'Sam Harris and the myth of perfectly rational thought'

[Nearly Sane]

Agree with a lot of this.



https://www.wired.com/story/sam-harris-and-the-myth-of-perfectly-rational-thought/

[Gordon]

Yes - there are some very good points in this article. I'd imagine that this is grist-to-the-mill for those who are wary of high profile atheists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes - there are some very good points in this article. I'd imagine that this is grist-to-the-mill for those who are wary of high profile atheists.

What would you say those good points are?

[Gordon]

What would you say those good points are?

I think the point about cognitive biases is an important one: nobody is free of those, and being insightful regarding personal susceptibility   to biases is, I think, an important point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the point about cognitive biases is an important one: nobody is free of those, and being insightful regarding personal susceptibility   to biases is, I think, an important point.

You mentioned points..........anything else?

[Gordon]

You mentioned points..........anything else?

I thought the cognitive bias aspect was very much highlighted in the article: would you agree?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought the cognitive bias aspect was very much highlighted in the article: would you agree?

I didn't see this as a technical article On cognitive bias as such no.

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't see this as a technical article On cognitive bias as such no.

Gordon didn't say it was. And that is a misrepresentation of the questuon.  Perhaps you should read the question again.

[Gordon]

I didn't see this as a technical article On cognitive bias as such no.

I didn't say it was 'a technical article on cognitive bias': I simply noted that I thought its highlighting of cognitive bias was notable and I asked whether you agreed that it was. So, do you agree or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't say it was 'a technical article on cognitive bias': I simply noted that I thought its highlighting of cognitive bias was notable and I asked whether you agreed that it was. So, do you agree or not?

Cognitive bias was not in my view the highlight of the piece nor what the article wished that to be the highlight.
This is an account of the cognitive bias of the New atheists with emphasis on Sam Harris. A particularly appropriate focus given his scientific field.

[Gordon]

Cognitive bias was not in my view the highlight of the piece nor what the article wished that to be the highlight.
This is an account of the cognitive bias of the New atheists with emphasis on Sam Harris. A particularly appropriate focus given his scientific field.

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

The cognitive bias of Sam Harris.

[Nearly Sane]

The cognitive bias of Sam Harris.

And doesn't mention it as a general thing?

[Gordon]

The cognitive bias of Sam Harris.

To quote from the article:

Or, to put Harris’s fallacy in a form that he would definitely recognize: Religion can’t be a cause of terrorism, because the world is full of religious people who aren’t terrorists.

Would you say that was a fair point that can be extrapolated so that it might apply beyond the specific case of Sam Harris?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And doesn't mention it as a general thing?

The author rightly explains cognitive bias in the.context of the main point of Harris calling the pot black. The theme is therefore Harris as humbug.

Any attempt to pass this off as an article about cognitive bias merely mentioning Harris and co in passing is committing a whitewash.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To quote from the article:

Would you say that was a fair point that can be extrapolated so that it might apply beyond the specific case of Sam Harris?

And that is not an invitation from you to forget about Harris and move on exactly how?

[Gordon]

And that is not an invitation from you to forget about Harris and move on exactly how?

Well now: if we agree that to portray religion as being the cause of terrorism is problematic, because there are lots of religious people who aren't terrorists, do you think that principle might apply in other scenarios? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well now: if we agree that to portray being religion as the cause of terrorism is problematic, because there are lots of religious people who aren't terrorists, do you think that principle might apply in other scenarios?

Since I believe that detracts from the thread I shan't offer anything except my willingness to discuss this on another thread.

[Gordon]

Since I believe that detracts from the thread I shan't offer anything except my willingness to discuss this on another thread.

Since the OP of this thread is about this article, and since what we've been discussing flows from this article, why are you running away using such a feeble excuse?

Here is fine: and on topic too.

[Nearly Sane]

The author rightly explains cognitive bias in the.context of the main point of Harris calling the pot black. The theme is therefore Harris as humbug.

Any attempt to pass this off as an article about cognitive bias merely mentioning Harris and co in passing is committing a whitewash.

And since no one has done that then your argument is entirely specious.

[Nearly Sane]

And that is not an invitation from you to forget about Harris and move on exactly how?

Because it isn't. Stop making shit up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because it isn't. Stop making shit up.

Look, there is a real conversation to be had here. You could argue that Harris and his Ilk have and are able to rise above cognitive bias and tribalism and present evidence from the annals of Harris and Krauss which demonstrates this.

Instead I strongly suspect the plan is:

1: Oh dear, the criticism of New Atheism is reaching the wider sphere.
2: Krauss' name was invoked
3: How do we get out of this
4: Oh yes cognitive bias is mentioned
5: Let's talk about cognitive bias other than in New Atheism
6: Yes, cognitive bias in religion always goes down a storm.
9: Back to normal, Panic over.

I'm wondering Sane if you are regretting putting this up?
That you didn't talk about what and why you agreed with was disappointing.
That there wasn't a great uptake of response was not surprising.
That Gordon IMHO seemed to attempt a wee Tu Quoque was depressing.

[Nearly Sane]

Look, there is a real conversation to be had here. You could argue that Harris and his Ilk have and are able to rise above cognitive bias and tribalism and present evidence from the annals of Harris and Krauss which demonstrates this.

Instead I strongly suspect the plan is:

1: Oh dear, the criticism of New Atheism is reaching the wider sphere.
2: Krauss' name was invoked
3: How do we get out of this
4: Oh yes cognitive bias is mentioned
5: Let's talk about cognitive bias other than in New Atheism
6: Yes, cognitive bias in religion always goes down a storm.
9: Back to normal, Panic over.

I'm wondering Sane if you are regretting putting this up

Yes, indeed there is and your misrepresenting what people have said gets in the way of it. I have no regrets about putting this up because I agree with it.


So let's get on with discussing it rather than you posting tosh about what people haven't said.

It seems to me to point out that there is no way to know that you aren't indulging in biased thinking, and that those who argue that they do, in this case the Spiffy Sam, are demonstrating their error by the claim. The writer used the case of their reaction to the accusations to Krause to show that he cannot be sure of his own rationality even when questioning it.

Overall it addresses an attitude that some atheists show that they are somehow superior in their thinking simply by being atheists which I find to be laughable. It's all reminiscent of the 'Brights' pish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, indeed there is and your misrepresenting what people have said gets in the way of it. I have no regrets about putting this up because I agree with it.


So let's get on with discussing it rather than you posting tosh about what people haven't said.

It seems to me to point out that there is no way to know that you aren't indulging in biased thinking, and that those who argue that they do, in this case the Spiffy Sam, are demonstrating their error by the claim. The writer used the case of their reaction to the accusations to Krause to show that he cannot be sure of his own rationality even when questioning it.

Overall it addresses an attitude that some atheists show that they are somehow superior in their thinking simply by being atheists which I find to be laughable. It's all reminiscent of the 'Brights' pish.

See....... that wasn't hard was it?
To serious matters, I think it is possible to touch on the truth even in the face of cognitive bias. I think the author summed this up as ''intellectual humility''.

[Nearly Sane]

See....... that wasn't hard was it?

  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.