Sam Harris Wrestling the trolls.

[Robert_S]

Freudian typo.

[Seth]

What an excellent article.

An eye-opener. Harris gets my sympathy, as does anyone whose views are distorted by an overly emotional, politically correct, politically motivated horde who have nothing but knee-jerk reactions to sound bytes and don't even bother to take the time to reason out the ideas for themselves before slinging shit at them.

Does that include me?

many of us spent years writing and reading through hundreds of thousands of words in debates with you. There was nothing knee-jerk about it. Don't make me laugh.

You certainly fooled me, because your shite sounded like it came from the mind of an ADD-afflicted pinhead with an IQ of about 40.

[Atheist-Lite]

One horseman on our side. What about the others now?

[pErvinalia]

What an excellent article.

An eye-opener. Harris gets my sympathy, as does anyone whose views are distorted by an overly emotional, politically correct, politically motivated horde who have nothing but knee-jerk reactions to sound bytes and don't even bother to take the time to reason out the ideas for themselves before slinging shit at them.

Does that include me?

many of us spent years writing and reading through hundreds of thousands of words in debates with you. There was nothing knee-jerk about it. Don't make me laugh.

You certainly fooled me, because your shite sounded like it came from the mind of an ADD-afflicted pinhead with an IQ of about 40.

Lol. You were regularly taken to pieces by myself and others. So much so, you had to resort to silly threats about killing socialists and the like. That's not winning a debate. That's just proving to everyone what a nutbag you are. And lol on the IQ. You'd be in a very small minority of people if you had an IQ higher than me.

[Jaygray]

Time for something else that it is unthinkable to say: Part of me is enjoying all of this P Z Myers argument stuff principally because I come from a history background.

David Starkey pointed out that the collective noun for historians would be a ‘malice’ (I have no idea what a collective noun for sceptics would be, but I’m certain it wouldn’t be a community). This was borne out by the way that my MA History dissertation was attacked, hacked at, blew up, killed, cremated, and the ashes pissed on (by my professors) still has me waking up in a cold sweat. When all the smoke cleared, a conciliatory and rewarding discussion ensued. In true military fashion the purpose in all of it was to destroy my ideas in order to for me to build a stronger and more robust thinking methodology, and through that to write something that was worthy.

I was listening to an old Carl Sagan lecture delivered for CSI yesterday, and his story was much the same, to succeed in science you must be prepared to see most cherished thoughts eviscerated so that the discipline did not waste effort on unsupported pet theories. It’s necessary but it ain’t pretty.

I’m not suggesting that Science and History are similar subjects other than sharing a little methodology, but what I have noticed in most blog ‘debates’ involving P Z Myers is that the mud gets slung from him almost perpetually, and any reasoned debate is pointless because either P Z will either boorishly insult you on his blog, say ‘fly my pretties’ to his followers, or both. It’s very silly and can’t be doing his professional reputation very much good. He has no idea who he insulting on the web, their backgrounds, or their experience, and he doesn’t care. Yeah there’s loads of the great unwashed on the web, there are also people who know what they are talking about, but they are all the same to him.

Now I have a few issues with Sam Harris, one of which is his stance on torture. I am against it, I believe that it is barbaric, and a threat to civilisation. I cannot imagine a scenario where the use of torture would be appropriate. Conversely I hesitate in going the full way and saying it is absolutely anathema simply because the scenario that justifies its use may be out there, maybe I just can't see it yet.

I’m more motivated to discuss with Harris about the circumstances where he considers torture appropriate. There’s a very good chance that I would disagree with him absolutely, but there is also a chance that I may also learn something about myself and my values that I was previously unaware of. I can’t launch a blanket condemnation of Harris because I have no grounds for doing so. I can continue to disagree with him though.

Neither does the above make me an advocate of torture, and this is the problem P Z Myers has: Discussion is off the agenda, it’s a black or white issue. Meanwhile Myers continues to foul his own nest by playing host to relentless dogmatism as embodied by the ‘Skepchicks’ and their ilk.

P Z Myers finds himself reduced to using the discursive tools of his theist opponents to get his point across: dogma, claims sans sufficient evidence, and an echo chamber (his blogs). What a failure of imagination that is. No community needs a self-appointed figurehead with an inability to listen, to discuss and to learn. Myers is playing an intellectually dangerous game.

Harris can defend himself very forcefully, but from what I have observed he does appear willing to modify his position (however slightly) when challenged, and therein lies the difference between an academic and somebody who blogs for popularity.

[Thinking Aloud]

Tangent:

David Starkey pointed out that the collective noun for historians would be a ‘malice’ (I have no idea what a collective noun for sceptics would be, but I’m certain it wouldn’t be a community).

It's probably 'dispersion'.

[Jaygray]

Tangent:

David Starkey pointed out that the collective noun for historians would be a ‘malice’ (I have no idea what a collective noun for sceptics would be, but I’m certain it wouldn’t be a community).

It's probably 'dispersion'.

I was thinking of a 'quantum', i.e. nobody can predict where they will be at any specific moment.

[Thinking Aloud]

Tangent:

David Starkey pointed out that the collective noun for historians would be a ‘malice’ (I have no idea what a collective noun for sceptics would be, but I’m certain it wouldn’t be a community).

It's probably 'dispersion'.

I was thinking of a 'quantum', i.e. nobody can predict where they will be at any specific moment.

[Atheist-Lite]

A half-wit of skeptics? I know I could be wrong but it sure sounds right.

[FBM]

Time for something else that it is unthinkable to say: ... and therein lies the difference between an academic and somebody who blogs for popularity.

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the details of Harris' arguments, but I just wanted to say that the above is one helluva post.

[JimC]

Time for something else that it is unthinkable to say: ... and therein lies the difference between an academic and somebody who blogs for popularity.

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the details of Harris' arguments, but I just wanted to say that the above is one helluva post.

100% agree...

[Jaygray]

A quick way of getting familiar with Harris’s ‘profiling’ stance (a hot enough topic for P Z Myers to release the hounds about) is to read the debate between Harris and Bruce Schneier. Here’s the link:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/to-p ... to-profile

Now Harris has gone on record as saying the debate was among other things ‘tedious’. I’m sure it was for him, as in my opinion Harris loses the argument comprehensively, and that is going to smart with him. But the debate is a good example of teasing out differences of opinion without getting overtly personal and hurling playground accusations at one another. P Z has an education, why can’t he do that?

Harris loses his argument because he is unable to state his case strongly enough to avoid demolition by his opponent. I do not think Harris’s initial idea to be “repugnant, irrational and unjustifiable” (P Z Myers), my first question would be ‘would it work, and if so what are the consequences?’

After reading this exchange I have come to the conclusion that Harris’s idea is just plain bad on the grounds of impracticality touched upon by Schneier. I cannot say that Harris is an “illiberal advocate for atrocious policies” (P Z Myers). I have insufficient evidence from what I have read of Harris to form an opinion; although I do have trouble imagining him as a member of the Tea Party.

If anything the scenario above illustrates the dangers of consulting a philosopher to design airport security systems. What seems an obvious idea (to make the security process more efficient) can buckle under close scrutiny from someone who actually has to deal with these problems. The politically correct / racism arguments against Harris are irrelevant. His idea for me is demonstrated to be unworkable before it even reaches that stage, so what on earth is P Z Myers wittering on about?

Thanks for the kind words by the way: Much appreciated.

[FBM]

That's the weak point of such debates. Temporality and the fleeting performance of the person presenting the ideas on that particular day. Ideas shouldn't be subjected or limited or evaluated by such transient concerns. Put them in print, I say, and pass them around so that people have time to reflect more deeply and in more detail before responding to them. The live debate is too much like a pair of gladiators in an arena. If one of them has the shits that day, he's dead. Whereas if he'd been scheduled for a week later, he may have slaughtered the opponent.

[Mysturji]

I just read that article after a night of skeptics in the pub and... more pub and came running here, ready to post the link...

I should have known I wouldn't be the first.

But still...

"that shepherd of Internet trolls PZ Myers",
"PZ Myers’s odious blog",
"people like PZ Myers continue to malign me as an advocate of “racial profiling.” I have written to Myers personally about this and answered his charges publicly. His only response has been to attack me further and to endorse the false charges of others.",
"unscrupulous people like PZ Myers",
"Having a blog and building a large community of readers can destroy a person’s intellectual integrity—as appears to have happened in the case of PZ Myers.",
"None of us know what our online lives will look like in five years. But we know that the Internet does not forget. And every day I confront the evidence of harm done to my reputation, and to the reputations of others, by people who seem accountable to no one apart from a growing army of trolls."

...bear repeating.

I am not Harris's biggest fan - I always thought him the lightweight of the 4 horsemen and disagreed (amicably) with some, but not most, of his points - but he is always worth reading and he marked PeeZee Herman's Myers' card on this one. And, for all Myers deliberately strident posturing, he will never be more than an annoying footsoldier - not worthy of a mount.

I am awaiting the Pharyngula response with growing ennui.

You said "mount".

[rachelbean]

I had started a novel here about PZ and his asinine free speech comments but I didn't want to derail this into reasons why PZ is wrong about everything, so I started it's own thread: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=38790