowledgement that these are unassailable truths–may fall short of these standards of truth at one time or nearly all the time. But the underlying truth is not eroded just because it is not lived up to or respected in actual practice.
However a question such as whether the State should kill a multiple murderer “in cold blood” fifteen years after the crimes (and maybe after he seems to have undergone a genuine conversion and ministered to other prisoners, stopping fights and winning converts to a path of peace, for example) is not a question that is easily settled by an abstract or absolute appeal to truth.
Many who cite the sanctity of life in opposing all access to abortion do not uphold that with regard to the death penalty, or in a war.
An example: I oppose the death penalty in principle but there is a small percentage of deeply sick people–like Ted Bundy, who escaped from prison and killed more women after his first conviction–for whom I admit that I’d say “give him the chair/needle/gas/noose/firing squad”. The last one-percent of my resistance to State-sponsored killing is hard to kill.
Not an up and down question of clearly discernible truth one way or the other, for me at least. And people for whom it is 100% yes or no to the death penalty may both–on either side, in all sincerity–regard their stance as the True one.
*While there is a element of subjectivity, the statement “the death penalty is controversial in America” is true and pretty silly to dispute, but not in the absolute sense of whether a given person is in London or New York (etc.) at a certain moment.
OK, bad word choice, AJ, you’re right. However my point stands. People who place ideology over (why don’t we say “the search for”) truth are incredibly dangerous and should not be allowed near power.
I’m pretty sure it is true that we are not communicating with each other right now in ancient Greek. Is this “true”?
There are plenty of things that we can say are true. We use a qualifier like “objectively” to mean something like “indisputably.” If anyone wants to dispute that we are in fact communicating in ancient Greek, I welcome them making such an argument.
Then we would evaluate that argument and determine for ourselves whether it undermined our conviction that we were not. Such is truth, it’s perfectly fine, and we should not qualify or deny its possibility.
Then we must all be ‘destroyed’.
Calling for destruction based on a principle that implicates the majority of all adults, likely even you, is what…safe?
I believe some form of Objective Truth exists, but I very much doubt whether you, I, or any other human can infallibly discern what that is. If that weren’t the case, there wouldn’t be so many “competing objectivities” and warring senses of reality.
He didn’t care what was on the laptop. And he recognized suppressing its existence was anti-democratic – he simply thought Trump was such a danger to democracy that it was worth it.
exactly right JV. One can certainly disagree with his stance, but it is a valid moral philosophical position – not unintellectual nor dishonest.
A “valid moral philosophical position”only if one can accomplish the good by doing evil.
You are confusing philosophy with results. To try and do good is a strong moral position, even if it ends in failure, and bad outcomes – and vice versa, National Socialism was not a good thing in the 1930s, even though it did wonders for the economy and spirit of Germany, at that time. Sam Harris is a philosopher/psychologist/public intellectual operating in the world of ideas – he is not a politician, administrator, or lobbyist.
Ah, the ends justify the means. Where have we heard that before?
Not what I said. They may do or they may not. It depends, does it not, on the relative weight of the ends and the means? I am simply saying that not much can be determined from the fact of someone going in either direction.
You – or, at least Harris – are justifying certain actions on the basis of their results; that “philosophy” – utilitarianism – is one that philosophers have spent quite a lot of time analysing.
More to the point, anyone who says they know what I should or should not hear is not someone I would ever willingly grant the power to exercise that control.
You – or, at least Harris – are justifying certain actions on the basis of their results; that “philosophy” – utilitarianism – is one that philosophers have spent quite a lot of time analysing.
More to the point, anyone who says they know what I should or should not hear is not someone I would ever willingly grant the power to exercise that control.
Not what I said. They may do or they may not. It depends, does it not, on the relative weight of the ends and the means? I am simply saying that not much can be determined from the fact of someone going in either direction.
Ah, the ends justify the means. Where have we heard that before?
You are confusing philosophy with results. To try and do good is a strong moral position, even if it ends in failure, and bad outcomes – and vice versa, National Socialism was not a good thing in the 1930s, even though it did wonders for the economy and spirit of Germany, at that time. Sam Harris is a philosopher/psychologist/public intellectual operating in the world of ideas – he is not a politician, administrator, or lobbyist.
Unless SH prefers an authoritarian state over democracy, it is dishonest, immoral and anti-intellectual.
He doesn’t, and stating a case in which one supports the suppression of information does not make one an advocate for an authoritarian state. We all would do so in certain exceptional circumstances. Again, SH is a public intellectual trained in philosophy, psychology, not a politician or a journalist – he lives and works in the realm of ideas, in which rhetoric, thought experiments, etc are the normal currency.
He doesn’t, and stating a case in which one supports the suppression of information does not make one an advocate for an authoritarian state. We all would do so in certain exceptional circumstances. Again, SH is a public intellectual trained in philosophy, psychology, not a politician or a journalist – he lives and works in the realm of ideas, in which rhetoric, thought experiments, etc are the normal currency.
So “end justifies the means”?
Sorry. NO.
A “valid moral philosophical position”only if one can accomplish the good by doing evil.
Unless SH prefers an authoritarian state over democracy, it is dishonest, immoral and anti-intellectual.
So “end justifies the means”?
Sorry. NO.
exactly right JV. One can certainly disagree with his stance, but it is a valid moral philosophical position – not unintellectual nor dishonest.
Rather preferable to stack the basement with the corpses of dead children? This is Sam Harris on the subject. Ho hum.
I am confident he did not really mean he’d be ok with that. It was a rhetorical flourish – made a point firmly, but was unfortunately open to misinterpretation by concrete thinkers.
I will ignore the lazy dig. It was an odious comment made more than ‘firmly’. Maybe check it out.
It’s not a dig. As for what SH said, I listened to the original podcast in full and his subsequent podcast in reaction to the twittersphere meltdown.
It’s not a dig. As for what SH said, I listened to the original podcast in full and his subsequent podcast in reaction to the twittersphere meltdown.
I will ignore the lazy dig. It was an odious comment made more than ‘firmly’. Maybe check it out.
Mao’s China, Stalin’s USSR, Hitler’s Germany… it’s kind of ironic that child-corpse stacking, and repression of speech, seem to be directly proportional.
I am confident he did not really mean he’d be ok with that. It was a rhetorical flourish – made a point firmly, but was unfortunately open to misinterpretation by concrete thinkers.
Mao’s China, Stalin’s USSR, Hitler’s Germany… it’s kind of ironic that child-corpse stacking, and repression of speech, seem to be directly proportional.
I think you are white-washing Harris’s really quite shocking comments on the Triggernometry interview about the laptop saga, and his subsequent attempts to walk back those comments. The condemnation of him came from many who had been former supporters (myself included) – from people for whom Harris’s comments had been egregiously hypocritical in the light of his public image and frequently espoused values as a democrat. As one commentator opined: ‘Sam Harris, the Guy who has spent the last decade preaching that you can develop good morals from rationality alone, just proved to us that he has neither morals, nor rationality.’
Which is why he must be destroyed. Anyone who places political ideology over objective truth and fair elections is incredibly dangerous. And that goes for the Left (Harris/ Biden / Maddow Pelosi / any elected Dem) and the Right (Trump).
He didn’t care what was on the laptop. And he recognized suppressing its existence was anti-democratic – he simply thought Trump was such a danger to democracy that it was worth it.
Rather preferable to stack the basement with the corpses of dead children? This is Sam Harris on the subject. Ho hum.
I think you are white-washing Harris’s really quite shocking comments on the Triggernometry interview about the laptop saga, and his subsequent attempts to walk back those comments. The condemnation of him came from many who had been former supporters (myself included) – from people for whom Harris’s comments had been egregiously hypocritical in the light of his public image and frequently espoused values as a democrat. As one commentator opined: ‘Sam Harris, the Guy who has spent the last decade preaching that you can develop good morals from rationality alone, just proved to us that he has neither morals, nor rationality.’
As far as I understand that issue, he was not literally saying he didn’t care what was on the laptop, nor that it would be legally ok for some sections of media to supress the story. Rather that his personal view is: ‘Trump is so much more toxic than Biden that such suppression is morally justifiable’. Hold this thought within the reality of nearly all media, which generally mirrors the populace, being highly partisan – it’s absolutely normal now for Fox or MSNBC to heavily skew their reporting for political reasons. At least he admits this. Disagree with his politics or views, but he is not lacking in intellect nor honesty.
“At that point Hunter Biden literally could have had the corpses of children in his basement, I would not have cared,”
That was him at his peak. Heterodox, my a***.
you know what heterodox means, right?
I’ll take that as a ‘no’.
There’s no reason to think this poster doesn’t know what ‘heterodox’ means – and moreover since Unherd is not able to tell us when new comments are posted in responses to ours, your comment is pretty rude.
There’s no reason to think this poster doesn’t know what ‘heterodox’ means – and moreover since Unherd is not able to tell us when new comments are posted in responses to ours, your comment is pretty rude.
I’ll take that as a ‘no’.
you know what heterodox means, right?
His may be the most notorious case of TDS.
He lost a lot of credibility with his support for suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop. We must subvert democracy to save democracy – doesn’t sound very intellectual to me.
“At that point Hunter Biden literally could have had the corpses of children in his basement, I would not have cared,”
That was him at his peak. Heterodox, my a***.
His may be the most notorious case of TDS.
A lot of what Sam Harris says and does can only be understood in the context of his severe TDS.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone, who has made no meaningful contribution to science, philosophy or politics, gained such prominence.
A few interminable books that amount to ‘religion is stupid and evil’, some wildly overblown debate performances, and a podcast that would cure the most stubborn case of insomnia.
And for this, he becomes the Yoda of wealthy white progressives like the equally overrated Bill Maher.
He embarrassed himself during the pandemic. Apparently, his expertise extends to virology and vaccine efficiency, so he could not allow any contrary opinions to go unanswered.
His TDS only further demonstrated a common selectivity among people like him.
As evidenced by his silence on the extraordinary corruption, cruelty and censorship perpetrated by the current administration.
It’s never a problem when your side are in power.
Pretty much it.
My crooked perverts are better than your perverted crooks!
Just a new atheist like Hitchens who seemed transgressive in a former time. Books were sold but the era has past and he rode a one horse pony. Oddly enough Harris now sounds like an Old Testament prophet addressing an audience no longer listening..
Pretty much it.
My crooked perverts are better than your perverted crooks!
Just a new atheist like Hitchens who seemed transgressive in a former time. Books were sold but the era has past and he rode a one horse pony. Oddly enough Harris now sounds like an Old Testament prophet addressing an audience no longer listening..
For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone, who has made no meaningful contribution to science, philosophy or politics, gained such prominence.
A few interminable books that amount to ‘religion is stupid and evil’, some wildly overblown debate performances, and a podcast that would cure the most stubborn case of insomnia.
And for this, he becomes the Yoda of wealthy white progressives like the equally overrated Bill Maher.
He embarrassed himself during the pandemic. Apparently, his expertise extends to virology and vaccine efficiency, so he could not allow any contrary opinions to go unanswered.
His TDS only further demonstrated a common selectivity among people like him.
As evidenced by his silence on the extraordinary corruption, cruelty and censorship perpetrated by the current administration.
It’s never a problem when your side are in power.
I haven’t listened to many podcasts by Eric Weinstein, but his brother Bret does excellent work at Dark Horse.
Sam Harris has lost the plot.
Bret’s great, I enjoy a lot of his content and interviews.
Eric is the anti Brian Clough. If Clough is the posterboy for “saying what you mean, and mean what you say,” Eric needs to be listened to whilest stood on your head, looking in the mirror, playing the recording in reverse.
Eric is certainly not a great communicator
Eric is certainly not a great communicator
I find Bret very insightful and incisive especially giving an evolutionary perspective on problems.
Bret’s great, I enjoy a lot of his content and interviews.
Eric is the anti Brian Clough. If Clough is the posterboy for “saying what you mean, and mean what you say,” Eric needs to be listened to whilest stood on your head, looking in the mirror, playing the recording in reverse.
I find Bret very insightful and incisive especially giving an evolutionary perspective on problems.
I haven’t listened to many podcasts by Eric Weinstein, but his brother Bret does excellent work at Dark Horse.
Sam Harris has lost the plot.
Everytime I see Sam Harris show up in the news, they append “neuroscientist” to his name, like it’s part of his name. Is someone a “scientist” if the only research they’ve ever done is that supporting their thesis? But so far as I’ve been able to tell, once he left his PhD program at Stanford that was the end of it. He’s basically a public opinion personality. If he weren’t pontificating about religion and philosophy not any of us would likely ever have heard of him.
I’ve enjoyed some of his books. I just find this curious.
The actress Mayim Bialik is a neuroscientist in exactly the same way. She obtained a PhD in Neuroscience before going on to act the role of neuroscientist Amy Farrah Fowler in ‘The Big Bang Theory’.
Sam Harris has also been acting that role – much more woodenly – since his credentials were awarded. He also has Hollywood connections – his Mum created ‘The Golden Girls’.
She did? Talk about crimes against humanity.
I didn’t know that but I knew Susan Harris created ‘Soap’ … if anyone remembers that.
She did? Talk about crimes against humanity.
I didn’t know that but I knew Susan Harris created ‘Soap’ … if anyone remembers that.
The actress Mayim Bialik is a neuroscientist in exactly the same way. She obtained a PhD in Neuroscience before going on to act the role of neuroscientist Amy Farrah Fowler in ‘The Big Bang Theory’.
Sam Harris has also been acting that role – much more woodenly – since his credentials were awarded. He also has Hollywood connections – his Mum created ‘The Golden Girls’.
Everytime I see Sam Harris show up in the news, they append “neuroscientist” to his name, like it’s part of his name. Is someone a “scientist” if the only research they’ve ever done is that supporting their thesis? But so far as I’ve been able to tell, once he left his PhD program at Stanford that was the end of it. He’s basically a public opinion personality. If he weren’t pontificating about religion and philosophy not any of us would likely ever have heard of him.
I’ve enjoyed some of his books. I just find this curious.
I’ve tried countless times to listen to his podcast. He’s simply not interesting. Is anyone else taken aback by his manner of speech? I get the impression he is trying to sound smart with his weird vocal patterns.
His superior rational brain means he has to try to sound like a robot
You say he’s alluding to robots in an attempt to sound clever? How ironic.
Sam, is that you?
Sam, is that you?
You say he’s alluding to robots in an attempt to sound clever? How ironic.
Agreed – he always comes across bored & blasé and above it all. A man without passion. Tedious.
His superior rational brain means he has to try to sound like a robot
Agreed – he always comes across bored & blasé and above it all. A man without passion. Tedious.
I’ve tried countless times to listen to his podcast. He’s simply not interesting. Is anyone else taken aback by his manner of speech? I get the impression he is trying to sound smart with his weird vocal patterns.
Elon is right with his second comment – Sam is flat out insane. And his TDS is off the charts.
Elon is right with his second comment – Sam is flat out insane. And his TDS is off the charts.
Is “denouncement” a word?
I wonder what they have on him.
I wonder what they have on him.
Harris’s stated support for subverting democracy to save it from Trump alienated him from his erstwhile IDW colleagues. It was a stupid position and he’s never quite recovered.
Harris’s stated support for subverting democracy to save it from Trump alienated him from his erstwhile IDW colleagues. It was a stupid position and he’s never quite recovered.
Sam is simply sucking up.
Sam is simply sucking up.
Hey Editors:
It’s actually the not-satirical, notthebee.com site.
Hey Editors:
It’s actually the not-satirical, notthebee.com site.
I doubt Harris is insane, but rather needy and tedious.
I doubt Harris is insane, but rather needy and tedious.
I don’t know much about him so this may be mistaken, but from what I read here and read in the past, he strikes me as an old school “fundamentalist” atheist. This is the kind of person who’s convinced that by virtue their achievement in being an atheist they’re somehow smarter and deserve a special status, more weight for the opinions since they don’t believe in “superstition”. This would mean for example, because “the science” dictates something it shouldn’t be questioned despite concerns and questionable outcomes. This becomes more critical in things like a COVID vaccine (or, say, race science) where large scale damage to human lives is at risk.
Wokeism destroyed this atheism when it emerged as the prevailing new ideology, and it was good riddance if you ask me.
Peterson and Lindsay talk about this in one of Peterson’s podcasts and highlight its shortcomings. One is the assumption of logos in the universe which presumes a logical order which is required for science to be universally applicable. This presumption is itself rooted in the belief in God which would be an arbitrary assumption othewise. Another is about the presumption of the usefulness of the study of science – that it’s a beneficial thing to do. This also is an assumption that can be tied to the monotheistic scholarly tradition.
Absolute drivel. Your contention that atheists are in hock to “the science” is a ‘fundamental’ misunderstanding of why many atheists conclude there is no imaginary creator to believe in. It doesn’t surprise me though. Those who believe in a creator do so for a variety of reasons, but you’re blind to atheists having diverse routes to their conclusions.
The blindness of your assertions extend to the failure to understand that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, creation myths for a very small fraction of that time. We’re still evolving, and need to get over this obsession with false beliefs. The infinitesimal timeframe involving the recent status of scientific endeavour (and only a very limited part of it, at that) that you base your assertion that atheism has been destroyed upon demonstrates nothing more than laughable ignorance.
You’ve quite a few strawman arguments going on in your response we can get to in greater depth if you like. But putting that aside, I found this bit interesting:
This is recognisable as begging the question in logic. You’re asserting that a specific scientific interpretation of phenomena is right, because the said specific interpretation is right. It’s a funny argument to make in a debate about the validity of science that you use scientific results as evidence.
Resorting to the “strawman” epithet is in itself a prime example of strawmanism. We can go on as long as you like, but it doesn’t alter the fact that you’ve decided that very recent scientific failures, in an even more limited aspect of scientific endeavour, via wokeism, has somehow “destroyed” atheism.
When you’re ready to backtrack on that assertion, let us know.
Many Wokeists themselves are atheists to start with hence your straw man argument. In any case, this is not even my opinion as such, members of the group New Atheists themselves admitted as much that their movement was destroyed by the Woke. There was an article on Quillette IIRC, let me see if I can find it.
I wouldn’t bother, it’ll make no difference to those who know in their very being that there is no god. It’s not so much an intellectual argument (although i’m happy to argue on that basis all day, and then all night); it’s about being truthful with oneself about how belief in a deity might arise in the human soul. I understand it perfectly well; it’s just that, having understood it, i and other true atheists have moved on. Those who think it’s a “movement” need to search deeper into their bowels, if they’re capable of doing so.
I agree it’s not really an intellectual argument but an article of faith in the end (which is really my point ultimately). Good luck with your faith in this case, hope it gives you peace of mind. For what it’s worth, I didn’t find the article in mind, but I did find an SSC article which probably does an even better job in describing the story I had in mind when writing the op:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/
“Good luck with your faith”
Nice sentiment (thanks) but it’s precisely because i don’t need faith or rely on luck that i’ll pass on that.
Peace of mind isn’t necessary for me – but guess what, i’m happy. I have peace of soul, and wish those who find their peace by recourse to an external source that doesn’t exist the best of luck too.
A lively and often interesting if contentious exchange.
To the validity and integrity of your fixed personal unbelief–I mean that in all sincerity-I would just return these points:
1) The true antiquity of creation myths is not known, anymore than the Epic of Gilgamesh reflects with any certainty the earliest oral work of epic poetry, but just the oldest that has survived.
2) There is evidence of ceremonial burial going back 100,000 years, suggesting not a specific or necessarily even theistic belief, but a sense of something Before, After, or Beyond.
3) Many know in their souls, for themselves, that there is a God or Presence (perhaps you see a hard separation here, as you speak of the soul but seem to reject any creative agency) of some kind. They are not conclusively, demonstrably correct and neither are those on your side of the question.
A lively and often interesting if contentious exchange.
To the validity and integrity of your fixed personal unbelief–I mean that in all sincerity-I would just return these points:
1) The true antiquity of creation myths is not known, anymore than the Epic of Gilgamesh reflects with any certainty the earliest oral work of epic poetry, but just the oldest that has survived.
2) There is evidence of ceremonial burial going back 100,000 years, suggesting not a specific or necessarily even theistic belief, but a sense of something Before, After, or Beyond.
3) Many know in their souls, for themselves, that there is a God or Presence (perhaps you see a hard separation here, as you speak of the soul but seem to reject any creative agency) of some kind. They are not conclusively, demonstrably correct and neither are those on your side of the question.
“Good luck with your faith”
Nice sentiment (thanks) but it’s precisely because i don’t need faith or rely on luck that i’ll pass on that.
Peace of mind isn’t necessary for me – but guess what, i’m happy. I have peace of soul, and wish those who find their peace by recourse to an external source that doesn’t exist the best of luck too.
I agree it’s not really an intellectual argument but an article of faith in the end (which is really my point ultimately). Good luck with your faith in this case, hope it gives you peace of mind. For what it’s worth, I didn’t find the article in mind, but I did find an SSC article which probably does an even better job in describing the story I had in mind when writing the op:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/
James Lindsay has also described the splitting of the atheist movement into ‘fundamentalist’ and woke many times.
Yes. It started after the ‘Elevatorgate’ incident way back in 2011.
Yeah. Not sure why these keep getting down voted though, it’s pretty obviously what happened.
Yeah. Not sure why these keep getting down voted though, it’s pretty obviously what happened.
Yes. It started after the ‘Elevatorgate’ incident way back in 2011.
I wouldn’t bother, it’ll make no difference to those who know in their very being that there is no god. It’s not so much an intellectual argument (although i’m happy to argue on that basis all day, and then all night); it’s about being truthful with oneself about how belief in a deity might arise in the human soul. I understand it perfectly well; it’s just that, having understood it, i and other true atheists have moved on. Those who think it’s a “movement” need to search deeper into their bowels, if they’re capable of doing so.
James Lindsay has also described the splitting of the atheist movement into ‘fundamentalist’ and woke many times.
Many Wokeists themselves are atheists to start with hence your straw man argument. In any case, this is not even my opinion as such, members of the group New Atheists themselves admitted as much that their movement was destroyed by the Woke. There was an article on Quillette IIRC, let me see if I can find it.
Resorting to the “strawman” epithet is in itself a prime example of strawmanism. We can go on as long as you like, but it doesn’t alter the fact that you’ve decided that very recent scientific failures, in an even more limited aspect of scientific endeavour, via wokeism, has somehow “destroyed” atheism.
When you’re ready to backtrack on that assertion, let us know.
You’ve quite a few strawman arguments going on in your response we can get to in greater depth if you like. But putting that aside, I found this bit interesting:
This is recognisable as begging the question in logic. You’re asserting that a specific scientific interpretation of phenomena is right, because the said specific interpretation is right. It’s a funny argument to make in a debate about the validity of science that you use scientific results as evidence.
Absolute drivel. Your contention that atheists are in hock to “the science” is a ‘fundamental’ misunderstanding of why many atheists conclude there is no imaginary creator to believe in. It doesn’t surprise me though. Those who believe in a creator do so for a variety of reasons, but you’re blind to atheists having diverse routes to their conclusions.
The blindness of your assertions extend to the failure to understand that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, creation myths for a very small fraction of that time. We’re still evolving, and need to get over this obsession with false beliefs. The infinitesimal timeframe involving the recent status of scientific endeavour (and only a very limited part of it, at that) that you base your assertion that atheism has been destroyed upon demonstrates nothing more than laughable ignorance.
I don’t know much about him so this may be mistaken, but from what I read here and read in the past, he strikes me as an old school “fundamentalist” atheist. This is the kind of person who’s convinced that by virtue their achievement in being an atheist they’re somehow smarter and deserve a special status, more weight for the opinions since they don’t believe in “superstition”. This would mean for example, because “the science” dictates something it shouldn’t be questioned despite concerns and questionable outcomes. This becomes more critical in things like a COVID vaccine (or, say, race science) where large scale damage to human lives is at risk.
Wokeism destroyed this atheism when it emerged as the prevailing new ideology, and it was good riddance if you ask me.
Peterson and Lindsay talk about this in one of Peterson’s podcasts and highlight its shortcomings. One is the assumption of logos in the universe which presumes a logical order which is required for science to be universally applicable. This presumption is itself rooted in the belief in God which would be an arbitrary assumption othewise. Another is about the presumption of the usefulness of the study of science – that it’s a beneficial thing to do. This also is an assumption that can be tied to the monotheistic scholarly tradition.
Sam Harris was simply saying that because it was the elderly who mostly died, younger people were being told by conspiracists that they were safe and had no need to be vaccinated against COVID.
As a result, lots of elderly people died because the unvaccinated people transmitted COVID to their vaccinated elderly contacts.
Unvaccinated people were literally killing their grandmothers.
All the conspiracist theories had to do was listen to the government repeatedly explain this to them, rather than exist in their own echo-chamber.
But vaccination did not stop younger people getting covid (though in a mild form or without symptoms). Nor did it stop them passing the bug on. But because the vaccines were initially touted as preventative vaccinated people could also infect their elders.
Vaccination was successful though in freeing the vaccinated from a sense of danger to themselves and others.
How serious or not such danger was is another subject of loud disagreement.
I’m just paraphrasing what Sam Harris said in the interview.
I guess he was trying to take the ‘Intellectual’ out of ‘Intellectual Dark Web’.
Sorry. Ignore my previous comments.
Sorry. Ignore my previous comments.
Vaccination was intended to protect elderly and vulnerable people from death. If people in these categories refused to get vaccinated, that’s on them.
That’s why vaccines were mandated for college students and the military, and urged for 5-year olds?
Give me a beak!
That’s why vaccines were mandated for college students and the military, and urged for 5-year olds?
Give me a beak!
I’m just paraphrasing what Sam Harris said in the interview.
I guess he was trying to take the ‘Intellectual’ out of ‘Intellectual Dark Web’.
Vaccination was intended to protect elderly and vulnerable people from death. If people in these categories refused to get vaccinated, that’s on them.
You’re the one in the echo chamber. Pfizer themselves have now admitted that they didn’t know if the vaccines stopped transmission and we know from data that they don’t stop you being infected or transmitting the disease so you didn’t kill granny and if you’re young and healthy, you have very little risk from the virus.
OMG. What a horrible take. The vaccine didn’t stop transmission of the disease. That narrative crumbled when the Pfizer rep admitted to EU officials that they didn’t even test for transmission.
This is wrong on a few points – 1) vaccines usually do reduce transmission, so it was reasonable to assume they would in the case of COVID, even absent research confirmation; 2) covid vaccines do in fact reduce transmission; and 3) Pfizer didn’t ‘admit’ the lack of testing, they were never asked to and never claimed to have evidence on the matter (aside from that related to point 1)
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/one-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-can-cut-household-transmission-by-up-to-half
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pfizer-vaccine-transmission-idUSL1N31F20E
Yet we know the vaccines did not prevent transmission. Your interpretation of events doesn’t really comport with what we were told at time. We were told Covid was a disease of the unvaccinated, that if enough people got the jab, it would create herd immunity. First we were told 50%, then 60%, then 70% and so on.
We were told, and some people still believe today, that you would kill grandma by not getting the vaccine.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext
Were there hysteria. over-reactions – oh yes, and in both directions (we’re all going to die vs it’s all a conspiracy of type x, y or z). “we know the vaccines did not prevent transmission”….did you not read the links?Here’s another –
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298
Sure, it’s clear that current strains of covid are more transmissable by the vaccinated than at first thought/early strains (not ‘horrible’ but a wholly reasonable stance at the time – and one which was more accurate with the earlier strains)
The link you provided is investigating some specific possible indicators of transmissibility – far from conclusive, as the author himself is clear about. His recommendation is for more mask wearing, distancing etc – so more of one measure maybe less reliance on another.
In any case, it is wildly unfair to complain about the inaccuracy of views at the time – this was a novel virus, and the world over was riddled with uncertainty, fear, and death.
That paper was published in Feb 2022.
After two full years of the public being harangued by various “experts” about the how “safe” and “effective” the “vaccines” were, a few Establishment doctors started admitting what many, many scientists got cancelled for trying to tell us right from the start: that the “vaccines” weren’t safe, weren’t effective, didn’t stop transmission, and risked doing far more harm in terms of QALY than the disease they didn’t protect you from.
The way I remember it, there were some indications the vaccines prevented transmission of the delta variant. This was far from conclusive though. Yet we were told there was no uncertainty. It you didn’t get the vaccine you were killing grandma. Geez, people were made to feel like they were selfish, intolerant aholes for not getting the vaccine. The amount of shaming was bone crushing. At no point did the authorities say yes we might think it prevent transmission, but no we didn’t actually test for transmission. And we actually knew at the time they didn’t test for transmission, but the gaslighting was so extreme and so oppressive that this information disappeared into the ether.
well I agree with you there Jim, it was way OTT and anxiety only accounted for some of it.
well I agree with you there Jim, it was way OTT and anxiety only accounted for some of it.
That paper was published in Feb 2022.
After two full years of the public being harangued by various “experts” about the how “safe” and “effective” the “vaccines” were, a few Establishment doctors started admitting what many, many scientists got cancelled for trying to tell us right from the start: that the “vaccines” weren’t safe, weren’t effective, didn’t stop transmission, and risked doing far more harm in terms of QALY than the disease they didn’t protect you from.
The way I remember it, there were some indications the vaccines prevented transmission of the delta variant. This was far from conclusive though. Yet we were told there was no uncertainty. It you didn’t get the vaccine you were killing grandma. Geez, people were made to feel like they were selfish, intolerant aholes for not getting the vaccine. The amount of shaming was bone crushing. At no point did the authorities say yes we might think it prevent transmission, but no we didn’t actually test for transmission. And we actually knew at the time they didn’t test for transmission, but the gaslighting was so extreme and so oppressive that this information disappeared into the ether.
Were there hysteria. over-reactions – oh yes, and in both directions (we’re all going to die vs it’s all a conspiracy of type x, y or z). “we know the vaccines did not prevent transmission”….did you not read the links?Here’s another –
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298
Sure, it’s clear that current strains of covid are more transmissable by the vaccinated than at first thought/early strains (not ‘horrible’ but a wholly reasonable stance at the time – and one which was more accurate with the earlier strains)
The link you provided is investigating some specific possible indicators of transmissibility – far from conclusive, as the author himself is clear about. His recommendation is for more mask wearing, distancing etc – so more of one measure maybe less reliance on another.
In any case, it is wildly unfair to complain about the inaccuracy of views at the time – this was a novel virus, and the world over was riddled with uncertainty, fear, and death.
Yet we know the vaccines did not prevent transmission. Your interpretation of events doesn’t really comport with what we were told at time. We were told Covid was a disease of the unvaccinated, that if enough people got the jab, it would create herd immunity. First we were told 50%, then 60%, then 70% and so on.
We were told, and some people still believe today, that you would kill grandma by not getting the vaccine.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext
This is wrong on a few points – 1) vaccines usually do reduce transmission, so it was reasonable to assume they would in the case of COVID, even absent research confirmation; 2) covid vaccines do in fact reduce transmission; and 3) Pfizer didn’t ‘admit’ the lack of testing, they were never asked to and never claimed to have evidence on the matter (aside from that related to point 1)
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/one-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-can-cut-household-transmission-by-up-to-half
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pfizer-vaccine-transmission-idUSL1N31F20E
I’m guessing you are being sardonic here, but that the downvotes are because it isn’t obvious.
But vaccination did not stop younger people getting covid (though in a mild form or without symptoms). Nor did it stop them passing the bug on. But because the vaccines were initially touted as preventative vaccinated people could also infect their elders.
Vaccination was successful though in freeing the vaccinated from a sense of danger to themselves and others.
How serious or not such danger was is another subject of loud disagreement.
You’re the one in the echo chamber. Pfizer themselves have now admitted that they didn’t know if the vaccines stopped transmission and we know from data that they don’t stop you being infected or transmitting the disease so you didn’t kill granny and if you’re young and healthy, you have very little risk from the virus.
OMG. What a horrible take. The vaccine didn’t stop transmission of the disease. That narrative crumbled when the Pfizer rep admitted to EU officials that they didn’t even test for transmission.
I’m guessing you are being sardonic here, but that the downvotes are because it isn’t obvious.
Sam Harris was simply saying that because it was the elderly who mostly died, younger people were being told by conspiracists that they were safe and had no need to be vaccinated against COVID.
As a result, lots of elderly people died because the unvaccinated people transmitted COVID to their vaccinated elderly contacts.
Unvaccinated people were literally killing their grandmothers.
All the conspiracist theories had to do was listen to the government repeatedly explain this to them, rather than exist in their own echo-chamber.