Sam Harris picks a fight with Noam Chomsky and gets eviscerated

[untermensche]

That's about as poor a reading as one could have.

Harris wanted to talk about meaningless "thought experiments" that had no connection to anything.

Warpoet has realized what really happened, that he was originally blinded by his bias. How about you taking off your blinders also?

You must understand this post, and probably any post you will make, is as devoid of content as Sam Harris's replies to Chomsky.

You seem to have an affinity for empty rhetoric.

 

[Juma]

Warpoet has realized what really happened, that he was originally blinded by his bias. How about you taking off your blinders also?

You must understand this post, and probably any post you will make, is as devoid of content as Sam Harris's replies to Chomsky.

You seem to have an affinity for empty rhetoric.

Sad to say: he is right though. Chomsky fails totally in this. There is no communication and that is because Chomsky is totally uninterested to actually commuubicate anything to Harris. That he actually writes what he does shows what a tremendous asshole he is. Wether his answer in some meaning is correct or not is beside the point. It is about being totally uninterested in actual communication.

 

[untermensche]

You must understand this post, and probably any post you will make, is as devoid of content as Sam Harris's replies to Chomsky.

You seem to have an affinity for empty rhetoric.

Sad to say: he is right though. Chomsky fails totally in this. There is no communication and that is because Chomsky is totally uninterested to actually commuubicate anything to Harris. That he actually writes what he does shows what a tremendous asshole he is. Wether his answer in some meaning is correct or not is beside the point. It is about being totally uninterested in actual communication.

I don't know what you read but Chomsky makes the whole thing crystal clear with this quote.

....As we have now established, I asked and responded to exactly those basic questions in this case and in other cases, while you have completely failed to address “the basic questions” about the significance of professed intentions (about actual intentions we can only guess). There are two important questions about these: (1) how seriously do we take them? (2) on moral grounds, how do we rank (a) intention to kill as compared with (b) knowledge that of course you will kill but you don’t care, like stepping on ants when you walk.

As for (1), I have been discussing it for 50 years, explaining in detail why, as we all agree, such professed intentions carry little if any weight, and in fact are quite uninformative, since they are almost entirely predictable, even in the case of the worst monsters, and I have also provided evidence that they may be quite sincere, even in the case of these monsters, but we of course dismiss them nonetheless. In contrast, it seems that you have never discussed (1).

As for (2), I posed the question, the one serious moral question that arises in the case at issue, and though I didn’t give a definite answer I suggested what I think: that one might argue that on moral grounds, (b) is even more depraved than (a). Again, it seems that you have never even considered (2), let alone discussed it....

These are actual topics that can be discussed in an examination of "intentions".

But Harris didn't address any of these clear points. He just cried and cried about how his third rate views were seen as such.

 

[Juma]

Sad to say: he is right though. Chomsky fails totally in this. There is no communication and that is because Chomsky is totally uninterested to actually commuubicate anything to Harris. That he actually writes what he does shows what a tremendous asshole he is. Wether his answer in some meaning is correct or not is beside the point. It is about being totally uninterested in actual communication.

I don't know what you read but Chomsky makes the whole thing crystal clear with this quote.

....As we have now established, I asked and responded to exactly those basic questions in this case and in other cases, while you have completely failed to address “the basic questions” about the significance of professed intentions (about actual intentions we can only guess). There are two important questions about these: (1) how seriously do we take them? (2) on moral grounds, how do we rank (a) intention to kill as compared with (b) knowledge that of course you will kill but you don’t care, like stepping on ants when you walk.

As for (1), I have been discussing it for 50 years, explaining in detail why, as we all agree, such professed intentions carry little if any weight, and in fact are quite uninformative, since they are almost entirely predictable, even in the case of the worst monsters, and I have also provided evidence that they may be quite sincere, even in the case of these monsters, but we of course dismiss them nonetheless. In contrast, it seems that you have never discussed (1).

As for (2), I posed the question, the one serious moral question that arises in the case at issue, and though I didn’t give a definite answer I suggested what I think: that one might argue that on moral grounds, (b) is even more depraved than (a). Again, it seems that you have never even considered (2), let alone discussed it....

These are actual topics that can be discussed in an examination of "intentions".

But Harris didn't address any of these clear points. He just cried and cried about how his third rate views were seen as such.

This isnt clear at all. He is just evading the question.

 

[Underseer]

I'm all for criticizing Islam.

The one thing I agree with the new atheists on the most is that we have to stop giving religion a free pass and shield them from criticism.

What I'm not cool with is using criticism of Islam to claim moral superiority for the West or to otherwise use it to distract everyone from the evil we do with our Western governments.

The Iraq war alone has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, thousands tortured, and trillions of taxpayer dollars wasted. And that's just Iraq.

Americans generally don't pay attention to the various things or government does in foreign countries, but we have caused a great deal of human suffering around the world, often for horrible and cynical reasons.

Yes, the Muslims are bad, really bad, but if you don't think we are worse, then you simply have not been paying attention, and frankly, you're part of the reason we have failed to hold our own government accountable.

We should criticize the Muslims, but here's the thing: we have a much better chance of changing the behavior of our own government than changing the behavior of the Muslims.

Someone else's evil doesn't make you good.

 

[untermensche]

I don't know what you read but Chomsky makes the whole thing crystal clear with this quote.

....As we have now established, I asked and responded to exactly those basic questions in this case and in other cases, while you have completely failed to address “the basic questions” about the significance of professed intentions (about actual intentions we can only guess). There are two important questions about these: (1) how seriously do we take them? (2) on moral grounds, how do we rank (a) intention to kill as compared with (b) knowledge that of course you will kill but you don’t care, like stepping on ants when you walk.

As for (1), I have been discussing it for 50 years, explaining in detail why, as we all agree, such professed intentions carry little if any weight, and in fact are quite uninformative, since they are almost entirely predictable, even in the case of the worst monsters, and I have also provided evidence that they may be quite sincere, even in the case of these monsters, but we of course dismiss them nonetheless. In contrast, it seems that you have never discussed (1).

As for (2), I posed the question, the one serious moral question that arises in the case at issue, and though I didn’t give a definite answer I suggested what I think: that one might argue that on moral grounds, (b) is even more depraved than (a). Again, it seems that you have never even considered (2), let alone discussed it....

These are actual topics that can be discussed in an examination of "intentions".

But Harris didn't address any of these clear points. He just cried and cried about how his third rate views were seen as such.

This isnt clear at all. He is just evading the question.

What language do you speak? It is about as clear as English can be.

It is only two points and he even numbers them.

When examining any expressed intention the first thing to consider (number 1) is how serious do we take the claims. Do we just accept expressed intentions or do we know, from an examination of history, that expressed intentions actually offer no information because state's and people lie about their intentions all the time or do horrendous things that can't be defended with expressed good intentions.

After we look at this Chomsky states we need to examine a very simple moral question. Is it worse to kill people and fully know you are killing people and know the people you kill have lives and people who care about them, or to know you going to kill people, yet don't care one bit. Chomsky describes this kind of killing as just crushing a bunch of ants. This is a moral question Chomsky even states it appears Harris has never even considered.

Harris expressed no interest in examining any of this. He expressed no intention in having a fruitful conversation. He seemed to actually think he could school Chomsky about something. So he was not only non-responsive but deluded too.

 

[Juma]

I don't know what you read but Chomsky makes the whole thing crystal clear with this quote.

....As we have now established, I asked and responded to exactly those basic questions in this case and in other cases, while you have completely failed to address “the basic questions” about the significance of professed intentions (about actual intentions we can only guess). There are two important questions about these: (1) how seriously do we take them? (2) on moral grounds, how do we rank (a) intention to kill as compared with (b) knowledge that of course you will kill but you don’t care, like stepping on ants when you walk.

As for (1), I have been discussing it for 50 years, explaining in detail why, as we all agree, such professed intentions carry little if any weight, and in fact are quite uninformative, since they are almost entirely predictable, even in the case of the worst monsters, and I have also provided evidence that they may be quite sincere, even in the case of these monsters, but we of course dismiss them nonetheless. In contrast, it seems that you have never discussed (1).

As for (2), I posed the question, the one serious moral question that arises in the case at issue, and though I didn’t give a definite answer I suggested what I think: that one might argue that on moral grounds, (b) is even more depraved than (a). Again, it seems that you have never even considered (2), let alone discussed it....

These are actual topics that can be discussed in an examination of "intentions".

But Harris didn't address any of these clear points. He just cried and cried about how his third rate views were seen as such.

This isnt clear at all. He is just evading the question.

What language do you speak? It is about as clear as English can be.

It is only two points and he even numbers them.

When examining any expressed intention the first thing to consider (number 1) is how serious do we take the claims. Do we just accept expressed intentions or do we know, from an examination of history, that expressed intentions actually offer no information because state's and people lie about their intentions all the time or do horrendous things that can't be defended with expressed good intentions.

After we look at this Chomsky states we need to examine a very simple moral question. Is it worse to kill people and fully know you are killing people and know the people you kill have lives and people who care about them, or to know you going to kill people, yet don't care one bit. Chomsky describes this kind of killing as just crushing a bunch of ants. This is a moral question Chomsky even states it appears Harris has never even considered.

Harris expressed no interest in examining any of this. He expressed no intention in having a fruitful conversation. He seemed to actually think he could school Chomsky about something. So he was not only non-responsive but deluded too.

Of course harris isnt intrested of being dragged into the quagmire chomsky produces. He asked a simple question and chomsky cannot give a straight forward answer.

 

[untermensche]

Of course harris isnt intrested of being dragged into the quagmire chomsky produces. He asked a simple question and chomsky cannot give a straight forward answer.

The quagmire was Harris's twisted and worthless "thought experiment" that examined no real situation.

Chomsky tried, in vain, to reduce the examination of intentions to clear and unprejudiced criteria.

The problem was Harris appeared to have never seriously examined the topic and refused to engage in even an examination of the criteria Chomsky provided. He couldn't even acknowledge them.

And I don't have the slightest idea what question you think Chomsky failed to address. I saw no serious question in anything Harris wrote.

 

[Herrick]

And I don't have the slightest idea what question you think Chomsky failed to address. I saw no serious question in anything Harris wrote.

Disclaimer: I read the article at work while flights were calling me and I skimmed through it when I got home.

I think Harris' question is does intention having any bearing on the morality of acts of violence. I think Chomsky would say yes. Where they differ is on whether or not the US's intentions are good or bad.

 

[Juma]

Chomsky tried, in vain, to reduce the examination of intentions to clear and unprejudiced criteria.
.

Let me put it this way instead: What disturbes me is that Chomasky is given an opportunity to show Harris a better way to look at these questions, but he fails completely. And the reason for that is his own arrogance.

 

[untermensche]

Chomsky tried, in vain, to reduce the examination of intentions to clear and unprejudiced criteria.
.

Let me put it this way instead: What disturbes me is that Chomasky is given an opportunity to show Harris a better way to look at these questions, but he fails completely. And the reason for that is his own arrogance.

Chomsky fails because Harris refuses to address any point Chomsky makes.

You think Chomsky can both lead a horse to water and force it to drink.

Chomsky has been dealing with the kinds of arguments that Harris is trying to make for a long time, so his lack of patience is clear.

Basically all Harris is saying is that US atrocities, or Israeli atrocities, or any other atrocities Harris supports, are not really that bad because expressed intentions are good. It is an analysis fit for a three year old. I can fully understand Chomsky's impatience.

But again, what question do you think Chomsky failed to address?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've made it clear over the years that I don't like Sam Harris, as I view him as an ideologue and talking head who gets by on rhetoric and sound bites rather than substance, but I've always seen him as a very capable, slippery debater who can talk his way out of most situations even when he's wrong. But holy hell did get in over his head with Chomsky.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/sam-harris-made-himself-look-idiot-email-exchange-chomsky-and-has-shared-it-world

Basically, Harris initiates the conversation by claiming to want to have a "serious dialogue," but from the beginning he's clearly out of his depth. The crux of the whole debate is moral equivalence and the importance of intention regarding the crimes of the U.S. and its enemies (Muslims, of course - Harris' go-to punching bag). But he grossly misrepresents Chomsky's scholarly work and appears totally unprepared to deal with the bitchslapping he gets in return for it.

It just gets worse from there, with a large amount of time spent on the example of Bill Clinton's bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in 1998, which is estimated to have indirectly killed thousands of Africans who needed the medicine produced there. Chomsky's point is pretty clear: regardless of whether or not Bill Clinton intended to kill thousands of innocent people the way Osama bin Laden did when orchestrating 9/11, he still went ahead and did it, by most accounts, simply as a means of retaliation for the U.S. Embassy bombings. Dead Africans weren't the objective, but they ultimately didn't matter either. And, arguably, that's even worse. Harris can't really address this - he tries to pull his usual routine of absurd "thought experiments" but Chomsky isn't having it.

By the end, Harris stops addressing Chomsky's points altogether and basically complains about him being a cranky old man before terminating the exchange. Chomsky pretty much nails it in his penultimate message:

"I agree with you completely that we cannot have a rational discussion of these matters, and that it is too tedious to pretend otherwise. And I agree that I am litigating all points (all real, as far as we have so far determined) in a “plodding and accusatory way.” That is, of course, a necessity in responding to quite serious published accusations that are all demonstrably false, and as I have reviewed, false in a most interesting way: namely, you issue lectures condemning others for ignoring “basic questions” that they have discussed for years, in my case decades, whereas you have refused to address them and apparently do not even allow yourself to understand them. That’s impressive."

All in all, it's a pretty hilarious exchange and a good example of what happens when a truly great intellectual collides with someone who has convinced himself, and legions of adoring fans, that he is one. Yet even the Harris acolytes are having a hard time making sense of this, and a lot of people are wondering what his logic was in making it public. But since he has, it's a fun read.

I dislike both of them. Both of them often talk about stuff out of their depth, but as if they are all-knowing. They make overly strong assertions all the time. I don´t like their style of debating. I think both of them are famous because their styles of debating is entertaining. And that is the only reason either of them are famous.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Chomsky tried, in vain, to reduce the examination of intentions to clear and unprejudiced criteria.
.

Let me put it this way instead: What disturbes me is that Chomasky is given an opportunity to show Harris a better way to look at these questions, but he fails completely. And the reason for that is his own arrogance.

He failed to do so because he couldn't win honestly. Thus he derailed and his supporters lapped it up.

 

[Herrick]

He failed to do so because he couldn't win honestly. Thus he derailed and his supporters lapped it up.

I've never read anything by Chomsky other than these e-mails so I can't say if I'm a fan or not. I don't think Chomsky derailed the conversation. The e-mail exchange started off well until the matter of "basic questions never asked" came up, which Chomsky said he'd been dealing with for decades. I think if Harris would've addressed that accusation, then the rest of the e-mail exchange could've have gone better.

 

[untermensche]

The conversation was never going to go anywhere.

Harris's position is utter nonsense.

Expressed intentions mean absolutely nothing as Chomsky understands well.

Chomsky actually knows history. Harris doesn't.