Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

POV concerns

I have raised concerns about the neutrality (or lack thereof) in the Science and Morality section but the Islam section on here is, quite frankly, borderline libelous. More time seems to be spent articulating criticisms of Harris' views than on describing what he actually thinks. This criticism is particularly problematic and should be removed, especially since this is an article on a living person.

"From him we learn, among other things, that torture is just another form of collateral damage in the "war on terror"—regrettable, maybe, but a necessary price to pay in the crucial effort to save Western civilization from the threat of radical Islam… As in the golden age of positivism, a notion of sovereign science is enlisted in the service of empire. Harris dispenses with the Christian rhetoric of his imperialist predecessors but not with their rationalizations for state-sponsored violence.[41]"

Harris in controversial, so including criticisms is, to a certain degree, understandable, but this is a really misleading and dishonest criticism to include. Rather than articulating Harris' argument about just how unethical collateral damage can be and his argument that, under extreme ticking time bomb scenarios, torturing a wrong doer to stop an imminent threat would be a more ethical alternative than bombing an area with high civiliaan causualties in order to stop an imminent threat. Yet the latter option is sanctioned as justified under international law while the former option is not. Moreover, Harris makes clear he does not think torture should be legal - he merely notes that there are extreme scenarios in which we hsould be more willing to torture than to engage in hostitlities that would result in collateral damage. We get none of this from the article, we only get a short paragraph from a critic.

The article then goes on to merely note that Harris has supported profiling in airports. It then present a barrage of scolding criticism for such a view. We don't hear anywhere in the article that Harris thinks that he should be included in the list of people profiled in airports (namely, males from the ages 20-50). The reader is left with the impression that he advocates that there be some special Muslim security line with extra screening there. His point is that we should be able to priortize our screening given the limited resources we have and not apply the same security standards to 80 year old women as we do to 30 year old men. But we get none of this from the article.

So needless to say I think this article has a lot of issues and the unbalanced weight given to critics needs to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylescoen12 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree. The above quote in particular is especially problematic given that it makes assertions about Harris's views that have no contextual basis in anything Harris has ever said or published (other than frank distortion of such) and are opposite to what he *has* said. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I remember this tidbit being added last year when a significant amount of criticism was being introduced into this article. Most of the criticism was removed after an RfC, this bit was added after it and after weeks of edit warring nobody seemed to want to engage further so it got left behind. Like the Moral Landscape criticism, it's derived from a book review, so if it belongs anywhere it can be used there. Unlike the Salon/Al Jazeera/Greenwald and Affleck criticisms, which started a dialogue which he participated in, the review from The Nation does not add to his biography, it's just there to criticize.LM2000 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This entry is indeed ridiculously biased. One gets the impression, and this is obviously deliberate, that no one has ever had a positive reaction to any of his published work. We are treated to a litany of negative criticisms, and that is about it.74.215.197.161 (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the solution to the problem is to flesh out more details of Harris' claims, rather than to erase the criticisms. BabyJonas (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should seek dispute resolution to this? ~ anon

I'm not seeing anything neutral or informative about this entire section. Due to the nature of Sam Harris' books, and the tendency to offend the religious, this entire page has obviously been autopsied by these critics with poor intent. I would venture to say the entire section should be deleted, and locked, especially if this is an ongoing problem. Sentrybowl (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Science and Morality Section

I attempted to add a section to the talk page about a different section in the article but it was filtered for some reason. Hopefully that false positive will be fixed soon. But, in any case, I just wanted to note that this section is quite rightly identified as lending too much credence to crticisms and in fact presents criticisms in a misleading manner (I think the article as a whole shares this problem). Since this is an article page about a living person, I think we should consider deleting these criticisms promptly until we can find a balanced description of his views and crticisms they have faced.

Also, while a bit of an academic judgment call, I think it is hard to deny that Sam Harris has engaged in a meta-ethical debate - I don't know what else you could call the view he articulates in The Moral Landscape other than a meta-ethical position. It may be a wrong one (as I think it is) but it is certainly a metaethical view and it is false to claim he has just ignored the debate about the status of value claims in the world. To quote one footnote from his book " Scientific judgments presuppose 'epistemic values' - coherence, simplicity, beauty, parsimony, etc. Putnam has pointed out, as I do here, that all the arguments against the existence of moral truth could be applied to scientific truth without any change." Again, I disagree, and many other do as well, but this is a respectable metaethical position and including suggestions that it is not even engaged in meta-ethics is difficult to defend. What are people's thoughts on deleting these criticisms or the section entirely until susbstantial improvements are made? Any suggestions on what might be included? Mylescoen12 (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)mylescoen12

Everything after the first paragraph in that section seem to be book reviews. I would say that these belong at The Moral Landscape#Reviews, but that too is overflowing with criticism. Either way, I don't think they belong here either and wouldn't mind seeing them go.LM2000 (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this ought to go. It is clearly the result of brigading by both his personal detractors and critics of the positions put forth in the book. It should be amended or removed. In its current state, it gives impression that the professional consensus is entirely negative, which is hardly the case, as can be evinced from a simple Google search.4.14.5.210 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Which reviewers are most notable? We can keep their views and jettison the lesser known reviewers. Sizeofint (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd venture to say that none of the reviewers are notable. Unless an example of a positive opposed narrative was inserted, (which seems hardly placable or necessary) they should be removed altogether and the outline of the section should be re-shaped as a neutral, factual, descriptive paragraph, with excerpts from the author --without outside rebuttal. An Encyclopedia is not the place for a critical debate on an authors work. Sentrybowl (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that none are notable. All of them appear to have blue links. Sizeofint (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Can someone compile a list of prominent reviewers, so we can hash out how his views are received? Here's one from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/books/review/Appiah-t.html

BabyJonas (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

"Hashing out how his views are received" based on a sampling of reviews compiled by us sounds like casebook original research to me. Such an analysis is better handled by a qualified secondary or tertiary source (or sources), then conveyed here. Or more appropriately conveyed, if we're still talking specifically about the views he advanced in his The Moral Landscape, in the article about his book, rather than here. Harris has had a bit to say on these reviews as well (including the one in the NYTimes linked just above): one example. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about synthesizing the content of the reviews, which is what WP:OR refers to. I'm referring to the complaint that the current content is too negative. One way to maintain balance is by compiling a list of prominent reviews, and making sure the content lines up with the content of the reviews. If you have any other way of resolving the desire of some editors to put a more positive spin on the section, I'd like to hear your ideas. Incorporating a Sam Harris rebuttal to every negative review is not a solution. This article is not meant to be a mouthpiece for Sam Harris or his critics. BabyJonas (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Harris as a philosopher (yet again)

Harris isn't a philosopher so I have no idea why he's listed as one. Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, people think that because he describes himself as a philosopher, and has an undergraduate degree in philosophy, that makes him a philosopher. I don't understand this reasoning either. BabyJonas (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

For this to be removed, I think someone would have to compile a representative sample of reliable sources (20 or 30?) and show that a relatively small minority identify him as a philosopher making the label WP:UNDUE. Sizeofint (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Harris's undergraduate degree is irrelevant. What matters is what reliable third-parties sources say. Many of them refer to Harris as a philosopher. Jweiss11 (talk)

He is obviously a philosopher. Most of his work on ethics and morality is from that point of view. If nothing else, he would fit in the description of the philosopher article. 0x5849857 (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A good many reputed sources do recognise him as a philosopher. Some of which include: Wall Street Journal, Futurism, Cosmos magazine, Yahoo News.

None of those sources would be considered authorities on philosophy. A good question to ask would be, which professional philosophers and respected works of reference dealing with philosophy consider Harris a philosopher? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

One does: Stephen Bullivant's Oxford Handbook of Atheism calls him a philosopher, I think. Frankly I don't think that inclusion is decisive, however. There are undercutting worries: Maybe Bullivant made a mistake, or overlooked that tiny fact. Maybe Bullivant just wanted to be charitable to Harris' self-description. But to me, there's just too important an overriding principle here: An undergraduate degree in philosophy doesn't make one a philosopher. BabyJonas (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

An undergraduate degree in philosophy doesn't make one a philosopher. --BabyJonas

Exactly; degrees do not make one a philosopher. In fact, many of the most famous philosophers did not have such degrees. More important in such a determination is their field of works and study. Has Harris either studied or produced works in the philosophical fields of morality, religion, mind, free will, reason, ethics, etc.? Of course. Most important here for Wikipedia's purposes, however, is whether the description is reliably sourced, and it certainly is (as has been noted each time this discussion is revisited). And by the way, yes, Michael Ruse and Stephan Bullivant have indeed described Harris as a philosopher in their peer-reviewed, Oxford University Press publication. The place to question whether Bullivant, Ruse and the peer-review process has "made a mistake" would be the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

In the 21st century, you'd be hard-pressed to find people, engaging in matters of science and analytical philosophy, who are called philosophers but do not have degrees. So I think the famous examples argument is moot. Sam Harris is not a 6th century Tibetan thinker. He doesn't meet your criteria. As for his publications: I can't find a single peer-reviewed article he has published in a philosophy journal. He has published popular-level books on topics of philosophical interest, but that doesn't make one a philosopher either- otherwise Malcolm Gladwell would be a philosopher. So I think the best argument for Harris being a philosopher are twofold: (i) He fancies himself a philosopher, and what one fancies himself goes, and (ii) Ruse and Bullivant. BabyJonas (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't meet my criteria? I don't have criteria. Wikipedia does, and he certainly meets it (20+ reliable sources produced in archived mirrors of this discussion, of which Ruse & Bullivant is just one). That is the best (and only) argument here. I was merely noting that of all of the philosophers in our 21st century encyclopedia, a very large percentage do not have degrees in philosophy, and it isn't a requirement. As for Harris "fancying himself" a philosopher, I don't recall seeing that in the sources. This was fun. Let's do it again in another few months. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The "criteria" at issue have been well-established and should not be controversial. Personal opinions towards the subject should not sway the point one way or the other. The relevant sources have been produced, and that is all that is required. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Notability of cited critics / balance

Reading this article, I was struck by the number of cited critics of Harris' positions whose notability was not obvious. The reference to Ali Sina in the Islam subsection is one (I would say, poorly phrased) example, and the reference to Margaret Wertheim would seem to be another. The Wertheim reference, in particular, seems to give more attention to Wertheim's opinions than Harris's (her comments also don't seem to be relevant to the subsection in which they appear). Unless anyone objects, I intend to delete these passages. Elsewhere, the discussion of Harris's views on morality seems grossly unbalanced, failing to give any impression of Harris's argument, while expounding his critics' opinions at length. --IxK85 (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do. We have discussed this above but so far no one has proposed which content should be removed. Sizeofint (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing Project Reason

I see that there have been a few edits to remove references to Project Reason from the Sam Harris article.

The Project Reason page indicates that the website has been taken down (indeed, it seems to still exist but offers no content) and there are some forum buckets on samharris.org that appear to have been brought over from the Project Reason website, starting sometime around January 2016 (a year ago as I write this).

Searching around, I have found no reliable sources discussing the shutdown of Project Reason, but there are a couple of blog posts (Is project reason gone, Is project reason quietly shutting down) at Shadow to Light that discuss it.

Under the circumstances, I can see changing the wording in the page to place Project Reason in the past tense, but I'm not sure removing it altogether is the right thing to do. FreeKnowledgeCreator, what's your view on the right way to proceed?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not have any special view of the issue. I was only concerned that the change be discussed beforehand, rather than being made without explanation. I'll leave the matter to other editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Harris talked about shutting down Project Reason in one of his podcasts within the last year. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Sam Harris and Bill Maher categories

(Moved here from a user's Talk page. -X)

Hi, you reverted my category edits to Sam Harris and Bill Maher (I changed Category:Critics of religions to Category:Critics of Islam and Category:Critics of Christianity) to broaden the categories -- but Category:Critics of religions is a parent category of both these categories, so I felt these were more appropriate categories to use. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jatkins. Maher and Harris criticize many religions, and are indeed notable as "critics of religion" - not just one or two specific religions. "Critics of religions" is the appropriate cat. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Neuroscience achievements?

It seems to me that Harris is expressing his personal ideological preferences re metaphysical issues while wearing the mantle of "neuroscientist", in order to lend an aura of authority and expertise to his personal guesses about questions that are not answerable by scientific methods, and which lie outside of the domain of scientific investigation. I don't see evidence that he has done ground-breaking work in neuroscience, e.g. not a Nobel Prize winner, and so his day job as neuroscientist isn't especially relevant. He is known mainly as an author who is a spokesman for the "New Atheism" movement. So, if he has made important discoveries in neuroscience for which he has been heralded by his peers, then these should be detailed, otherwise his day job is irrelevant and should be only briefly mentioned in the section on his personal life.77Mike77 (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The dayjob of the subject of a WP:BLP is obviously not "irrelevant" to the WP:BLP. Your personal perception of Harris's intentions are not among the criteria for judging the relevance of what you presume is his "day job." In fact, while Harris has repeatedly stated that he considers being a philosopher and author among his "day jobs," he continues to collaborate on neuroscience research, his latest work accessible here [1] and discussed by the popular news website Vox here [2] (primary and secondary source, respectively). It is reliable, published primary and secondary sources like these (rather than your opinion) that justify inclusion of Harris's neuroscience work. Please see WP:OR. Also, please carefully read WP:BLP and appreciate that there are no criteria for level of achievement, and that among the countless biographies of individuals here, Nobel laureates make up a vanishingly small fraction. Actual criteria are discussed at length at WP:BLPNOTE. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that comment was like watching a holy roller rolling in reverse. Talk about ideological bias!77Mike77 (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

As long as reliable sources identify Harris as a neuroscientist we will do so here. Sizeofint (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. But it has to recognized that his day job as a neuroscientist gives his metaphysical speculations no more credibility than if his day job were book-keeping or bee-keeping.77Mike77 (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

1) It doesn't matter what we editors think. What matters is what the sources say. 2) As far as I know, Harris' day job is as a writer/communicator. 3) Harris works across disciplines. We can't say because he isn't only a neuroscientist or only a writer or only a philosopher that his contributions in those areas are not credible. Sizeofint (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You missed the point. There is a tacit implication that his day job as a neuroscientist somehow informs his guesswork on metaphysical questions, thereby lending credibility to them, whereas the reality is that skill in studying physical phenomena is irrelevant to discussions of metaphysical questions that lie entirely outside of the domain of Science. A neuroscientist's opinions on metaphysics are like an auto mechanic's opinions on classical music. Both are entitled to their opinions, but the day job is irrelevant. Harris seems to wear the mantle of "neuroscientist" as if this somehow adds credibilty to his ideological prejudices. This article pushes that false impression. His day job should appear as a detail of his Personal Life. My original question asked what significant achievements, prizes, awards, etc., he has achieved as a neuroscientist that would make his day job worth mentioning. He is known primarily as being one of the "high priests" of the Anti-Theist metaphysical ideology, and for promoting this in books (so "author" is valid), as well as giving sermons about his belief system (so "public speaker" is also valid). But he is not, to my knowledge, noted for his contributions to neuroscience. Even if he had found a cure for Alzheimer's, it still wouldn't be relevant re his metaphysical speculations that are the only reason this article exists.77Mike77 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a tacit implication that his day job as a neuroscientist somehow informs his guesswork on metaphysical questions. Harris does work in neuroscience, however his day job is as a writer/communicator. That you keep repeating this line about his day job as a neuroscientist shows that you don't know much about Harris and are not understanding what I wrote above. His work as a neuroscientist probably does inform his views to a certain extent, however. In Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion a large chunk of the book is spent on neuroscience. he is not, to my knowledge, noted for his contributions to neuroscience. Your knowledge doesn't matter, what matters is what the reliable sources say. If reliable sources say he is a neuroscientist then we will say he is a neuroscientist here. If you want to have this changed then find a representative sample of reliable sources and show that only a small minority of them identify Harris as a neuroscientist. Your bias is starting to show so keep in mind Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or to spread WP:TRUTH (however you see it). Rather, Wikipedia presents information that is WP:VERIFIABLE. You've been here for a few years so none of this should be new to you.Sizeofint (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I do realize that ideologues on wikipedia categorically disallow any alteration to their sacred works, and that there is always a WP:WHATEVER that can be construed to prevent heretical changes no matter what.77Mike77 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

77Mike77, Harris is principally an author and public intellectual, and that is from where his notability is derived. But he indeed has a PhD in neuroscience, he has been published in peer-view journals about neuroscience, and reliable third-party sources refer to him an a neuroscientist. This makes him a neuroscientist, albeit not one of the foremost in the field. Nonetheless, these facts warrant mention of Harris's work in neuroscience more or less as is in the article. You continue to accuse others of ideological bias, but your own agenda is pretty clear here. I encourage you to take your personal opinions about Harris to your own blog or website and write whatever you want about them there. But this isn't the place. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Philosopher of mind and sicence cats

@Xenophrenic: What sources state he is the above? Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

He's not. A few reliable sources call him a philosopher (in deference to his self-description), and now, people are concocting a whole mythos about his philosophical career and expertise. It must be the words "science" and "mind" in "philosophy of science" and "philosophy of mind" that foster such a mistaken assumption. I think we need more of an effort to put the brakes on such rampant speculation. BabyJonas (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

birth year of Sam Harris

The box on the right says that he's born April 9, 1967 , but in the text itself, it says he's born April 9, 1957. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdemetter (talk • contribs) 09:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I checked the records at https://familysearch.org/ , and I can confirm no records of a Samuel B Harris at that location on April 9, 1957, but I can confirm a record at April 9, 1967, with the mother's name Spivak. So I'm correcting the year mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdemetter (talk • contribs) 09:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sam Harris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520014732/http://www.jewishtvnetwork.com/?bcpid=533363107&bctid=1329234778 to http://www.jewishtvnetwork.com/?bcpid=533363107&bctid=1329234778
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jewishtvnetwork.com/?bcpid=533363107&bctid=1329234778
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211001300/http://www.naturalism.org/Dennett_reflections_on_Harris%27s_Free_Will.pdf to http://www.naturalism.org/Dennett_reflections_on_Harris%27s_Free_Will.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18%2C0%2C1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sam Harris is a Jew and the footnote reference (#16) is misleading

Footnote #16 references a "The Guardian" article by Christopher Hitchens, which supposedly supports the assertion that Sam Harris has declared that his "upbringing was entirely secular,[16]". The actual text in the article reads as follows: "Sam Harris, a Jewish warrior against theocracy and bigotry of all stripes, had written that it was often fascists who made the most sense when talking about immigration to Europe." In context, Hitchens uses two quotes (the above one from Harris and another one by Jack Straw) to defend his stance on Islam and how deeply incompatible this religion/political system is with western civilization and its values. However, nowhere does the article provide us with the much needed proof (i.e. a self proclamation by Sam Harris) that Harris' "upbringing was secular". In the Jewish tradition you are considered a Jew if your mother is a Jew while the father's religious/ethnic background (although it is preferred to be Jewish as well) does not determine your "Jewish-ness". Given that: i) Harris' mother, Susan Harris (nee Spivak), is 100% a Jew, ii) Harris was raised exclusively by his mother after the age of two due to her divorcing her non-Jew husband (Berkeley Harris), and iii) both Susan Harris' and her son's Sam Harris' have maintained a very close affiliation with Jewish entities throughout their careers (that is easy to determine just follow their detailed bios), I maintain that Sam Harris is -indeed- a Jew and he should be proud to declare that instead of hiding behind the "atheist" agenda. As far as this wikipedia article itself, that sentence about his "secular upbringing" and the supporting reference, both must be removed as clearly false and misleading. (Posted by XwpisONOMA(at)gMail(dot)com on Friday, April 21, 2017.)

Having a secular upbringing and being Jewish are not inherently contradictory. One can be Jewish ethnically but not religiously. I've tagged the sentence as needing a citation, however. Sizeofint (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced the tag with a citation to this source chosen at random from many. Also, there is this interview which has some interesting discussion with Harris on what, exactly, "Jewish" is, with regard to atheism. Hope that helps, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It does help end this ridiculous thread. Thank you Xenophrenic. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Podcast

I agree with Stigmatella aurantiaca's comment in this edit summary - the material that was removed and re-added is rather promotional. But I think that applies even more strongly to the list of guests for the show, especially since the list is based on a non-independent source. For that matter, most of the information about the podcast comes from a non-independent source.

Regardless, since I think that this is the proper place to discuss this and find consensus, I'm creating this section. Guettarda (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The ever-growing list of "special guest" names in the "Podcast" section doesn't sit well with me, either. Smacks of name-dropping, and there's a little bit of that same thing going on in the "Writings and media appearances" section, too. If his podcast is winning "webby" awards, or being "recommended" in independent review lists, then it should be mentioned in this article - but I'm not sure it merits its own header and section. I would probably put the podcast info in the "Writings and media" section, next to his appearances on other people's podcasts, "blogging" for news organizations, lectures and speaking engagements, debates, etc. But trim the long catalog of linked names down to just a couple of the most notable, at most. Just my opinion before putting a lot of thought into it. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, the podcast itself should not determine the aptness of mentioning various guests. Are reliable and notable third-party sources talking about the podcast and its guests? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the list of "special guests" then. Without some third party source or standard for inclusion, it seems hard to justify this. Guettarda (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the take on an long ever growing list of guests. However, since the start of the podcast Harris have had two recurring guests, one two times and another three times. Harris mentions these and single them out in an episode. Maybe, not a list, but stating a couple of recurring guests is a good discriptive way of stating the sort of conversations he has with guests. Fallacious Leek (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing All Criticism

I don't see how anyone can justify purging the article of almost all criticism of Sam Harris, since that would seem to be a rather obvious NPOV violation. Sure, other articles also (inevitably) cover some of these same issues, but the NPOV principle isn't satisfied by only having balance in a few of the articles: it means every article should present multiple points of view. AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Fanboysim, that's how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.79.42 (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that any and all criticism should be removed, but surely there is a better critique that could be referenced than Scott Atran's reference to a 322 page heavily referenced exploration of morality as a "screed". HisShadow (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Sam Harris and SJWs

I asked for some input at Talk:Social justice warrior. If anyone more familiar with Sm Harris than I could add some input/feedback, I would appreciate it. Knox490 (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Ceoil (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Psychedelic drugs

Ddzzmm, a brand new user, is adding material to the article that emphasizes as much as possible Sam Harris's interest in psychedelic drugs. He has tried to make the lead state that, "He is concerned with matters that touch on religion, morality, neuroscience, psychedelics, free will and terrorism", and added "psychedelic drugs" as one of Harris' main interests in the infobox, alongside "Neuroscience, religion, ethics, spirituality". In my opinion this behavior of Ddzzmm is inappropriate and utterly unacceptable and violates the intention of WP:BLP. Harris may have discussed psychdelic drugs among other topics, but it definitely is not one of the things he is most noted for, and over-emphasizing the issue in this fashion is a good example of something WP:BLP is meant to prevent. Note that removal of BLP-violating material is exempt from the usual three revert rule. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, I thank you for your commitment to adhering to Wiki rules. I have explained as to why there should be detail pertaining to his views on the topic under "spirituality," but the topic doesn't fall under a main interest. Please accept my ignorance of Wiki rules as reason behind my initial edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddzzmm (talk • contribs) 22:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sam Harris has had a significant longstanding interest in how psychotropic drugs affect the perception of reality, and their relevance to meditation and neuropsychology. This includes psychedelic drugs as well as other psychotropic drugs, such as MDMA. The article should reflect something appropriate to this interest. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sam Harris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051211124844/http://www.truthdig.com/about/staff/23 to http://www.truthdig.com/about/staff/23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"Notable works" section

Not all of his published works should be there. Personally, I'd opt for at least removing Lying, which to my knowledge garnered neither significant critical attention nor notable literary awards. One could go further and note that this parameter is ideal when there is actually clear agreement among critics on which works are most important, a state of affairs that I think does not yet apply with Harris. At this point, I consider it best for relevant facts about all of the books to simply be mentioned in the lead section's text. AndrewOne (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree. It is handy to have a list of publications for every author for fast research. It doesn't matter if it is not critically acclaimed neither, because it still represents a work of him. Only in the situation where he gets to make hundreds of titles we will need to look for a better system (another list article?), but right now is ok. --MaoGo (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

TED talks and AI

Sam has given TED talks (one on Islam and one on AI). Those are notable public talks worthy of mention in Sam's Wiki page. His views on AI are also worth a few descriptive sentences given AI is something Sam talks about with some regularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.114.63 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Racial Differences in Intelligence

Sam Harris's recent public discussion with Ezra Klein has led to inclusion on this page of Race & IQ as a "topic of concern". While this exploration may be relevant enough to have a section in "views" (as it now does), indicating in the intro paragraph alongside his topics of greatest focus and expertise that he is "concerned with matters of...racial differences in intelligence..." is a misrepresentation of his priorities and views. In the long and descriptive exchange between Harris and Klein, he asserts numerous times that his podcast with Charles Murray (which spurred this controversy) was an attempt at validating intellectual honesty, rather than an interest or expertise in exploring racial differences in intelligence.

For this reason, I recommend removing "racial differences in intelligence" from the introductory list of concerns that serve to frame his body of work. If this public conversation/controversy illuminates any concern, and the community feels that it is important to have some aspect of this conversation reflected in the introduction, adding "intellectual honesty" or "intellectual ethics" would be a more honest representation of his position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamerCM (talk • contribs) 15:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ezra Klein is the editor in chief of Vox. Vox has a large audience and it appears as if a major public battle is now started between Harris/Klein on race/intelligence as can been by the articles below:

Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ. Podcaster and author Sam Harris is the latest to fall for it by Ezra Klein.

EZRA KLEIN: EDITOR-AT-LARGE by Sam Harris

Since race is such a big issue in public discourse right now, I believe Harris' views on the subject of race/intelligence should be mentioned somewhere in the lead two paragraphs.Knox490 (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Vox's stated aim is to "explain the news", ie dumb it down into reductive, easily digestible bits for the barely interested. Ezra Klein lead this, and I do not consider him or them as of sufficiently quality to be included for rebuttal here, on any level, not to mind in the lead. This is just more sensationalist clickbait nonsense of the week for them; its amazing what you can come up with if the full context is left behind. Ceoil (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that race is a hotbutton and defining issue. Sam takes "bold" stances on many things, including race. It's clearly a big deal and doesn't need to be obscured. It's part of who the man is publicly now. desmay (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

In a discussion about the Harris/Klein race/IQ conflict, Sam Seder is indicating that Sam Harris has a cult like following and they cannot abide any criticism of Harris.[3]

It appears as if some of Harris' followers are trying to get the whole conflict/controversy expunged from the article. Harris' followers should not be allowed to whitewash the article.Knox490 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The biologist and atheist PZ Myers just weighed in on Harris' views on race/intelligence and wrote: "among the worst and clumsiest promoters of racial IQ science is Sam Harris, whose career has been all about defining boundaries between people, and making evasive suggestions about what ought to be done with the Other."[4]

Should Myers' commentary be included in the article? He is a biologist and fellow atheist.Knox490 (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

What encyclopedic information would the commentary convey about Harris to our readers? And has the Myers commentary to which you refer been published outside of his own playground? I think your question answers itself. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with editors CamerCM, IP:91.196.194.224 and Ceoil above, that this is an issue of intellectual honesty in science, and the Race & Intelligence field isn't an area in which Harris is active. In fact, he states that he doesn't have an interest in intelligence differences across races, has criticized others who do, and that his podcast was only "to correct what I perceived to be a terrible injustice done to an honest scholar. Having attempted that, for better or worse, I will now move on to other topics." The entry was also misleadingly written, claiming "Harris has argued that there are racial differences in intelligence...", when he never presented any arguments; he merely reiterated undisputed facts which even Klein doesn't contest (although Klein draws different conclusions from those same facts). If Harris ever does formulate arguments regarding this subject matter, we can revisit the proposal to add those views to the article if they are significant. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed a sentence that says only that Harris had a debate. That is not only not encyclopedic, but is completely uninformative. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Psychedelics

Why is there immense fear by the editors of this page to dare mention Harris' interest in psychedelics? He has a number of podcasts on the subject, he has written and spoken about them extensively, has multiple Big Think videos on them, and has spoken about how they have changed his life path. Ddzzmm (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

There is an entire section on his views on "Indian tradition," which he rarely discusses, unlike psychedelics. I'm simply wondering why topics that are consistently brought up in Harris' podcast (go to his list of podcasts and search for the term 'psychedelic' and you'll find multiple podcasts involving the topic) are censored from this page, whereas his views on "Indian tradition" have little to do with him or his work. If given good reason as to why a topic that has changed his life path from an English major to one of the most well-known neuroscientists and philosophers , has an entire chapter in Waking Up about them, and brings them up in podcasts that don't even involve psychedelics (see the podcast with him, Ben Shapiro, and Eric Weinstein, doesn't belong on this page, section 2.3 certainly doesn't belong. Could someone please shed light on this? It makes zero sense. Ddzzmm (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there really this "immense fear by the editors of this page to dare mention Harris' interest in psychedelics" that you claim to detect? Perhaps it is just that secondary sources don't seem to be available for the particular bit you (and I, for that matter) would like to see included in the article. You might like to familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia policy on what is needed for verification. As far as what you call the "entire section" on the Indian tradition goes (in reality a very small section), the real problem with that section is that it doesn't go far enough. You seem to have failed to notice that the larger part of Waking Up is devoted to that area. The more stable insight that can be gained by non-dual meditation is arguably Harris's primary current interest. Indeed, the main value Harris attributes to the experience of taking psychedelics is that it can become a motivation and a gateway to taking up a serious Buddhist-style mindfulness practice. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

When I first raised the idea of including Harris' views on psychedelics on this page, I was given the reason that such a topic was "inappropriate." It then changed to the topic not being of enough importance. These first two complaints were not raised by you, but another consistent editor of this page. It seems every time I attempt to bring forth this issue, I am met with a different reason as to why it should not be included. This reasoning (yours) is rooted in policies, so let's stick to policies and not subjective views on appropriateness. Going back to the Indian tradition section (which is still an entire section, regardless of how small), it is cited twice from the exact same book (Waking Up) that I provided to cite the views of Harris regarding psychedelics. This still does not address my question as to why that section -- again, being backed up by the same source -- is permitted, while stating his view that you and I both acknowledge (that psychedelics possess utility for the introduction of a spiritual life) is not. I should note that am not making the case the Indian tradition should be removed (though I do find it rather redundant and partially unnecessary, especially given that it follows views on religion), but I still find contradictions within your reasoning, with all due respect. Understand that I am looking for total clarification, not pejorative discourse. The small paragraph I added to the end of the 'spirituality' section addressed his views of psychedelics regarding spirituality itself, backed up by the same source (and more, but we'll discuss that once these issues are addressed) used throughout the article. In short, why should such a topic that has prompted Harris' own spiritual life and his acknowledgement of their utility not be described in a section about spirituality, backed up by the same source used throughout the page? Ddzzmm (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well yes. But when you encounter editors who specifically object to the inclusion of a passage you want in Wikipedia, there is little point speculating on their motivation or rightness of thinking. You can settle the matter if you can find reliable secondary sources. That doesn't seem to be the case here at the moment, so that is an end to the matter for now. You will find contributing non-trivially to Wikipedia an endless source of frustration unless you come to see it as a longterm game needing a mix of humour, wiliness and persistence. Following policy, it is still possible to write worthwhile and stable articles in many areas, regardless of touchy admins and unhelpful users. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Your advice is helpful and appreciated, but I hope you can understand my confusion and my perceived hypocrisy in this. My question, with all due respect, was again not addressed. I am told secondary sources are ideal for providing information on Wikipedia. Yet there is an arguably redundant section (Indian Tradition) that would better fit under "Meditation" in my view that is backed up by the same source that I used to back up my claims. Could you please shed light on why this is acceptable? Is it because of the controversial nature of psychedelics? Because by the logic we're using in this discussion, the Indian Tradition section must be removed since it is not from a primary source. I am considering seeking a dispute resolution because I truthfully don't understand why one topic is allowed, while another is not, when both use the same source. Ddzzmm (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems upon further investigation, there are a number of primary sources in this article, mostly interviews. When I originally made a section for psychedelics (I now think there's no need for one, as it should be included in the spirituality section), I backed up my claims with interviews, too. I did this since I was aware of the topic's controversy and thought I'd need as many citations as possible. So it seems as if primary sources are allowed, but not for this topic. Would this article be sufficient for a secondary source? https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/10/02/352924426/can-psychedelics-expand-our-consciousness I apologize for the cascade of questions, but it's merely representational of the great confusion that stems from the hypocrisy that I am perceiving. My view is simple: given that Harris has had his career path changed from psychedelics, has spoken/written about them widely (not blind advocation, but with extreme caveat), and he sees them as pertinent to spirituality, there should be a small description of his views regarding them under spirituality. Why, then, if I back these claims up with a variety of sources (which are used throughout the article), it is removed? Ddzzmm (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the text that has been accepted in the article is not under challenge. If an editor does challenge an entry then a stricter standard is required, and a reliable secondary source can swing the matter. You could try dispute resolution if you are serious about editing Wikipedia. It might not help your case, but it could be a good learning experience on how Wikipedia operates. Please try and adjust your style to avoid using words as loaded as "hypocrisy". In any case, I do not believe you possess super powers that allow you to accurately read minds from a distance. I agree the section on the Indian tradition could be moved to the section on meditation. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps hypocrisy is not the correct word to use (and understand I wasn't trying to practice ad hominem/personal attacks, I was labeling what I was perceiving), but I would still make the case that there are double standards here. And your statement "If an editor does challenge an entry then a stricter standard is required," though sobering, is evidence for this. But you are right, this is a learning experience, so I will see to a dispute resolution, since my questions are not being answered. Perhaps it will shed light on why an entry is accepted, while another is not, despite both being backed up by the same source. For the sake of total clarification on my end, I'm going to provide both primary and secondary sources to facilitate the process. Harris doesn't advocate psychedelics without caveat and has spoken widely about their potential use for spirituality, especially its introduction. If he had just mentioned this a few times, I wouldn't even bother with this. But he has spoken widely about it, which gives me the impression it should be mentioned in the spirituality section. Sources: Waking Up | Pages 151-200, http://bigthink.com/think-tank/sam-harris-discusses-mdma-and-psychedelics, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOET9n8wnmo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O02XMBB1AZM, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoILHkKpA34, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0B_zR89a14, https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/10/02/352924426/can-psychedelics-expand-our-consciousness, https://samharris.org/podcasts/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-life/, https://samharris.org/podcasts/127-freedom-known/, https://samharris.org/podcasts/113-consciousness-and-the-self/, https://samharris.org/podcasts/russell-brand-interview/. Thank you for the interaction and I appreciate your frank and candid approach to this, which challenged me to back up my side. Ddzzmm (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, answering your request for a third opinion. Ddzzmm it doesn't appear that anyone in this conversation is telling you that you can't include the material, it just needs to comply with wikipedia's guidelines on citation. Additionally, it looks like you previously included the material under "spirituality", maybe a less objectionable move would be to create your own section for the material, as I believe the editor that didn't agree with it may have felt it just wasn't appropriate for the section on spirituality. Please review WP:RS and WP:BLP. After that, I would encourage you to write a section on Harris's views on psychedelics. If you continue to face resistance from other editors, please consider pinging them on the talk page to discuss further, as it appears the editors that reverted your changes is not present in this discussion. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 19:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Basilosauridae: My citation did comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, because another section is backed up by the same one. I have previously created a section for it, but that was also removed. I just need someone to tell me what an appropriate citation is, because the one that I used (which is used throughout the page) apparently isn't appropriate. Ddzzmm (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Involving FreeKnowledgeCreator

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: I am pinging you to bring you into this conversation since you appear to have the greatest objection to the inclusion of psychedelics on this page. I understand the controversy of the topic may elicit hesitation, which is understandable. To avoid edit wars, I will directly reply to your latest rejection. You said, "Yes, I am saying that its importance is questionable. Where are the sources indepent of Harris covering this matter?" I invite you to look at the Big Think and NPR links provided above. For clarification on my end, when you say, "independent of Harris," do you mean sources that discuss Harris's own interest in them without Harris himself? I understand that primary sources may have a bias in them, but when there is a collection of both primary and secondary sources detailing not only the effect psychedelics have had on his life (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAu1PvC9Aq8), but detailing his views, why is this topic approached as dubious? Ddzzmm (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course I mean "sources that discuss Harris's own interest in them without Harris himself" if by that you mean sources discussing Harris's interest in psychedelics not written by Harris himself. I have no objection to the inclusion of content regarding this subject if you can provide such sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will keep an eye out for such material, but would like your input on the Big Think and NPR links, since they are secondary sources. Ddzzmm (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Full name

Hi. Emir of Wikipedia and I have been discussing the use of the subject's full name in this biography over here, if anyone else has thoughts. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

This was the source provided after discussion http://www.warner.theater/events/sam-harris-3265235/ I think it is fine to include now, we just couldn't use the birth record as per WP:BLPPRIMARY. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

lead revert

Gosh! I think it was a bit quick to revert me, it was thoughtful and considered (and I may start crying), is it trivial to mention: [5] There will be some other adjustments to be made if it is. cygnis insignis 08:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Biographical articles do not normally list people's degrees in the lead in that manner. It is material that it makes better sense to place in an infobox. If you look at articles like Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, or Carl Sagan, you will see what I mean. In general, we can assume that readers are not morons and that they are able to realize that if someone is a professional in a given field, it means that they have some relevant degree such as a PhD. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

My edit was in response to this previous revert [6] so this response appears to be changing horses mid-race. Can we renew this discussion at another time, a day or two if that suits those invested, and address this in a more circumspect and less reactionary manner? I will endeavour to try, because I think the article could do with improvements and it seems to me it is locked by reverting of any contribution or change (although I do appreciate the sensitivities of this area, and that his anti-fans want a say). cygnis insignis 09:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Opening description

The opening sentence is misleading, implying that he is primarily a scientist or academic rather than a skilled writer and speaker.

My proposed reordering of the opening (refs omitted here) is thus:

Samuel Benjamin Harris (born April 9, 1967) is an author, public intellectual, blogger, and podcast host primarily known for his criticism of religion. His academic background is in philosophy and cognitive neuroscience. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

seems to be a reasonable summary, so doesn't need refs (they always read as plaintive to me, and leads should not need them). cygnis insignis 16:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Soft bias

The general tone of this article has what I would call the "soft bias" of allowing Sam Harris's own writings and statements to predominate in the content. Everything said may be valid, but should not give the appearance of conflict of interest bordering on self-promotion. This is noted in the placement of the "third party" tag on the "Views" section, but I think it may warrant a stronger NPOV tag on the article as a whole.

This may be the result of eliminating the more clearly biased opinions of his ideological opponents, which are likely not up to WP standards regarding reliable sources. However, there are glaring omissions, in particular Harris's very public disagreement on free will with fellow new atheist Daniel Dennett. Since they are both philosophers who have turned to neuroscience, their disagreement is very technical, and beyond my ability to summarize, not being an expert in either discipline. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The tag has been removed from the "Views" section without any discussion of the issue of lack of critical content. It is easy to find responses to his views that should be included in the article:

• Wright, Robert (May 17, 2018). "Sam Harris and the Myth of Perfectly Rational Thought". Wired. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
• Witts, B. N.; Ward, T. A. (2014). "A Review of Sam Harris's Free Will". The Psychological Record. 64 (1). Heidelberg: 139–142. doi:10.1007/s40732-014-0018-y.
• Dennett, Daniel C. (2017). "Reflections on Sam Harris' "Free Will."". Rivista Internazionale Di Filosofia e Psicologia. 8 (3): 214–230. doi:10.4453/rifp.2017.0018.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I restored the maintenance tag. The issue is not whether Harris' own work is inappropriate, but the lack of third-party sources. In this, Robert Wright's article is particularly relevant.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC, fleshing out his disagreements with Dennett would certainly be worthy of expansion here. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not much interested in seriously editing this article, although having access to a university library it is easy for me to find references others may use, and I may continue to post them here. Morality, free will, and the problems caused by religious belief interest me, and I have read Harris' books with enjoyment. However, I have also read the books by the other "horsemen" and consider them the source of a deeper and more complete understanding of these topics. I am not a philosopher, so as I indicated above I do not think I understand the philosophical issues separating Harris and Dennett. As a social scientist, I agree with Dennett on how the mind works, and thus with his view of free will. In my 12 years of editing I have generally avoided biographies of living persons as problematical, giving unbiased summaries of such controversies being an example.

PS. If I were to contribute to a BLP, it would be Patricia Churchland, which is only a "C" article and has a similar maintenance tag placed in 2012. I see coverage bias in the attention given to a male "public intellectual" while a female academic doing significant work in the same field is neglected by WP.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)