How does a Stanford educated philosopher and neuroscientist get an intellectual smackdown from a mediocre cartoonist?

How does a Stanford educated philosopher and neuroscientist get an intellectual smackdown from a mediocre cartoonist?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5Vc9Gsn5Ees
youtube.com/watch?v=qxF_CDDJ0YI
websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The mediocre cartoonist is much richer. Not only that, but the disconnect between arguments was huge, but it allowed the mediocre cartoonist to constantly poke holes in the Standford educated philospher neuroscientist's argument without much effort.

Adams based his arguments in reality while Harris based his in virtue-signalling

An economics degree from Cal isn't so bad.

adams got crushed in my opinion....

>analogies are for people who dont have an argument
two seconds later
>everyone is watching one of two movies

i think harris was right when he said he was hypnotized.
normally he would have called that shit out easy

a microcosm of the 2016 election

Does the fact that we are talking about this, mean the Harris won?

>>analogies are for people who dont have an argument
>two seconds later
>>everyone is watching one of two movies
this is literally the ONLY argument r/samharris could come up with lmao

That's not an analogy. It's a metaphor.

Video?

Adams said that analogies are only useful to describe a concept for the first time, and shouldn't be used as an argu-
>leaf
kys

>Sam Harris is a neuroscientist

Since getting his PhD, he has conducted no scientific research.
Since getting his PhD, he has taught no university/college courses in neuroscience.
Since getting his PhD, he has devoted his efforts to his anti-religious think tank and publishing books, such as the one on using drugs and meditation to discover truths about our reality.
He received his PhD through partial funding from his own atheist organization.
He didn’t do any of the experiments for his own thesis work.
His PhD thesis was about how science can determine what is right and wrong and he turned it into a book for sale.
Since publishing his thesis/book, Harris has yet to use science to resolve a single moral dispute.

youtube.com/watch?v=5Vc9Gsn5Ees

I saw Harris fanboys pushing this and it's clear they don't know Scott's full stance on the subject. If you actually knew what Scott had to say about analogies, you would know that he sees analogies useful for explaining things for the first time but become weaker in persuasion the more familiar the subject is with the matter at hand.

If I know everything there is to know about computer science, somebody giving me an analogy that servers and computers "talk" to one another would be woefully underdeveloped. If I was computer newb, the analogy has a lot more merit to it.

If you see the current president as an "terrible buffoon of a human being" yet can't wrap your head around why people like him so much, perhaps an analogy might do you some good.

>How?
One is a conventional thinker and relies on what he knows. The other thinks in unconventional terms and considers what he doesn't know.

>Since getting his PhD, he has conducted no scientific research.
>Since getting his PhD, he has taught no university/college courses in neuroscience.
>Since getting his PhD, he has devoted his efforts to his anti-religious think tank and publishing books, such as the one on using drugs and meditation to discover truths about our reality.
>He received his PhD through partial funding from his own atheist organization.
>He didn’t do any of the experiments for his own thesis work.
>His PhD thesis was about how science can determine what is right and wrong and he turned it into a book for sale.
>Since publishing his thesis/book, Harris has yet to use science to resolve a single moral dispute.
Lel, that almost reminds me of Richard Spencer, except Spencer didn't finish, because he got a job at a magazine

What are some key moments in the debate?

some timestamps please

b-but neuroscientist sounds cool

Cartoonists tend to be excellent people watchers.

This is more appropriate in figuring out who is going to win an election considering the thing is really just an advertising campaign.

One product is totally impossible to sell while the other product is like NASCAR, you pay to see the explosions.

Of all the people who have attached to Trump's movement, he's the one I'd like to sit down and have a beer with the most. Seems like a thoughtful, interesting dude.

>How does a Stanford educated philosopher and neuroscientist get an intellectual smackdown from a mediocre cartoonist?

Sam Harris is an utter moron. He still believes the 17 intellegence agency meme. I could go on, but the majority of his "facts" aren't.

one of the characters in dilbert is a garbage man who can understand theoretical physics at a level far above dilbert's own capability

should hint to you that the cartoonist part doesn't matter as much as you think

I'm not a doctor, but I have visited plenty of doctors in my life and thought "I'm smarter than this person"

>two movies
It isn't even an analogy. He is literally telling you that people can watch the same event and see different things.

youtube.com/watch?v=5Vc9Gsn5Ees

Quick Rundown for anyone who doesn't want to listen to two hours.

Scott forces Sam into basically becoming a stuttering wreck.

Basically it goes something like this

>Sam calls Trump a liar
Scott points out that Trump talks to the spirit of the American and isnt here to recite talking point.

Forces Sam into "Trump is Hitler" emotional break down

>Sam calls Trump a Con man
Scott triggers Sam when he points out Sam's cognitive dissonance and projection onto Trump, and is really just angry Trump is a good deal maker and good at getting stuff done.

>Sam retreats to "climate change" because he thinks muh science is a safe space
Scott says debate is good for the subject matter, and harkens back to when "diet science" sold us on the food pyramid so hard back in the day, which is now proved to be bull shit.

Sam says food science is hard and unclear, but climate science is absolute and should not be questioned.

>Final Word
Sam is just a stuttering reckt at this point. Starts randomly jumping from strange topic to strange topic.

he really brought the insecure kike out of harris

lel Jew Harris BTFO

It's a true testament to someone reasonable and extremely bright who is an independent thinker vs. the modern day "intellectual" who is of above average iq but lacks profundity in thought and seeks to prop themselves up by aligning themselves with the status quo in order to appear significant.

Basically what I'm saying is that Sam Harris and many other "academics" hide behind their credentials and form an echo chamber of consensus. With the rise of the internet and debates like these with people who are actually gifted, they get completely blown the fuck out and there's no hiding it because it's broadcasted to the entire world.

>Harris has yet to use science to resolve a single moral dispute.
he tries to do that all the time
that's his whole shtick

All Sam Harris did was moralize. Does he hold every politician and businessman to that standard or just Trump? He came off sounding naive.

There really aren't. It's mostly Harris telling Adams how contemptuous he feels about Trump. Harris wasn't interested in understanding why people like Trump, he wanted to tell people why he doesn't like Trump.

holy fuck

just look at all the sad children in this thread

that's not arguing with an analogy though.

how does one become a big man like you without learning what an analogy is

>Thread having discussion about the debate
>Pros and cons etc.
You come along and insult people by calling them mad children. You're a Harris fanboy aren't you?

He explained his reasoning on analogies, but sadly you were too stupid to understand his point.

Let me try to break it down for your maple syrup drizzled mind:
Analogies are useful for introducing a new idea, like if you were to describe a zebra as a horse with stripes.
After that point it is no longer useful.
So the 2 movies analogy works as an explanation for cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias associate with this election.
You can't continue to use the analogy out of that context though because a horse is not a zebra. It's useless to start arguing about zebras from the context of the horse.

Basically, Sam got triggered, realized he got triggered, didn't realize that Scott Dilbertman was wrecking him the whole time and basically said he thinks he got hypnotized. Very Sad performance by Harris, especially since the basis of his argument was a bunch of spooks like ethics(yeah he seems to think politics should have ethical standards), muh faith in democracy, muh standards of discourse and other non-arguments.

Even Molymeme would have done better than this.

>there's no hiding it because it's broadcasted to the entire world
True but 99.9% of the world will never watch this discussion and instead get their news from the MSM or John Oliver/Samantha Bee or just skim clickbaity headlines.

>leaf

Because one of them sides 80% with the facts and the other 20%.

Only Trump, he literally said Hillary did nothing worthy of jail.

Anyone read Persuasion Man's book?

Careful. He'd hypnotize you and steal yo bitch

Yes, breddy good self-help book. It is about setting up a mindset so you can improve your life without causing unneeded stress on yourself.

>muh democracy
If anybody starts talking about democracy in the context of Western government then you know they have no idea what they're talking about.

Good book. Key lesson for me: all humans are flesh robots and if you dont know what to talk about with people, then just talk about vacations and travel, and food.

>Year of Our Lord 1911+106
>College degrees and education having any meaning or value

>Don Jr. talked to somebody that lied and said they were russian govt
>It turned out they didn't
>later Don Jr. said they didn't talk to russian govt
>he didn't actually talk to russian govt
Sam Harris thinks there is an inconsistency in the above statements.

He brought this up today and made you look stupid.

He literally started the debate by calling it "the Russia thing". The easiest way to pin people down on this is to force them to say exactly what they mean and get down to the exact facts. So much of the argument is just weasling from vague allusion to unfounded accusation to confabulation from a loose set of unrelated facts.

I read how to fail at everything and found it helpful/motivating. Now I'm trying to go through his persuasion reading list.

Education does not equal intelligence, it only allows you to realize your potential (if educated properly).

At the end of the day, some people are naturally smarter than others.

trump didnt even write that book

youtube.com/watch?v=qxF_CDDJ0YI

trumpfags will be super butthurt by this one

He uses his stunning intellect to read between the lines and infer every accusation levied at trump must mean something is there, yet with Clinton he just decides there's nothing to see. He considers Trump to be a manipulator who was able to dupe millions into voting for him, yet can't apply the same logic to literally any other politician.

what are his reasons? I don't want to spend an hour on the high minded justifications of a navel gazer if they amount to little more than muh fee fees and can't recognize it was the better option than further neoliberal hell

I've met first year law students who could put the smack down on le brilliant and famous modern philosophers. Modern "philosophers" are not of the same caliber as the past. The last great philosopher was Martin Heidegger, and since then we've had mostly "philosophers of science" who are cucked by materialists and don't have very rigorous training. I had a philosophy prof in college (an "elite" college, too) who regularly tried to defend The Great Apes Project, if that tells you anything. If you're clever and you know argumentation, especially if you've studied formal or informal logic, there's a good chance you could BTFO the average "philosopher," as long as he didn't bog you down in technical terms.

It's really quite an insightful podcast thanks to Dilbert. You should stop being a knowledge vampire and listen to it instead of me cuck typing it out for you.

i have things to do today instead of sitting in front of my computer staring at a still image of a youtube video in my underwear

Sam Harris is the one who first brought up the two movies concept in the discussion, because he had heard Adams use it in the past, and Harris wanted to use the metaphor, because he found it a useful tool to frame the discussion.

listen again, Harris is the one who introduces the two movies metaphor.

You've btfo yourself, kiddo.

Harris is such a fag

He always talks up his IQ and his debating ability and will literally ask his audience "find me someone to debate"

He will then debate said person and prove that he is obtruse and pedantic and only once they leave will he go "god they probably tricked me, that was very sneaky of them"

Tl;dr Harris is a fag

he went to muhhh russia a lot
he stated multiple times that Trump isn't actually rich. he just sells that idea
that his entire image is just selling an idea.
he said that Trump is horrible at selling ideas

>implying you cant just download the podcast and listen it on your mp3 player, phone, etc.

>i have things to do today
Don't masturbate too much every day, you'll get venous problems down there when you're older.

Each girl in pic related of yours has the same face
And it is infuriatingly plain

You just have to go look at the R*ddit discussion on the podcast to see all the salt and cognitive dissonance this podcast produced.
100% of Sam's fanboys came away from that being even more sure that Trump was an Orange Buffoon with no morals who is Putins puppet and wants to destroy the environment.

Anybody who came into the debate with an open mind saw Sam getting triggered(which at least he was "intellectually honest" enough to admit) spending most of his time moralizing, putting together non-argument after non-argument while Scott simply explained how there are different ways to interpret the facts and clearly Scott's way has much better predictive power than Sam's. A real scientist would put some stock in the ability of a theory to predict reality but Sam is a pseudoscience who based his reality on post-hoc confabulation.

>implying i mindlessly move through my day and can afford to listen to it while i rot in a cubicle when instead i am an overman committing my being to the present.

>(((Harris)))
>(((Stanford)))
>(((educated)))

The only intelligent response by a smart individual has no takers. That tells you all there is to know about Sup Forums neckbeards.

>implying you fucking burgers dont have to sit in your cuckcar for hours on end getting from place a to b and from home to work and from work to home

Dilbertman actually understands behavioural economics which undermines Harris' whole idea of "rationality"

Harris quickly realised that despite him thinking that he's a super-rational person that he's actually just as feeble as any other human being in that he still suffers from mental foibles

Sam Harris would likely not have come across this issue because behavioural economics only became important in the past 2 decades

I wouldn't count that as an analogy but he did almost walk into one by saying something about Trump's Univ being like a construction project, but he got quiet for Harris before he could go down that road. I think Adams missed a few openings where he could've hit harder, mostly when he was talking about a good economy being a better tool to fight climate change than throwing money to the EPA as though the EPA's shit regulations have anything to do with tech innovation, that different energy sectors besides coal are improving by the only real measure the two were looking at (the markets), and the Paris Accords being openly acknowledged by both sides as useless but they mattered to Harris because reasons. Also he should've hit Harris when he was all, "Oh Elon took a huge risk by running away from Trump because Trump is mean and he could've bullied Elon with his power!" It was a clear case of him letting his stupid assumptions of Trump's character get in the way since Trump literally never attempted anything of the sort, and he just proved Adam's point by saying what Trump DIDN'T do.

Adam's isn't perfect but he won the debate by the same measure he says Trump won the election - he won the game he was playing, the only one that matters.

He describes how he sees Trump as a conman and that he isn't fooled by him and everyone would be in on the joke. And when confronted by arguments (read: persuations) why not everyone is in on the joke or how someone could see him being a persuator in a positiv way, he just comes back to, muh russia, muh ethics, muh joke.

I haven't seen much of Sam Harris, but I don't know why people would praise him. Just a guy not knowing stuff talking like he knows stuff, as everyone does. Especially true when he talks about reading Trumps mind, which Scott points out.

Bro you can't just post on Sup Forums and expect this to be a legitimate excuse.

This is the kind of board where people literally sit all day in front of WebSDR in desperate hopes of hearing "SKYKING SKYKING" repeated four times in a row somewhere.

Kek.

> Trump is a con man

> He's not really rich

> He persuaded everyone he's rich and enough people that he should be President

> But Trump is a shitty persuader

tfw being Sam Harris

POO

>when Sam Harris says Trump's been bad because more people are now talking about politics

Honestly he deserved to get shot for that comment, what a fucking retard

Dont fall for this meme like I did. Harris was saying how awful Trump is. And Adams saying that whatever works, works.

There is no real interaction between them, it's utter garbage I want my hour back Sup Forums

This isnt reddit where we upvote posts. If something is "intelligent" you should figure that out by reading it. And if something can stand on its own then it doesn't need further "takers". If you have something to add, add. If you have something to criticise. criticise. No need to shitposts with praise memes, or smug animes faces.

He should have just come straight out and said "The goyim know"

What the fuck is Harris' problem with Russian and Putin!? I don't remember him every focusing on the country. It's like he suddenly things Russia is on the wrong side of a manichean politcal contest because CNN tells him he should. I'll never understand how anyone who is wise on Islam would be anti-Russian. Jew thought processes I guess.

Kek

this is now a Skyking thread.

websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901

I don't think I could handle looking at the comments.

this was Sam losing the debate, hard.

I love how Harris and other Trump haters claim Trump is a fucking idiot, yet they were defeated by an idiot.

If you're so smart, why are you a loser? Same question to /r9k/.

Authoritarians hate democracy You can't have democracy without politics. Politics-free governance is authoritarianism.

as much as I hate linking to that website, link?

At least sam has this guy on without any gotcha questions, even if he did get bested.

can you imagine anyone from the right inviting a centrist or leftist on their show and giving them any kind of respect that sam has for his guests?

They would blame it on dumb americans

They think the country is populated by idiots and so Trump in his idiocy was able to connect with those idiots. He's a conventional thinker who considers what he "knows" to be more important that what he doesn't know.

I noticed that too. I think he wanted to follow up with the argument, that people shouldnt talk about politics because that means something is going wrong with the country. As in, if politicians are doing everything right, we wouldnt care and notice. He fails to understand that it's not Trumps fault that politics is going down the drain, he just pointed it out. And that people didnt care before doesn't mean that everything was going alright.
I got intrested in politics because of trump. I laughed at him first, but the more I saw of him, the more I realised that him being an idiot is the most shallow stance I could take. I stopped watching funny edits of him after 1 day and started watching full interviews/speeches. So everytime I see someone call Donald an idiot, I know they are just shallow idiots, because I was once the same.

It was the hardest I've seen Harris trashed since fucking Chomsky.

The entire conversation was Harris getting hit in the face with his own rake.

>"Trump is bad because people are talking about politics more"
>"muh Hitler isn't that bad of an analogy"
>"Yeah, the red-blue team makes a lot of sense, but I don't like Trump"

>That pic
Should have said Brain Force

Sad but true.

But you're still a loser who was defeated in sheep wrangling by an idiot.

If the USA is populated by idiots who can be manipulated easily, why aren't you the best idiot manipulator?

in same way way we kinda won. Natural ability, and the educational systems ability to foster that ability not always work flawlessly.

You also wont get taught how to shitpost there.

stfu with your posting advice, Hans

This is the good goy mentality that keeps these idiots depressed and easily manipulated. The world is a game with rules. They just aren't the rules that dumb fucks like Harris thinks.

Scott tried to explain the actual rules, but Sam(and the rest of the Left and most of the Right) just refuse to believe that they've been duped their whole lives and their set of well reasoned rational principles is just as arbitrary as the 10 commandments.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant Harris is the conventional thinker.