'Sam Harris and the myth of perfectly rational thought'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  And again you don't discuss, you misrepresent. Your posting on this thread reads as if you want to avoid discussion of the topic. It's like you are a follower of Harris who wants to deflect from the obvious contradictions of his position.

My first reaction to it was that what the article represented was really a more refined and,I have to face it, better written example of what I have been banging on for years and which has been pooh poohed as obsession with New Atheists.

I thought then that you were actually very brave not only to reference it but express agreement of it. More power to your elbow and whether I like it or not criticism of New Atheism is always better coming from an atheist.

Posters who I believe would have flocked to pull your reference apart had I placed it seemed to have remained schtum and probably schquirming at the criticism here.

[SteveH]

to reference it

There is no such verb as "to reference". "Reference" is a noun. You mean "to refer to it".

[Nearly Sane]

My first reaction to it was that what the article represented was really a more refined and,I have to face it, better written example of what I have been banging on for years and which has been pooh poohed as obsession with New Atheists.

I thought then that you were actually very brave not only to reference it but express agreement of it. More power to your elbow and whether I like it or not criticism of New Atheism is always better coming from an atheist.

Posters who I believe would have flocked to pull your reference apart had I placed it seemed to have remained schtum and probably schquirming at the criticism here.

Why would I be brave to post something that is a point of view that I have continually written about in here? What bravery does one need to post something?

I don't criticise 'New Atheism' because I don't think it is an actual thing. It's a brand that was originally applied as a criticism. I criticise people's thinking or people themselves as individuals and the tribalism that is covered in the article is anathema to me. At that level, I think you need to look at your posting on this thread where you misrepresented what was being posted and consider if that is an example of the very tribalism and cognitive bias covered in the article.

[Nearly Sane]

There is no such verb as "to reference". "Reference" is a noun. You mean "to refer to it".

You can find it in dictionaries as a verb, though I suspect here You are arguing that it is not correct for the dictionaries to have it in as a verb. To relate it back to the articke, I think that there is an element of tribalism when we post such Canute like proclamations about language use. We use the language 'property's whereas the barbarians abuse it. Given that Vkad's use of it makes clear what is meant, and that is not a thing I often write about his pists, then I have no problem with it. I think I have up worrying about such stuff when 'literally ' became defined as not literally.


Stuff like language use seems to me to link the idea of tribalism to the Flat Earth thread I have just started. We take our sides on opposite banks of the epistemology war and argue for rigour and rules against intuition  and iconoclasm. And yet we do often do it for things that are not, imo, imporatant, precisely because they are not important.

[jeremyp]

You seem to be contradicting yourself: first you say 'Cognitive bias was not in my view the highlight of the piece' and then you go on to say 'This is an account of the cognitive bias of the New atheists with emphasis on Sam Harris'.

So, in your view, what is the primary theme of this article?

Oh come on Gordon. Think about it. It's a piece with the thesis that we all engage in tribalistic thinking and it uses Sam Harris as an example. Of course the highlight for Vlad is that it disses a so called New Atheist. What the article is really about doesn't matter: Sam Harris gets a pasting and that's all that counts in Vladworld.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why would I be brave to post something that is a point of view that I have continually written about in here? What bravery does one need to post something?

I don't criticise 'New Atheism' because I don't think it is an actual thing. It's a brand that was originally applied as a criticism. I criticise people's thinking or people themselves as individuals and the tribalism that is covered in the article is anathema to me. At that level, I think you need to look at your posting on this thread where you misrepresented what was being posted and consider if that is an example of the very tribalism and cognitive bias covered in the article.

The author img adequately defined who and what he meant by NewAtheist. I think they themselves objected to being labelled and categorised........Something else they were quite happy to do to others.

I think they preferred the term Brights which to me was a rather unsubtle piece of cheeky wee schemie-ism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh come on Gordon. Think about it. It's a piece with the thesis that we all engage in tribalistic thinking and it uses Sam Harris as an example. Of course the highlight for Vlad is that it disses a so called New Atheist. What the article is really about doesn't matter: Sam Harris gets a pasting and that's all that counts in Vladworld.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnyes.

[Nearly Sane]

The author img adequately defined who and what he meant by NewAtheist. I think they themselves objected to being labelled and categorised........Something else they were quite happy to do to others.

I think they preferred the term Brights which to me was a rather unsubtle piece of cheeky wee schemie-ism.

That's nice but I don't see that  just because something is defined that it makes sense to use it. It's a generalisation and by its nature simplistic. I'd rather engage with the individual. As  I have already covered I found the whole Brights nonsense worthy merely of an eye roll.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's nice but I don't see that  just because something is defined that it makes sense to use it. It's a generalisation and by its nature simplistic. I'd rather engage with the individual. As  I have already covered I found the whole Brights nonsense worthy merely of an eye roll.

I appreciate your disdain at the brights thing. There was also the macho epithet "Fourhorseman" which I believe they were happy to be associated with.

[Nearly Sane]

I appreciate your disdain at the brights thing. There was also the macho epithet "Fourhorseman" which I believe they were happy to be associated with.

You use 'they' like cheap scent. And it's about as attractive.

[jeremyp]

I appreciate your disdain at the brights thing. There was also the macho epithet "Fourhorseman" which I believe they were happy to be associated with.

Were they? Can you show any evidence where any of the so called four horsemen endorsed the label?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Were they? Can you show any evidence where any of the so called four horsemen endorsed the label?

Oh yes, I most certainly can....

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2013/10/the-four-horsemen-dvd-19-95/