I must commend him for ably cloaking himself in the prestige of a scientific field without wasting his time publishing p-hacked fMRI studies and toiling away in academic indentured servitude. I just hope that society as a whole can follow his noble example and convert the deadweight loss of wasting time at universities into a pure bidding war for prestige.
Reminds me of Neal Degrasse Tyson, billed as an astrophysicist, whose contributions to the field have been miniscule since completing his doctorate. I guess one could argue that popularizers invest their time in communication rather than research, and there's something to that ... although that didn't stop Carl Sagan.
I'm also thinking about Lisa Cook, somehow confirmed to the Fed as an affirmative action Marxist. Her body of work is one semi-retracted analysis of her own racially-based false data set to her name. She shouldn't be a PhD or an economist, let alone sitting on the Fed, but it certainly helps explain our current economic predicament.
Interesting analysis of publications by Sam Harris which are pretty miniscule. As a research scientist for over 35 years in the field of Earth Science who published over 200 peer-review papers, the first thing I do when I come across "scientists" in any field, particularly those in high profile positions, is to check their publication record. And in so doing, I am amazed at the high percentage of "failed scientists" or scientists who have achieved very little who have been installed into positions of power and influence. Could it be that loyalty and corruptibility are valued more highly than scientific integrity and scientific achievement?
I don't think I have ever heard/read him refer to himself as a neuroscientist. It's not a moniker he seems to wear very explicitly. I think the bios that say "neuroscientist" are just refering to the fact that he has a PhD.
> It's not a moniker he seems to wear very explicitly.
I could be wrong but I remember listening to his podcasts years ago, and I feel like he was much more explicit about bragging about being a neuroscientist back then. As he has gotten older he has moved away from the label.
Since I anticipated this, I included a screenshot of his website. Well, here's his Youtube channel (582K subscribers):
"Join neuroscientist, philosopher, and best-selling author Sam Harris as he explores important and controversial questions about the human mind, society, and current events. The Making Sense podcast was selected by Apple as one of iTunes Best of 2015."
I have the opposite recollection, that he downplays the "neuroscientist" label and considers himself more of a voice on the topics he devotes attention to in his podcasts and the Waking Up project. Website verbiage tends to grow stale, so I'm not surprised his site still mentions "neuroscientist" in the description. In fact I can't recall the last time he referred to himself as such on his podcast or in interviews with others.
no. he has positioned himself as a "neuroscientist" in many presentations, particularly when he was running as Peter Hitchens' sidekick during their wet and wild atheist talks.
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2Tim 4:3-4)
I must commend him for ably cloaking himself in the prestige of a scientific field without wasting his time publishing p-hacked fMRI studies and toiling away in academic indentured servitude. I just hope that society as a whole can follow his noble example and convert the deadweight loss of wasting time at universities into a pure bidding war for prestige.
Reminds me of Neal Degrasse Tyson, billed as an astrophysicist, whose contributions to the field have been miniscule since completing his doctorate. I guess one could argue that popularizers invest their time in communication rather than research, and there's something to that ... although that didn't stop Carl Sagan.
I'm also thinking about Lisa Cook, somehow confirmed to the Fed as an affirmative action Marxist. Her body of work is one semi-retracted analysis of her own racially-based false data set to her name. She shouldn't be a PhD or an economist, let alone sitting on the Fed, but it certainly helps explain our current economic predicament.
I was reminded likewise!
Interesting analysis of publications by Sam Harris which are pretty miniscule. As a research scientist for over 35 years in the field of Earth Science who published over 200 peer-review papers, the first thing I do when I come across "scientists" in any field, particularly those in high profile positions, is to check their publication record. And in so doing, I am amazed at the high percentage of "failed scientists" or scientists who have achieved very little who have been installed into positions of power and influence. Could it be that loyalty and corruptibility are valued more highly than scientific integrity and scientific achievement?
It has been often noted. Look up Kardashian index for your amusement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashian_Index
The philosopher Jerry Fodor has a nice little essay on the pointlessness of this sort of neural imaging research.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v21/n19/jerry-fodor/diary
I don't think I have ever heard/read him refer to himself as a neuroscientist. It's not a moniker he seems to wear very explicitly. I think the bios that say "neuroscientist" are just refering to the fact that he has a PhD.
> It's not a moniker he seems to wear very explicitly.
I could be wrong but I remember listening to his podcasts years ago, and I feel like he was much more explicit about bragging about being a neuroscientist back then. As he has gotten older he has moved away from the label.
Since I anticipated this, I included a screenshot of his website. Well, here's his Youtube channel (582K subscribers):
"Join neuroscientist, philosopher, and best-selling author Sam Harris as he explores important and controversial questions about the human mind, society, and current events. The Making Sense podcast was selected by Apple as one of iTunes Best of 2015."
https://www.youtube.com/c/samharrisorg/about
I have the opposite recollection, that he downplays the "neuroscientist" label and considers himself more of a voice on the topics he devotes attention to in his podcasts and the Waking Up project. Website verbiage tends to grow stale, so I'm not surprised his site still mentions "neuroscientist" in the description. In fact I can't recall the last time he referred to himself as such on his podcast or in interviews with others.
I think it's fair to say that he rode into town on the 'neuroscientist' pony and then discarded it when he had self-sustaining fame.
no. he has positioned himself as a "neuroscientist" in many presentations, particularly when he was running as Peter Hitchens' sidekick during their wet and wild atheist talks.
he certainly has
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2Tim 4:3-4)
I can think a lot of things to say about Harris but defined not woke or woken.
He bragged about and justified 2020. election theft because Orange Man Bad. But boy, does Joe Rogan think he's dreamy.