Sam Harris and the Myth of Perfectly Rational Thought

[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.