Sam Harris picks a fight with Noam Chomsky and gets eviscerated

[Warpoet]

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.

 

[Derec]

Hold the presses! Alternet takes the side of the anti-American, antisemitic, illiberal idiot Chomsky. Knock me over with a feather!

 

[Warpoet]

Hold the presses! Alternet takes the side of the anti-American, antisemitic, illiberal idiot Chomsky. Knock me over with a feather!

The exchange speaks for itself. Whether you like Chomsky or not, he handed Harris his ass to him on a silver platter.

 

[Axulus]

So far, I'm at the second response from Chomsky, and his responses are full of rubbish. He doesn't carefully address Sam Harris point by point and instead goes off on a streaming consciousess rant against Sam and US foreign policy at every opportunity. He seems to require Sam to prove his moral worthiness before he will even consider engaging with him. His style of writing is tiresome, overly verbose, and unfocused, and littered with strawmen on Sam's position.

Sam's first two responses involved getting clarification on positions, principles, and definitons, and Chromsky refuses to have any of it.

 

[Warpoet]

So far, I'm at the second response from Chomsky, and his responses are full of rubbish. He doesn't carefully address Sam Harris point by point

What points would those be? Harris is falsely accusing him of making a moral equivalence he didn't make. And of failing to consider issues of intentionality he's talked about for decades. This cripples him from the start and he never actually owns up to it, although he did (tepidly) admit on his blog that he had misrepresented Chomsky's views.

Chomsky doesn't seem interested in Sam's morality or really anything about Sam. He's kind of a dick, but Harris doesn't really deserve better.

 

[Juma]

So far, I'm at the second response from Chomsky, and his responses are full of rubbish. He doesn't carefully address Sam Harris point by point

What points would those be? Harris is falsely accusing him of making a moral equivalence he didn't make. And of failing to consider issues of intentionality he's talked about for decades. This cripples him from the start and he never actually owns up to it, although he did (tepidly) admit on his blog that he had misrepresented Chomsky's views.

Chomsky doesn't seem interested in Sam's morality or really anything about Sam. He's kind of a dick, but Harris doesn't really deserve better.

I think you nailed it: chomsky is a big dick.
Wether Harris deservs it is besides the point. Here Chomsky is nothing but an arrogant prick,

 

[Axulus]

So far, I'm at the second response from Chomsky, and his responses are full of rubbish. He doesn't carefully address Sam Harris point by point

What points would those be?

Harris is falsely accusing him of making a moral equivalence he didn't make.

And of failing to consider issues of intentionality he's talked about for decades.

After reading the exchange, I can't understand the moral distinction, in terms of evilness and moral culpability, Chomsky is making between 9/11 and the Al-Shifa bombing. Was the tragedy less evil than 9/11? Is Bill Clinton less morally culpable than Osama Bin Laden?

During some instances, Chomsky seems to imply that Clinton is worse because he completely disregarded African lives (as if they were ants). Is he objecting to the "moral equivalence" accusation because he views Bill Clinton's actions as worse than Osama Bin Laden's?

Sam repeatedly asked for clarification on these issues and I saw no clear response. I'm left completely confused.

Another key part of the discussion is my confusion on what Chomsky believes about the moral relevancy of intentions. He seems to be implying that intentions don't matter (because all moral monsters claim good intentions). Yet he doesn't plainly state it. He then goes off to claim that we don't need to discuss intentions in regards to the Al-Shifa bombing because we can be almost certain there were no humanitarian intentions in regards to those actions (a dubious claim at least in regards to Clinton, as it is quite possible he was given very bad advice and evidence from his advisers, and was basing his decision on what they were telling him). Yet if intentions don't matter, why bring this up? What is your reading of his view on this matter?

Chomsky doesn't seem interested in Sam's morality or really anything about Sam. He's kind of a dick, but Harris doesn't really deserve better.

Sam seemed to spend the whole debate trying to get Chomsky to clarify his views and the principles he was using and better understand how what he wrote misrepresented Chomsky. I still feel confused on Chomsky's answers to these questions.

I agree that Sam erred when he claimed that Chomsky didn't ask the "basic questions", but in all fairness to Sam, the questions were discussed in a completely different book (not the 9-11 book that Sam had read and was specifically referring to with his accusation).

 

[Warpoet]

After reading the exchange, I can't understand the moral distinction, in terms of evilness and moral culpability, Chomsky is making between 9/11 and the Al-Shifa bombing. Was the tragedy less evil than 9/11? Is Bill Clinton less morally culpable than Osama Bin Laden?

He's more interested in the actual consequences than the intent, because as he points out, all the monsters in human history have claimed good intentions, making it a poor guide.

During some instances, Chomsky seems to say that Clinton is worse because he completely disregarded African lives (as if they were ants).

He said it's arguably worse. He doesn't purport to have all the moral answers like Sam does. And his logic is pretty hard to argue with. Clinton clearly didn't care about dead Africans. He was just interested in sending a message after the embassy bombings, and any Africans who died as a result simply didn't matter.

Sam repeatedly asked for clarification on these issues and I saw no clear response. I'm left completely confused.

I don't think there was anything unclear, at least when it came to his position on Sudan and Clinton's involvement. And honestly, I don't see how anyone can argue that Sam made a single dent in anything he said on that particular subject, or any of the meaningful points in the exchange.

Sam seemed to spend the whole debate trying to get Chomsky to clarify his views and the principles he was using and better understand how what he wrote misrepresented Chomsky. I still feel confused on Chomsky's answers to these questions.

I don't know, I think Chomsky made it pretty clear that his views are a lot more nuanced and careful than Sam seems to understand, and he presented pretty sound reasoning for his positions. Sam was flatly wrong on several things, and just generally in over his head. His blog post has a lengthy postscript acknowledging some of this and trying to explain why he fared so poorly.

 

[J842P]

Yeah, I have to admit Harris was out of his league with Chomsky.

 

[Axulus]

He's more interested in the actual consequences than the intent, because as he points out, all the monsters in human history have claimed good intentions, making it a poor guide.

He said it's arguably worse. He doesn't purport to have all the moral answers like Sam does. And his logic is pretty hard to argue with. Clinton clearly didn't care about dead Africans. He was just interested in sending a message after the embassy bombings, and any Africans who died as a result simply didn't matter.

If this is true, then why is Chomsky objecting to the moral equivalence accusation? Why not just plainly state that "yes, I do believe a solid case can be made that what Clinton did is at least as bad as what Osama Bin Laden did". It's an interesting position to take, and he seems capable of presenting a case that is worthy of serious consideration.

I don't think there was anything unclear, at least when it came to his position on Sudan and Clinton's involvement. And honestly, I don't see how anyone can argue that Sam made a single dent in anything he said on that particular subject, or any of the meaningful points in the exchange.

The reason Sam didn't make a single dent in regards to specific claims that Chomsky was making is that Sam was still attempting, in a futile manner, to get clarification on principles and definitions in order to lay out the necessary groundwork for a debate to take place. How can one argue against someone's position when there was still so much confusion about what exactly one's position is? Without doing so, it just leads to talking past each other and attacking strawmen.

I don't know, I think Chomsky made it pretty clear that his views are a lot more nuanced and careful than Sam seems to understand, and he presented pretty sound reasoning for his positions.

His views seem nuanced and he made several good points, but it was exceedingly difficult to pin down the specifics of those nuances and the underlying principles guiding them.

Sam was flatly wrong on several things, and just generally in over his head. His blog post has a lengthy postscript acknowledging some of this and trying to explain why he fared so poorly.

Other than his error that Chomsky didn't ask the "basic questions", an accusation that Sam had written in 2004, for which this discussion was an attempt to discover where Sam had been wrong in that writing, on what other issue do you believe Sam to have been wrong about in this discussion?

 

[arkirk]

So far, I'm at the second response from Chomsky, and his responses are full of rubbish. He doesn't carefully address Sam Harris point by point and instead goes off on a streaming consciousess rant against Sam and US foreign policy at every opportunity. He seems to require Sam to prove his moral worthiness before he will even consider engaging with him. His style of writing is tiresome, overly verbose, and unfocused, and littered with strawmen on Sam's position.

Sam's first two responses involved getting clarification on positions, principles, and definitons, and Chromsky refuses to have any of it.

...or perhaps you too refuse to deal with the same elementary moral questions Sam does. Sam has a one size fits all 3rd world locations philosophy...(bomb them, kill them, torture them till they learn to sing your song).... same as yours.

 

[untermensche]

Chomsky tried to question Harris about the most basic beginnings of moral thinking.

Harris wanted no part of it and evaded every single question Chomsky asked.

Harris is a complete waste of time.

 

[Warpoet]

If this is true, then why is Chomsky objecting to the moral equivalence accusation? Why not just plainly state that "yes, I do believe a solid case can be made that what Clinton did is at least as bad as what Osama Bin Laden did". It's an interesting position to take, and he seems capable of presenting a case that is worthy of serious consideration.

I think that's what he did. He's saying there is a good case to be made, but he's noting some key differences, namely, that Clinton, unlike Bin Laden, didn't intend to cause civilian deaths. But that he didn't care, and the consequences for Sudan were a lot worse than the consequences of 9/11 were for the U.S. That's a lot more reasonable and nuanced than the silly caricature of his views Harris initially constructed, which is why he was so recalcitrant the whole time.

The reason Sam didn't make a single dent in regards to specific claims that Chomsky was making is that Sam was still attempting, in a futile manner, to get clarification on principles and definitions in order to lay out the necessary groundwork for a debate to take place. How can one argue against someone's position when there was still so much confusion about what exactly one's position is? Without doing so, it just leads to talking past each other and attacking strawmen.

I don't see this. At least by the end of the exchange, Chomsky's views and the logic behind them seemed more than clear enough. Sam was feigning confusion, and indignation over tone, because he couldn't address them.

Other than his error that Chomsky didn't ask the "basic questions", an accusation that Sam had written in 2004, for which this discussion was an attempt to discover where Sam had been wrong in that writing, on what other issue do you believe Sam to have been wrong about in this discussion?

That's not some minor oversight. It's pretty insulting to accuse someone with Chomsky's credentials of ignoring an issue they've been addressing for longer than you've been alive. He didn't acknowledge this until afterwards, and in addition to that, he never demonstrated this "moral equivalence," nor Chomsky's misrepresentation of his views. And his insistence that Clinton bombed al-Shifa because he genuinely thought there were weapons there was pretty absurd.

The best you can say is that he just got in way over his head, and ended up very confused and unable to mount a coherent argument. But in reality I think he understood Chomsky perfectly well and just didn't want to engage him directly because he had bitten off more than he could chew.

 

[untermensche]

The concept of "moral equivalence" is a concept Chomsky despises.

It is mainly used as he says.

As a means to totally ignore the harm done by the side you support.

Exactly as Harris used it.

It is no wonder Chomsky had little patience.

 

[J842P]

So far, I'm at the second response from Chomsky, and his responses are full of rubbish. He doesn't carefully address Sam Harris point by point and instead goes off on a streaming consciousess rant against Sam and US foreign policy at every opportunity. He seems to require Sam to prove his moral worthiness before he will even consider engaging with him. His style of writing is tiresome, overly verbose, and unfocused, and littered with strawmen on Sam's position.

Sam's first two responses involved getting clarification on positions, principles, and definitons, and Chromsky refuses to have any of it.

...or perhaps you too refuse to deal with the same elementary moral questions Sam does. Sam has a one size fits all 3rd world locations philosophy...(bomb them, kill them, torture them till they learn to sing your song).... same as yours.

Sam Harris has not advocated any of those things.

 

[untermensche]

Sam Harris has not advocated any of those things.

He is an apologist for those who did.

 

[J842P]

The concept of "moral equivalence" is a concept Chomsky despises.

It is mainly used as he says.

As a means to totally ignore the harm done by the side you support.

Exactly as Harris used it.

It is no wonder Chomsky had little patience.

Yeah, I can totally understand why Chomsky had little patience with the overall discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

Sam Harris has not advocated any of those things.

He is an apologist for those who did.

Could you point out where?

 

[untermensche]

Could you point out where?

I have enough Harris before me to discuss.

All he did in that exchange with Chomsky was cry about the fact that Chomsky was impatient with the complete lack of response, or even attempt at a response, and evade.

As far as his support of the so-called US "war on terror", are you saying he is opposed to it on any grounds?

I've never once heard Harris say he was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Chomsky gave him a chance to, but that too he evaded.

 

[Axulus]

I think that's what he did. He's saying there is a good case to be made, but he's noting some key differences, namely, that Clinton, unlike Bin Laden, didn't intend to cause civilian deaths. But that he didn't care, and the consequences for Sudan were a lot worse than the consequences of 9/11 were for the U.S. That's a lot more reasonable and nuanced than the silly caricature of his views Harris initially constructed, which is why he was so recalcitrant the whole time.

Maybe Chomsky misunderstood what Sam meant by "moral equivalence". It means, from a moral perspective, just as bad/evil of an action. Not that the actions were exactly the same. You seem to agree that Chomsky was making such a case. Can you understand now why Chomsky is so confusing?

I don't see this. At least by the end of the exchange, Chomsky's views and the logic behind them seemed more than clear enough. Sam was feigning confusion, and indignation over tone, because he couldn't address them.

I really don't think it was feigned. I was just as confused as Sam was, and it was exceedingly difficult to find the clarity among the preaching and ad homs.

That's not some minor oversight. It's pretty insulting to accuse someone with Chomsky's credentials of ignoring an issue they've been addressing for longer than you've been alive.

And Chomsky had to repeat himself in a very preachy manner how insulting it was, even though I thought the oversight was excusable given that Chomsky had to present a completely separate book where the questions were addressed, as Sam had only read the 9/11 book where the questions were not addressed.

He didn't acknowledge this until afterwards, and in addition to that, he never demonstrated this "moral equivalence," nor Chomsky's misrepresentation of his views.

He made a claim that Chomsky misrepresented his views in that video he linked to. And yet, Chromsky's response was that he was really just referring to Hitchens because he had read nothing of Sam, even though, if you watch the video, he repeatedly uses the pronoun "they" and says "both of them."

And his insistence that Clinton bombed al-Shifa because he genuinely thought there were weapons there was pretty absurd.

That was Sam's debate position which he was trying to explore further. I don't really feel this was fleshed out in this discussion as Sam didn't offer any points in defense of it. It may only seem absurd because Sam was still trying to lay out the groundwork for a debate as can be seen in his moral ranking of the three scenarios to try to see if Chomsky agreed with the ranking. From Chomsky's response, I can't tell if he agrees with the ranking or not. Can you give a definitive, yes/no answer here? Because I sure can't.

The best you can say is that he just got in way over his head, and ended up very confused and unable to mount a coherent argument. But in reality I think he understood Chomsky perfectly well and just didn't want to engage him directly because he had bitten off more than he could chew.

I think you are confusing laying the groundwork for a debate and not addressing points as a failure to defend one's position. I see it as a necessary step for a debate to even take place as without getting clarification on those points that Sam was asking about, it becomes far to easy to talk past each other by (unintentionally) misrepresenting one's position due to confusion.

Contrast this with Sam's debate on profiling here where I believe the debate was productive and one that Sam lost because he did not adequately support the claim that his style of profiling had more efficacy than the type that Bruce was advocating. The discussion with Chomsky didn't even really get off the ground floor.

 

[Axulus]

I've never once heard Harris say he was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Chomsky gave him a chance to, but that too he evaded.

You might want to read this:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy

In particular:

My position on the war in Iraq (link to here)
I have never written or spoken in support of the war in Iraq. This has not stopped a “journalist” like Glenn Greenwald from castigating me as a warmonger (Which is especially rich, given that he supported the war. In fact, in 2005 he appeared less critical of U.S. foreign policy than I am.) The truth is, I have never known what to think about this war, apart from the obvious: 1) prospectively, it seemed like a very dangerous distraction from the ongoing war in Afghanistan; 2) retrospectively, it was a disaster.