Sam Harris and the Myth of Perfectly Rational Thought

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Sam Harris, one of the original members of the group dubbed the “New Atheists” (by Wired!) 12 years ago, says he doesn’t like tribalism. During his recent, much-discussed debate with Vox founder Ezra Klein about race and IQ, Harris declared that tribalism “is a problem we must outgrow.”
But apparently Harris doesn’t think he is part of that “we.” After he accused Klein of fomenting a “really indissoluble kind of tribalism” in the form of identity politics, and Klein replied that Harris exhibits his own form of tribalism, Harris said coolly, “I know I’m not thinking tribally in this respect.”...

We all need role models, and I’m not opposed in principle to Harris’s being mine. But I think his view of himself as someone who can transcend tribalism—and can know for sure that he’s transcending it—may reflect a crude conception of what tribalism is. The psychology of tribalism doesn’t consist just of rage and contempt and comparably conspicuous things. If it did, then many of humankind’s messes—including the mess American politics is in right now—would be easier to clean up....

Examples of Harris’s tribal psychology date back to the book that put him on the map: The End of Faith. The book exuded his conviction that the reason 9/11 happened—and the reason for terrorism committed by Muslims in general—was simple: the religious beliefs of Muslims. As he has put it: “We are not at war with ‘terrorism.’ We are at war with Islam.”
Believing that the root of terrorism is religion requires ruling out other root causes, so Harris set about doing that. …


Or, to put Harris’s fallacy in a form that he would definitely recognize: Religion can’t be a cause of terrorism, because the world is full of religious people who aren’t terrorists.

To read more of a very interesting article:

https://www.wired.com/story/sam-harris-and-the-myth-of-perfectly-rational-thought/

[guillaumeb]

1. I freely admit that my faith is unprovable.

And believing an unprovable thing require a leap of...………. faith.

But there are many positions that humans hold that are unprovable.

[Eko]

2. Not all republicans are racist.

But all racists are republicans.

[guillaumeb]

3. Are you certain of this?

Some racists might be Nazis.

Some might be apolitical.

[Eko]

5. Some might be stamp collectors also.

There even may be stamp collecting racist Nazis. One thing I can tell you is that I don't know of any terrorists who are atheists. Do you? Can you show me where even 3% of terrorists are not religious?

[guillaumeb]

10. Mao tse Tung, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, the current leaders of the Chinese Government,

the Kim family of N. Korea.


Large scale terrorists.

[Eko]

11. Terrorist.

a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Those people make/made the law, they cannot be terrorists.

[guillaumeb]

12. Nonsense.

There is state terrorism, and there are individual acts of terror.

To the victims, there is no difference.

[Eko]

13. I just gave you the definition.

Do you mean state sponsored terrorism?

[guillaumeb]

14. You gave me a defintion that suited your purpose.

In the United States of America, for example, Terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."[4]
It is the use of violence or threat of violence in the pursuit of political, religious, ideological or social objectives.

It can be committed by governments, non-state actors, or undercover personnel serving on the behalf of their respective governments.

It reaches more than the immediate target victims and is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society.
It is both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is inherently immoral or wrong).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

[Eko]

15. Why did you leave out the first 3 sentences from your link ?

There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism.[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon and legally binding definition.

[guillaumeb]

16. I provided a definition.

You made a point that limited the definition to individual actors only.

Why did you do that?

[trotsky]

24. Because he never argues in good faith.

He has an agenda, and all his posts are crafted to support the agenda.

[Major Nikon]

28. Presenting an argument isn't the same as arguing something

One is sometimes described as providing a sermon and the other involves providing substantive response to criticism. It's not hard to figure out which way he goes. In a way it's almost understandable. Those who are indoctrinated into religion learn from the very beginning there's no room for critical thinking. The first thing that's not up for debate is the existence of the sky daddy. The next thing that's not up for debate is the sky daddy's word, which is always conveniently given by proxy.

[Bretton Garcia]

34. So religious terrorism is mentioned

Arguably, most religion is terroristic. Either 1) offering to kill dissidents in this life. Or 2) in the next, sending them to some kind of hell. Or 3) excluding them from any kind of heaven.

[guillaumeb]

35. And in #10, I gave examples of non-theistic mass murderers.

Perhaps you missed it?

[Bretton Garcia]

62. Here, I address just one claim

By the author. That there many religious persons who are not terrorists.

Arguably they all are.

[guillaumeb]

65. Arguably?

Are all US citizens terrorists because of the near genocide of the First Peoples?

[Bretton Garcia]

68. They would be if all still issued similar threats today

[MineralMan]

70. No. Those terrorists are long dead.

Do think, please.

[Bretton Garcia]

72. 1) Threats, 2) as well as acts, are terrorist.

3) Many various threats still issue from religions.

Those threats are of punishment in this life, or another. Either by 4) human, or 5) allegedly divine agency.

One example of a continuing Christian threat, terrorism, would be sermons on " the Rapture" and the Apocalypse. There we are told that if we don't become Christians, we will not escape an Apocalypse, by being scooted, raptured, up to heaven. Instead we will have to face terrible disasters, wars.

[Eko]

36. How do you know they are atheist?

There is a difference between being secular, against organized religion that helps control the government you are trying to overthrow, and being an atheist especially for governments. Is our government atheist?

[guillaumeb]

38. OK.

The US Government, in theory, does not promote religion.

Russia:

Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922–1991), there were periods where Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on State interests.[1] Soviet Marxist-Leninism policy consistently advocated the control, suppression, and ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs, and actively encouraged atheism in the Soviet Union.[2] However, most religions were never officially outlawed.[1]
The state advocated the destruction of religion, and it officially pronounced religious beliefs to be superstitious and backward.[3][4] The Communist Party destroyed churches, synagogues,[5] mosques and Buddhist temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with anti-religious teachings, and it introduced a belief system called "scientific atheism," with its own rituals, promises and proselytizers.[6][7] The total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[8][9]
Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[6] in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[3][10]

You can do the rest if you wish. I have done so previously.

[Eko]

39. That doesn't show Stalin was an atheist.

It just shows that he didn't like religions that he perceived were a threat to his control. You are going to have to do better than that to say he was an atheist.

[guillaumeb]

40. Previously done.

And I see no need to endlessly re-post what has been posted prior to this.

[Eko]

41. Previously done where?

[guillaumeb]

42. DU.

[Eko]

43. There is the whole wide internet out there for you to use.

To make your point.
How about this one?
Winds flap the sail, tortoise and snake are silent, a great plan looms. A bridge will fly over this moat dug by HEAVEN and be a road from north to south. We will make a stone wall against the upper river to the west and hold back steamy clouds and rain of Wu peaks. Over tall chasms will be a calm lake, and if the GODDESS of these mountains is not dead she will marvel at the changed world.
Mao Tse-tung (1893 - 1976) Source: The Poems of Mao Tse-tung
Does that sound like an atheist??
See, you have made a claim that you are not backing up.

[guillaumeb]

44. Not interested in this diversion.

If you wish to make a claim that Mao, Stalin and Kim are not atheists, make the claim. Otherwise, I see no point in feeding this diversion.

[Eko]

45. You made the claim that they were.

And now cant/wont back it up. Until you do that the claim will be regarded as false.
Thanks!

[guillaumeb]

48. Here:

During his time in power, Stalin had a complex relationship with religion. He officially adopted the Russian Communist Party’s stance on religion, claiming atheism and continuing the tradition of teaching atheism in schools and propagating the idea that religion was only damaging to a perfect communist society. Stalin even took it further than his predecessor, Lenin, and initiated a nationwide campaign to destroy churches and religious property and even persecute and kill church officials.3 It is said that under Stalin, the Russian Orthodox Church went from 50,000 to 500 open and operating churches.4
Stalin once said:
You know, they are fooling us, there is no God… all this talk about God is sheer nonsense

https://hollowverse.com/joseph-stalin/

[Eko]

49. Once again you leave things out.

But during World War II, Stalin eased up considerably on religion. He allowed for tens of thousands of Russian Orthodox churches to reopen, adopted an official policy of tolerance toward Muslims,6 and re-established the hierarchy of leadership in the Russian Orthodox Church.7 There were even rumors that Stalin had reconsidered his own personal relationship to religion when he took a “mysterious retreat” in 1941.8
Written by this guy. https://www.facebook.com/tkershaw3
Not sure that is the definitive source you were looking for lol. Studied music at college. Doesn't help your case there buddy.

[guillaumeb]

50. So he eased up. That proves nothing about his position.

By contrast to all this, the Soviet Union was undeniably an atheist state, and the same applies to Maoist China and to Pol Pot’s fanatical Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the 1970s. That does not, however, show that the atrocities committed by these totalitarian dictatorships were the result of atheist beliefs, carried out in the name of atheism, or caused primarily by the atheistic aspects of the relevant forms of communism. In all of these cases, the situation was more complex – as, to be fair, also applies to some of the persecutions and atrocities in which religious movements, organizations, and leaders have been deeply implicated over the centuries.

Russell Blackford: 50 Great Myths About Atheism

[Eko]

51. Not helping your case.

That does not, however, show that the atrocities committed by these totalitarian dictatorships were the result of atheist beliefs, carried out in the name of atheism, or caused primarily by the atheistic aspects of the relevant forms of communism. In all of these cases, the situation was more complex – as, to be fair, also applies to some of the persecutions and atrocities in which religious movements, organizations, and leaders have been deeply implicated over the centuries.

[guillaumeb]

52. You are failing in your diversion:

The USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941 was a new phase of anti-religious persecution in the Soviet Union following the anti-religious campaign of 1921–1928. The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for a heightened attack on religion in order to further disseminate atheism.

This had been preceded in 1928 at the fifteenth party congress, where Joseph Stalin criticized the party for failure to produce more active and persuasive anti-religious propaganda.

This new phase coincided with the beginning of the forced mass collectivization of agriculture and the nationalization of the few remaining private enterprises.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928–1941)

Oh well.

[Eko]

53. Yes, that clearly shows he was an atheist.

And not against organized religion. Thing is, you are going to have to find him saying he was an atheist. And you cant do that can you? You can only find others saying that, you can only show examples of him clamping down on religion that he felt was a danger to his power.

[guillaumeb]

54. The ever moving goal posts.

“I believe in only one thing, the power of human will.”
― Joseph Stalin

[Eko]

55. Then obviously he didn't believe in atheism lol.

[guillaumeb]

56. Nice one!!

I bow to that response.

[Eko]

57. To be consistent.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the disbelief of gods because there is no evidence present. Hence the lol. So he could still be one using that definition although its not one you subscribe to.

[guillaumeb]

58. Stalin himself was inconsistent on the matter.

But no matter which side he was on, he was a brutal monster. And that is what counts.

[Eko]

59. He was a brutal monster.

But calling him an atheist is dubious. Its possible, but possible is not necessarily true.

[guillaumeb]

60. He may have been both, at different times.

Or, he might have been a nominal atheist.

[Eko]

61. He may have been a lot of things.

But may is not is.

[Major Nikon]

47. You made the claim they were

Seems incumbent upon you to support your assertion, or not. Also seems strange you'd call it a diversion.

[Major Nikon]

46. Stalin biographer, Edvard Radzinsky says he wasn't an atheist

At least a lifelong one. He went back and forth at different times of his life.

[Dorian Gray]

30. That is flawed

logic and a false statement.

I know plenty of racist Democrats. Many would even claim they're not at all racist. Come to a NYC BOE meeting about rezoning schools, and you'll see liberal racism at its worst.

[Eko]

37. It was a jab. I did not mean it to be logical at all.

Thanks!

[Major Nikon]

8. So your follow up to obvious strawman rhetoric is adding your own favorite strawman rhetoric

[Voltaire2]

4. It's best when the strawman argument

is proudly displayed in the title rather than buried amidst a plethora of textual framing.

Harris is wrong about many things, but you are not going to find any statement from him claiming rational perfection instead the author has to make that argument for him.

[NeoGreen]

6. It's a yet another sign of their desperation...

...
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218291748

[Major Nikon]

9. It doesn't get much better from there

His claim is Harris is a hypocrite for denouncing tribalism because people read his books and listen to his podcasts.

It should come as no surprise that someone who employs obvious fallacies would suck hard at identifying fallacies.

Or, to put Harris’s fallacy in a form that he would definitely recognize: Religion can’t be a cause of terrorism, because the world is full of religious people who aren’t terrorists.

I'm not sure which is worse, an author who is ate up with the Dunning-Kruger, or thinking this author had something intelligent to say. Regardless, this author just isn't in the same league as Harris and should probably limit criticism to people dumber than he is.

[MineralMan]

7. I have never met an atheist who believed he or she was perfectly rational.

Atheists have emotional responses to things, too. Including Sam Harris, I'm sure, although I've never met him. I haven't read any of his writings, either. But, I seriously doubt he ever claimed that atheism is " Perfectly Rational Thought."

[erronis]

26. Totally. None of us who aspire to rational thought, including atheists, believe we are infallible.

In fact, it is our acknowledgement of fallibility that makes us humans.

Versus some descendant of some god(s) living somewhere that are perfect and since we believe we are "in their image" we must also be infallible. ---- I know this is convoluted.

I love being proven wrong. That's how I learn.

My experience with the righteous of many religions is that being proven wrong is not part of their training.

[Jim__]

17. A podcast of the debate between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein.

It's a 2 hour debate, but I enjoyed listening to it. IMO, Ezra Klein won, hands down.

[guillaumeb]

18. Please summarize it for me.

I will bookmark and listen later.

[Jim__]

19. It's based on Harris's podcast with Charles Murray and Vox's criticism of it.

It covers Murray's The Bell Curve and his claims about the relationship between genetics and IQ and his claims about the relationship between intelligence and race. Harris makes claims about identity politics, tribalism, and political correctness. IMO, all of Harris's claims are easily rebutted by Klein.

[guillaumeb]

20. Thank you. eom

[Major Nikon]

21. I'm not sure how you scored it

Without contradiction it’s kind of hard to score points one way or another. Both seem to be talking about two different things and not contradicting each other about them.

[Jim__]

22. They're talking about Harris's interview of Murray and Vox's criticisms of that interview.

I think it's pretty clear from the opening statements of both Harris and Klein that is the main thing that they are both talking about. I judged what they were saying based on that criteria.

[Major Nikon]

23. I read the entire transcript

Klein by his own admission didn't write or even edit the original Vox article and right away he distances himself from the comments made. Harris point out correctly that some of what was in the original article that he complained about was retracted with an apology. Klein criticizes Murray and Harris distances himself from Murray's conclusions and both either agreed or didn't disagree that there were no errors in the data Murray presented. So right away you don't have much in the way of contradiction and they agreed with each other on pretty much all pertinent points. So it was far more of a discussion than a debate, so I'm just curious as to how one decides who "won" the debate other than picking out which one you like better than the other.

[Jim__]

25. I listened to the entire podcast. I didn't think it needed to be mentioned.

From Post #23:

Klein by his own admission didn't write or even edit the original Vox article and right away he distances himself from the comments made.

Yes, Klein said he didn't write the article, but he also said he stands by his decision to publish the article and he considers it a good piece. Not exactly distancing himself, just acknowledging the obvious - he didn't write it.

From Post #23:

Harris point out correctly that some of what was in the original article that he complained about was retracted with an apology.

Where was that? At about 35 seconds into the podcast, Harris claims a sentence was quietly pulled. On the podcast, he doesn't say anything about an apology. But lets look at what Harris claimed was an exact quote from the article, the sentence he said was pulled:

Sam Harris appeared to be ignorant of facts that were well known to everyone in the field of intelligence studies.

But, here is what Klein pointed to - as noted by Klein, this was added to the transcript, it was not in the podcast - as the exact quote from the original article as far as he was able to tell:

Here, too briefly, are some facts to ponder — facts that Murray was not challenged to consider by Harris, who holds a PhD in neuroscience, although they are known to most experts in the field of intelligence.

So, there is quite a bit of difference between those quotes, and especially from Harris's original claim that this sentence was an example of his being painted as a total ignoramus.

I did not find any place in the transcript where Harris claims that something from the original article was retracted and apologized for. He did claim Turkheimer apologized, but nothing about a retraction, and Klein did not agree about the apology. From the transcript:

Ezra Klein

The scientists, Nisbett and Paige Harden and Turkheimer, said that they believe Murray’s interpretation of this, ultimately, is pseudoscience and is way, way, way out in front of the data.

Sam Harris

But you know Turkheimer has apologized for that. What do you with the fact that he’s apologized for that?

Ezra Klein

I spoke with him yesterday. He holds all the same views on this, but that he feels that that wasn’t helpful to the debate, which is nice of him. He may be, you know, it’s good to keep the debate’s temperature down, but that doesn’t change his view.

So, if you are referring to something different in the transcript, please point it out.

From Post #23:

Klein criticizes Murray and Harris distances himself from Murray's conclusions and both either agreed or didn't disagree that there were no errors in the data Murray presented.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about here. Could you give a specific example?

One of the big problems with Murray's book is that he didn't actually present detail data. Most of the data he used to arrive at his conclusions are publicly available from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). I don't think anyone claims there is a problem with the NLSY data. There really wouldn't be anything to disagree with about that.

From Post #23:

So right away you don't have much in the way of contradiction and they agreed with each other on pretty much all pertinent points.

No, they did not agree with each other on pretty much all pertinent points. They disagreed with each other on pretty much all the pertinent points. Here's Murray near the beginning of the discussion:

...

So you say explicitly in the opening to that podcast, that in the treatment of Murray, you saw the seeds of later treatment of you. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, because something that I’ve been trying to do here is see this from your perspective.

Here is my view: I think you have a deep empathy for Charles Murray’s side of this conversation, because you see yourself in it. I don’t think you have as deep an empathy for the other side of this conversation. For the people being told once again that they are genetically and environmentally and at any rate immutably less intelligent and that our social policy should reflect that. I think part of the absence of that empathy is it doesn’t threaten you. I don’t think you see a threat to you in that, in the way you see a threat to you in what’s happened to Murray. In some cases, I’m not even quite sure you heard what Murray was saying on social policy either in The Bell Curve and a lot of his later work, or on the podcast. I think that led to a blind spot, and this is worth discussing.

...

And an excerpt from Harris's response to this comment:

...

Now that said, I think your argument is, even where it pretends to be factual, or wherever you think it is factual, it is highly biased by political considerations. These are political considerations that I share. The fact that you think I don’t have empathy for people who suffer just the starkest inequalities of wealth and politics and luck is just, it’s telling and it’s untrue. I think it’s even untrue of Murray. The fact that you’re conflating the social policies he endorses — like the fact that he’s against affirmative action and he’s for universal basic income, I know you don’t happen agree with those policies, you think that would be disastrous — there’s a good-faith argument to be had on both sides of that conversation. That conversation is quite distinct from the science and even that conversation about social policy can be had without any allegation that a person is racist, or that a person lacks empathy for people who are at the bottom of society. That’s one distinction I want to make.

...

It's a long podcast and I can only excerpt so much. But this is an example of pertinent points they disagreed on.

From Post #23:

So it was far more of a discussion than a debate, so I'm just curious as to how one decides who "won" the debate other than picking out which one you like better than the other.

I have absolutely no concern about whether someone labels this as a debate or a discussion.

The debate format here is not unusual. Judging the debate is not really that difficult. If you judge debates based on which one you like better than the other that's your prerogative. I base my judgement on who is making the more accurate and more pertinent points. In this case, I thought that was clearly Klein.

[Major Nikon]

27. You aren't really identifying points of contradiction, at least ones debatable

Yes, Klein said he didn't write the article, but he also said he stands by his decision to publish the article and he considers it a good piece. Not exactly distancing himself, just acknowledging the obvious - he didn't write it.

Here is what Klein says from the transcript:

I’m here because I want to persuade you. One of the tricky things here is that I was not that involved in the original Vox article, I was editor-in-chief at the time, but I didn’t assign or edit it. I stand by it — things you publish when you’re editor-in-chief ultimately are on you — and I actually think it’s a good piece. But there are times when I can only speak from my perspective, not from the perspective of other people who wrote other things.

It's worth pointing out the beef Harris had was with what he perceived as bad faith on behalf of some at Vox and right away Klein states he's only going to speak from his own perspective and not theirs. So the point here is we aren't really going to get into the heart of the matter and I don't believe the "debate" ever actually debates the points of contradiction Harris identifies with the stuff Vox published.

But, here is what Klein pointed to - as noted by Klein, this was added to the transcript, it was not in the podcast - as the exact quote from the original article as far as he was able to tell:

The original articles they are referring to weren't podcasts, they were published articles and both of them are referencing the original published version, which was later altered. I can guess the reason why they were altered was because Harris immediately called bullshit and Vox saw the need to edit, but they don't really go into the reasons why it was changed.

I did not find any place in the transcript where Harris claims that something from the original article was retracted and apologized for. He did claim Turkheimer apologized, but nothing about a retraction, and Klein did not agree about the apology. From the transcript:

What they are talking about was Turkheimer used inflammatory language towards Harris and apologized for it. One thing they don't go into is there were a lot of folks on Vox, besides Turkheimer who accused Harris of a lot of things using inflammatory language. All this really does is prove Harris' point which is some topics are deemed toxic by some and it's impossible to have a good faith discussion about them. The reason I think Turkheimer apologized is because he realized he was a part of this and as someone who has to uphold a reputation of objectivity he knew he couldn't go there and be taken seriously. That's my take on it.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about here. Could you give a specific example?

You're asking me to give an example of something that wasn't there, which is pretty much my point. They didn't go into the data at all which was the central point of the original Vox articles. So I found myself asking why not and the reason almost certainly was Klein was not going to go there because he was ill equipped to do so. As an editor vs someone who has a PhD in neuroscience he would have been woefully outmatched.

No, they did not agree with each other on pretty much all pertinent points. They disagreed with each other on pretty much all the pertinent points. Here's Murray near the beginning of the discussion:

The singular example you are giving here is a contradiction about how Harris feels. For one thing, that's a totally subjective conclusion which is virtually impossible to debate objectively. For another, I'm pretty sure Harris is a better judge of how Harris feels than Klein is in judging how Harris feels.

It's a long podcast and I can only excerpt so much. But this is an example of pertinent points they disagreed on.

I agree there's too much to go into and pretty much all of it falls outside the scope of this group. However, what I got out of it was Klein is basically faulting Harris for not presenting the arguments he would have presented to Murray and by not doing so he demonstrated a lack of empathy for those who are on the shit end of the stick. Regardless of which side you want to go with it's still something that's highly subjective and it's a pretty hard case to make that Klein knows more about how Harris feels than he does.

[Jim__]

29. Rather than do this back-and-forth, I'm going to post a link to the article ...

... Harris is complaining about.

For anyone interested who hasn't yet read it, here is a link to the article that Harris is complaining about - I think the article is well-worth reading. Most of the article is an attack on the claims made by Murray. I believe it would have been far more interesting for both Harris's readers and Vox' readers if he had engaged with the substance of the article.

A short excerpt:

...

Murray’s premises, which proceed in declining order of actual broad acceptance by the scientific community, go like this:

1) Intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is a meaningful construct that describes differences in cognitive ability among humans.

2) Individual differences in intelligence are moderately heritable.

3) Racial groups differ in their mean scores on IQ tests.

4) Discoveries about genetic ancestry have validated commonly used racial groupings.

5) On the basis of points 1 through 4, it is natural to assume that the reasons for racial differences in IQ scores are themselves at least partly genetic.

Until you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect. However, for each of them Murray’s characterization of the evidence is slanted in a direction that leads first to the social policies he endorses, and ultimately to his conclusions about race and IQ. We, and many other scientific psychologists, believe the evidence supports a different view of intelligence, heritability, and race.

...

[Major Nikon]

31. The article is worth reading but I think you left out the most significant parts

First in the title of the article, Turkheimer accuses Harris of peddling in junk science which is a pretty strong accusation. Now go two sentences farther than your excerpt:

We believe there is a fairly wide consensus among behavioral scientists in favor of our views, but there is undeniably a range of opinions in the scientific community. Some well-informed scientists hold views closer to Murray’s than to ours.

It seems to me that Turkheimer is contradicting himself. It's kind of hard to call it junk science and admit there's "well-informed scientists" that say it's not junk science. I tend to think Turkheimer is right and Murray is wrong, but like Harris I really don't care enough about the subject to put much thought into it. I do agree with Harris in that Turkheimer went too far in calling it junk science and it seems to me that Turkheimer probably wishes he could take that back. However, if he did I don't think Vox would have published him.

[Jim__]

32. No, the title does not accuse Harris of peddling in junk science.

It accuses Murray of peddling junk science. The subtitle says Harris falls for it.

And, no, Turkheimer et al do not contradict themselves. Saying some well-informed scientists are closer to Murray than to the authors, does not imply that those well-informed scientists agree with Murray.

[Major Nikon]

33. Harris didn't see it that way

I don't really blame him. Vox wouldn't be having this conversation were it not for Harris.

But I do think Turkheimer and the other two folks he brought along for the ride do make a self-contradiction here. There are academics in that group who fall on Murray's side which Turkheimer admits. So maybe Murray and those who agree with him are wrong and maybe even the majority of them are on the other side which Turkheimer claims. But that's still a long way from calling that opposing opinion pseudoscience.

[Jim__]

63. No, there's no contradiction.

From post #33:

But I do think Turkheimer and the other two folks he brought along for the ride do make a self-contradiction here. There are academics in that group who fall on Murray's side which Turkheimer admits.

What they actually said was:

Some well-informed scientists hold views closer to Murray’s than to ours.

If you want to call that Murray's side because they are closer to Murray than to the authors, you could. But that doesn't constitute a contradiction. Being closer to Murray than to the authors does not necessarily constitute junk science. They are quite specific about what they mean by junk science:

... unfounded genetic conclusions about race and IQ [are] hardly a mark of rational tough-mindedness. The fact is, there is no evidence for any such genetic hypothesis — about complex human behavior of any kind. Anyone who speaks as if there were is spouting junk science.

Being closer to Murray than the authors does not mean that these academics hold to any unfounded genetic conclusions about race and IQ. If they do, then the authors would say that these academics were spouting junk science. But, of course, Turkheimer et al make no such claim about the academics.

The real problem falls back on Harris. He deliberately invited a controversial author onto his podcast. He supported the claims of that author. So far, so good. This podcast could easily be taken as the opening salvo of a debate about Murray's claims. Harris had to know there was a pretty good chance that someone would respond. Turkheimer et al did. Their response was substantive. Harris chose not to treat it that way.

As to the accusation about junk science, Harris had at least two possible substantive replies: he could have denied that Murray had actually reached such conclusions about race and IQ, or, he could have claimed that those conclusions were supported by valid science. Unfortunately, Harris did not choose to join the debate that his podcast invited, instead, he chose to complain about the tone of the response.

[Major Nikon]

64. I don't think semantics counts for much here

At issue is whether or not there is any genetic component to IQ, so it’s not as if there’s any middle ground.

As far as Harris diving into the controversy, that was pretty much his whole point. At some level there has to be discussion with those who may be diametrically opposed politically.

[Jim__]

66. No, you're misstating the issue.

From post #64:

At issue is whether or not there is any genetic component to IQ, so it’s not as if there’s any middle ground.

No, that's not the issue. I'm not sure there is any biologist or psychologist who denies that there is a genetic component to intelligence.

From the Turkheimer article:

Intelligence is heritable. To say that intelligence is heritable means that, in general, people who are more similar genetically are also more similar in their IQ. Identical twins, who share all their DNA, have more similar IQs than fraternal twins or siblings, who only share half. Half-siblings’ IQs are even less similar than that; cousins, still less.

Heritability is not unique to IQ; in fact, virtually all differences among individual human beings are somewhat heritable. Pairs of identical twins are more likely to be similar not only in height and weight and skin color compared with fraternal twins, but also in their marital status, their political views, and TV-watching habits.

Murray takes the heritability of intelligence as evidence that it is an essential inborn quality, passed in the genes from parents to children with little modification by environmental factors. This interpretation is much too strong — a gross oversimplification. Heritability is not a special property of certain traits that have turned out to be genetic; it is a description of the human condition, according to which we are born with certain biological realities that play out in complex ways in concert with environmental factors, and are affected by chance events throughout our lives.

Heritability is not unique to IQ. Turkheimer et al are not denying that there is a genetic component to IQ.

The issue they are taking is:

...

Genetic group differences in IQ. On the basis of the above premises, Murray casually concludes that group differences in IQ are genetically based. But what of the actual evidence on the question? Murray makes a rhetorical move that is commonly deployed by people supporting his point of view: They stake out the claim that at least some of the difference between racial groups is genetic, and challenge us to defend the claim that none, absolutely zero, of it is. They know that science is not designed for proving absolute negatives, but we will go this far: There is currently no reason at all to think that any significant portion of the IQ differences among socially defined racial groups is genetic in origin.

...

As to whether it’s not as if there’s any middle ground, I refer you back to my post #29. Five premises are listed as Murray's. A middle ground is accepting any or all of the first 4 premises and rejecting premise 5

_______________

From post #64:

As far as Harris diving into the controversy, that was pretty much his whole point. At some level there has to be discussion with those who may be diametrically opposed politically.

Whether or not group differences in IQ are genetically based is not a political question. If Harris's point was to dive into the controversy, Turkheimer et al presented him with an excellent opportunity. He failed to join the debate at any substantive level.

Notice the similarity between the claim that you made in post #64:

At issue is whether or not there is any genetic component to IQ, so it’s not as if there’s any middle ground.

And the description in the Turkheimer article about Murray's rhetorical move:

... Murray makes a rhetorical move that is commonly deployed by people supporting his point of view: They stake out the claim that at least some of the difference between racial groups is genetic, and challenge us to defend the claim that none, absolutely zero, of it is. ...

Murray's challenge is not actually pertinent to the debate.

[Major Nikon]

67. From your own reference...

5) On the basis of points 1 through 4, it is natural to assume that the reasons for racial differences in IQ scores are themselves at least partly genetic.

Until you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect.

Turkheimer is saying #5 is completely incorrect.

Whether or not group differences in IQ are genetically based is not a political question. If Harris's point was to dive into the controversy, Turkheimer et al presented him with an excellent opportunity. He failed to join the debate at any substantive level.

Actually it was Turkheimer et al who refused to debate Harris. Klein offered them the opportunity to participate in the podcast and they refused.

Another thing worth noting is Turkheimer isn't the only authority one can appeal to on this subject, and far from the best one. The most important study he published was in a relatively low-level journal and it wasn't replicable in a later study which probably didn't help his career much. It also doesn't help Turkheimer that David Reich, who has been published in Nature numerous times, disagrees with him, which Harris points out.

So it may be very true that Turkheimer is entirely correct in that there isn't the consensus on the subject that Murray and Harris suggest and it may also be true that Turkheimer is entirely correct in his conclusions about the data. However, he did himself no favors by calling his opposition junk science mongers (however you want to frame that) as this was just too easy for them to counter. That's why Turkheimer apologized for that characterization.

[Jim__]

69. OK, from my own reference.

From post #67:

5) On the basis of points 1 through 4, it is natural to assume that the reasons for racial differences in IQ scores are themselves at least partly genetic.

Until you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect.


Turkheimer is saying #5 is completely incorrect.

Yes, that's exactly the point I was making in my last post.

From my post #66:

As to whether it’s not as if there’s any middle ground, I refer you back to my post #29. Five premises are listed as Murray's. A middle ground is accepting any or all of the first 4 premises and rejecting premise 5

His statement: until you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect implies that he does not fully accept premises 1 to 4, and thus fully accepting any or all of 1 to 4 and rejecting 5 is a middle ground.

I'm not sure what you're point is here.

__________________

Actually it was Turkheimer et al who refused to debate Harris. Klein offered them the opportunity to participate in the podcast and they refused.

What is your basis for making that statement? If it's true that Harris was willing to debate Turkheimer or one of his co-authors then I would take back the assertion that Harris did not take advantage of the opportunity to debate the issue. But Ezra Klein said - here - that Harris refused to have either Turkheimer, Harden, or Nisbett on his podcast (my bolding):

Harris responded furiously to their article and publicly challenged me, as Vox’s editor-in-chief at the time, to come on his show and debate the issue. Over email, after failing to persuade Harris to have Turkheimer, Harden, or Nisbett on instead, I accepted Harris’s invitation. Unfortunately, our exchange seemed to only make him angrier. He ultimately refused to have me on his podcast on the grounds that a conversation between the two of us would be “unproductive,” pivoting to a demand that I instead publish an op-ed supporting his views (you can read that piece here) or that he publishes all our emails to each other. [Update: Harris has now published our email exchange, and I recommend reading it. I don’t know why he thinks it helps his case, but I think it shows just how resistant to actual dialogue he is on this subject.

_____________________

From post #67:

Another thing worth noting is Turkheimer isn't the only authority one can appeal to on this subject, and far from the best one. The most important study he published was in a relatively low-level journal and it wasn't replicable in a later study which probably didn't help his career much. It also doesn't help Turkheimer that David Reich, who has been published in Nature numerous times, disagrees with him, which Harris points out.

David Reich may disagree with Turkheimer but he also disagrees with Murray - which Harris didn't point out. From Reich's article:

Is performance on an intelligence test or the number of years of school a person attends shaped by the way a person is brought up? Of course. But does it measure something having to do with some aspect of behavior or cognition? Almost certainly. And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too.

He is predicting that genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations and that will have an influence. That's a prediction; Murray has claimed to have already shown this. Reich also acknowledges that environment and education will affect performance on intelligence tests - Murray largely denies this.

But, a debate between Reich, Turkheimer, and Murray would be interesting. I'd listen to that podcast. Given Harris's responses so far, I'm not holding my breath until he holds that debate.

[Major Nikon]

71. The point is essentially 'where's the beef'?

The article Vox published accused Murray and by extension Harris of peddling pseudoscience. So this leads me to read the article to try and figure out where the allegation of pseudoscience is. I can't find it in any place other than on point #5. Maybe you can, but it seems as if you're looking for implications where as I'm looking for direct contradiction, and the only place I found it was in point #5 which I'm not entirely convinced is anything other than the interpretation by Turkheimer et al on what was presented which may or may not be a correct summation of what was presented to begin with.

The best approach is to remove all the semantics out of the equation and try to understand what Turkheimer et al are saying. What I think they are saying is that as far as group IQ differences go, there's no scientific basis for a causal relationship with genetic differences. In other words, the offspring of two highly intelligent people will more likely produce a more intelligent person, but science doesn't support the extension of that principle among genetically similar groups. My further understanding is it's on this point that Murray and by extension Harris disagree. They further disagree on which is the mainstream view.

Disagreement is one thing, but Turkheimer et al and by extension Vox, go one step farther by declaring it pseudoscience. I don't think this is supportable unless Turkheimer et al is prepared to accuse many other people in the field of peddling pseudoscience. I'm pretty sure he realized that as well which is why he walked that back.

It may be true that Reich disagrees with Murray on a great many things, but the only disagreement I'm particularly interested in is what was covered by the Vox article, and on that Reich quite clearly directly contradicts Turkheimer et al. Reich is also one (albeit a pretty influential one) out of others who hold that view. There's also more who fall on Turkheimer's side.

You are correct about Turkheimer et al debating Harris. I skimmed over the same email exchange you read and got the exact opposite out of it which is my mistake.

As far as Harris debating Turkheimer et al, I don't really see that as all that productive. We already have an idea about what they disagree on and Turkheimer has already walked back the pseudoscience comment. What Harris takes issue with is Vox never did, and the fact that they didn't lead to at least contributed to some measure of violence against Murray and his associates which is exactly the heart of the matter that Harris wanted to address to begin with.