Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 3

Did Sam Harris write this article?

There are no serious critiques of Harris' sophomoric thought. There are softball objections to his absurd beliefs and then detailed repudiations. The effect is that the article comes off like Harris or his wife wrote it. Harris deserves the criticism he offers to religion. He has no significant achievements in his life, his thought is deeply flawed and juvenile, and this article makes him out to be some kind of great thinker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.195.72 (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Haidt has a section titled: Criticism, can anyone -at least consider doing -collect or find some similar or otherwise critical assessment or review of Sam Harris' works, ideas etc?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt#Criticism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.248.138.60 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we're supposed to phase out criticism sections, but I agree that there's to much room given to Harris' responses to criticisms of him and even further, others responses to his responses. I have not seen responses to responses to responses usually brought up in other articles..... Feel free to give it a go if you would like, I'm fairly busy so you might get to it before me.YshuDS (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

concerning islam

Harris rarely pronounces himself that crudely about islam. He may be a critic, but in this matter, it makes him sound like he is extremely verbal against islam. I consider the article too colored. Perhaps there are some changes to be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.61.141 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Krista Tippett

This person is totally irrelevant to Sam Harris. Wikipedia is not a news source, and we do not need to present opposing viewpoints on biography pages. The same applies to adding Harris' name to Tippett's page. Paisan30 (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sam Harris Writings on the Concept of Sainthood

Has Sam Harris commented in writing on the Catholic practice of declaring people "saints" based on miracles that are claimed after the death of the prospective saint? An example would the current case on the discussion page of Father Damien at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Damien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77373 cat lick 48295 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.

This is taken out of context and means something completely different. I believe a clarification is in order for the Critisism section. I'm a bad writer so I can't seem to insert a clarification without messing everything up.

He means that for people who believe in these religions, this can be ethically true. http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.2.254 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What we think he meant is pretty much irrelevant here. Rightly or wrongly, he's been criticized on the basis of that statement. The text quotes the criticisms verbatim. If there's a sourced response from Harris, perhaps making the argument you suggest (that the statement was taken out of context), then it would be appropriate to include it as well. We don't need to be deciding who's right here, and arguing on Harris' behalf - he's a big boy, and can take care of himself when debating these issues. EastTN (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"If there's a sourced response from Harris, perhaps making the argument you suggest (that the statement was taken out of context), then it would be appropriate to include it as well"

Did you not read the link just posted above(not by me, btw)? He clearly gives a response to that criticism: "My discussion of killing people “for what they believe” (pages 52-53 of The End of Faith):

The following passage seems to have been selectively quoted, and misconstrued, more than any I have written:

The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context. Some critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. Read in context, it should be clear that I am not at all ignoring the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous. "--72.188.156.191 (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I followed the link and took a quick look. My personal preference would be to have a published source, but this does look like a reliable source for what Mr. Harris has to say. I'd support adding it to the end of the paragraph with text along the lines of:

Harris has said in response that the passage has been misconstrued by his critics. Specifically, he says that "[s]ome critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. . . . I am not at all ignoring the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous."

The website should be used as the citation. This would allow readers to decide for themselves whether his statements are inappropriate, or if he's being inappropriately vilified. I do not think it's appropriate to drop the criticism and his response entirely. EastTN (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps allowing the reader to understand the extent of the critics' intellectual dishonesty where it comes to quoting out of context will dissuade critics from doing it in the future. Ninahexan (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher

by what definition and credentials is Harris a philosopher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.253.126 (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

no response from anyone, since Harris only has an undergrad in philosophy, I am removing the reference that he is a philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.253.126 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

He has written about metaphysics, which is a branch of philosophy. He has also written about ethics and logic, and I am sure I am missing something. He has some education in philosophy, but he has contributed to it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.229.128 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To avoid any misunderstanding (and hopefully promote discussion of this issue if need be), I am again posting on the issue of using the word "philosopher" in Harris' bio. Harris has no academic credentials above an undergraduate degree in philosophy, he does not and has not contributed to any philosophy journals, nor is he pursuing any advanced degree in philosophy. Even if one is to go down to Borders or Barns and Noble, Harris' two works are not kept in the philosophy section, and are not categorized in this way by these two organizations. I see no indication that he is, or is even considered by anyone to be a philosopher. Because of these reasons, I move to exclude referring to Harris as a philosopher in his bio. Dantedanti (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Formal academic qualifications are not required to define anyone as a philospher. Philosophy is simply the pursuit of knowledge. We are all Philosophers to some extent. I find formal curricula for philosophy to be quite frankly a contradiction in terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.169.17 (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would agree that Philosophy is simply "the pursuit of knowledge", or else all fields of human activity which pursue knowledge would be philosophy instead of just having philosophical baggage. Though common people can and often do ask philosophical questions, they are not pursuing a career or vocation as a philosopher. I am not sure what you mean or what you are getting at when you say that the formal curricula is a contradiction in terms. Dantedanti (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that he is highly engaged with philospohical concepts and debates and contributes to philosophical discourse. My dictionary says nothing about having to have a post-grad degree or any formal degree for that matter to be defined as a philosopher. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this doesn't get us any closer to identifying him as a philosopher. He engages primarily with political topics, and very rarely with philosophical questions. Since no authoritative sources identify him as a philosopher, and as far as I can tell, no professional philosophers identify him as a philosopher, we should leave the article as is. Dantedanti (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To comply with the rest of the article, and with previous discussions, I am removing the reference that Harris deals with "philosophy of mind". This is not consistent with descriptions and reviews of his work. Dantedanti (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Harris is definitely a philosopher. First, he calls himself a philosopher. His work in neuroscience is specifically directed at answering philosophical questions. In one interview, he compared himself to Patricia Churchland, a neurophilosopher. He made the excellent point that these distinctions between fields are superficial, and we create them. Churchland and Harris do almost identical work in neuroscience. How can you say that one is a philosopher and one is not? Second, Harris has done extensive practice in Eastern philosophy. Are you to be so chauvinistic as to deny the Eastern world of the word "philosophy"? Harris does admit that this is more accurately called "the Eastern contemplative tradition", but again, where do you draw the line? I would argue that this still qualifies as philosophy. Don't be too narrow with your definitions. Harris is a neurophilosopher and an expert in Eastern philosophy. Therefore, Sam Harris is a philosopher. You are short-changing him and his expertise by merely calling him an "author." Many people are authors, and most of them do not have the expertise that Harris does. User:ArcadianGenesis

I agree, he has a degree in philosophy (even if that's just an undergrad) and identifies as such. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But as long as he has detractors, people will argue endlessly to "short-change" him. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sam Harris is not identified as a philosopher by anyone other than himself, and having an undergrad in philosophy doesn't make one a philosopher. His books are not kept in the philosophy section of the major book retailers and his work is not comparable to the Churchlands. We've already been through this; Harris' own opinions on the term philosophy are moderately irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantedanti (talk • contribs) 14:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would say that his degree in philosophy is irrelevant. Look at the article on neurophilosophy, and you should instantly understand that Sam Harris is a neurophilosopher. If you still disagree with this new assertion, please provide new reasons. Otherwise, don't edit the article. User:ArcadianGenesis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.241.55 (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Harris's work is not categorized as neurophilosophy. If you think he's a neurophilosopher, support your assertion with your reasons. Do not edit the article until a reasonable discussion has been had. Dantedanti (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can honestly read this article, even as written, and say that one can be a professional author dealing with morality and ethics and how one ought to reason, and NOT be a philosopher...I would be surprised. You don't need to have a degree to be a philosopher, thats an extremely absurd proposition. And he does have a degree, besides. I don't really understand in the slightest why a few editors would insist he's not a philosopher, these are all philosophical ideas. Simply because they cross over into politics doesn't make them not philosophical. 71.195.86.253 (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, you mean philosopher in the more general or common way; in which case, my grandmother is a philosopher every Thursday night at the dinner table when she rants about reason and ethics. As has been gone over many times, Harris is not a philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.225.97 (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

He is a philosopher because a reliable third party source describes him that way --71.85.212.80 (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A term like philosopher is much broader than medical doctor. With "medical doctor", it's quite clear that someone is expected to have completed the highest form of certification and training. Someone can practice medicine, of course, and not be a doctor (person administering CPR, for example). Philosophy is different; it's a field where pedigree isn't supposed to matter, and people advance to prominence because of their reasoning. Harris is one such person. Though to be fair, I think he would rather be called a "neuroscientist" or "neurophilosopher" as he is completing his PhD in neuroscience and studying morality by evaluating brain states. PalindromeKitty (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Because this is an online *encyclopedia* it should use such terms as "philosopher" in the academic sense. To those who posit such notions that the term is of a broader meaning than that of other words is considering the laymen's meaning of the word. This isn't ancient Greece where a person may justifiably be labeled a philosopher due to their wisdom. With that said, Sam Harris is not considered an academic philosopher by the field of philosophy. Rather, he is considered a public intellectual, a leading figure in the New Atheist movement, and now recently a neuroscientist. Merely that he has written a handful of articles on ethics and metaphysics does not qualify him as such. If he were to hold some type of position within a philosophy department at the university level, then this would be a completely different tale. Note that in science you can be considered a professional scientist regardless of whether you teach at a university (e.g. working in research labs, for the government, etc. still qualifies you as such) while in philosophy there are very few examples of an academic philosopher never having worked in its academic field. One more point is to the above who mentioned neurophilosophy. While a good point, neurophilosophy deals primarily in modularity of the brain and whether or not there is a distinction between the mind and the brain or whether it is one in the same (i.e. monism vs. dualism as general terms). If there is a time where Sam Harris begins research in these areas, then the above point may be strong justification for him being a termed a philosopher. For now, however, I will remove the label "philosopher" from his introductory sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.149.125 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Numerous reliable sources, both academic and journalistic, describe him as a philosopher, so per Wikipedia policy his Wikipedia article describes him as such. If equally reliable sources are produced that adequately refute that description, then the matter may be revisited. I have yet to see an RS dispute that description. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I am not disputing that one of CNN's articles described Sam has a philosopher, I think we can do better than using a news media outlet to verify someone's credentials. Furthermore, I'm not aware of an academic source that describes Sam as a philosopher or a neurophilosopher. These are specialized professions. I think it would be better to split the current lede sentence into two sentences, with the second sentence describing him as having academic credentials in neuroscience and philosophy, which is true and more accurate. Thoughts. danielkueh (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

News media outlets, in general, describe him as a philosopher. Not just CNN; [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. "Professions", as a general rule, are specialized ... indeed. They require some level of education, and active engagement in the field. Point? Harris self-identifies as such; news sources describe him as such. Doctors of Philosophy refer to the "philosopher Sam Harris" in Philosophy periodicals and journals [5], [6]. He is described as such in peer-reviewed academic journals as well (just search Humanity & Society; Independent Review; The Philosophers' Magazine; etc.). As I asked above, is there any reliably sourced refutation to the reliably sourced descriptions? I know there are plenty of Wikipedia editor-generated refutations, as the guy obviously has critics, but Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk)

Xenophrenic, first of all, you need to assume good faith (wp:agf). The editors who dispute this description are not necessarily critics of Sam Harris. They are just concerned about the accuracy of calling him a philosopher or a neuroscientist. I think these are very reasonable concerns. Furthermore, this is a biography of a living person and so we have to be careful about how we portray or describe them wp:blp. As one tongue-in-cheek commentator said, there is no strong consensus for what a philosopher is [7]. Second, please don't play this game of wikilawyering (Wikipedia:Wikilawyering). It is tiring and quite patronizing. Granted, I'm citing rules here because I wish to demonstrate to you that I'm well aware of them and I'm not by any a stretch of the imagination an anti-Sam Harris critic. Quite the opposite. Now I wish to make some points:

• If your rationale for including that description is that the media uses it, then we would have to include a description of Sam Harris as a polemicist (e.g., [8][9]). If you include one without the other, then that would be POV pushing (wp:advocacy).
• Philosophy Now is just a magazine. It is no better than newspaper articles. I am willing to grant you the reference from "The Philosophers' Magazine." So you do have one high quality source. I'm not sure about its notability.
• I do not see any reference stating that Sam Harris "self-identifies" himself as a philosopher.
• The best source for stating Sam Harris's credentials and profession is his own website [10]. In it, he is described as an author as well as a cofounder and CEO of Project Reason. His website also states he that "a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA." No where does his website calls him a neuroscientist or a philosopher.
• I think the description of Sam Harris should mirror closely the description from his website, which is the best source for now. Just as the description of Richard Dawkins's professions should come from Oxford University [11]. Thus, I would like to reemphasize my suggestion of splitting the current lede sentence into two as follows:

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author and co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. He has a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA and a bachelor's degree in philosophy from Stanford University.

I believe this is most accurate without making judgments about Sam's profession. It is also the most neutral and it doesn't take away from Sam's expertise in these areas. If people wish to call him a philosopher because of his writings or his degree, then that is up to them. Not wikipedia. I would like to invite other editors to weigh in on this and hopefully reach a consensus. danielkueh (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Danielkueh, your arguments and proposed solution for the lead are sensible. But Xenophrenic has also made strong arguments on the other side; i.e. that entities like CNN, NPR, and the BBC refer to Harris as a "philosopher" should carry some weight. What is unfair is your accusation of wikilawyering and assumption of bad faith on the part of Xenophrenic. We have proof of bad faith by some other parties involved in the editing of this article. See the contribution history of 90.202.202.24 and the comment that IP user talk page made by User:Anti-spammm, an apparently new user who surfaced only today. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• If your rationale for including that description is that the media uses it...

No, that is not my rationale. My rational for inclusion is that the description is conveyed by numerous "reliable sources as to the assertion of fact". Media pieces (like the commentary piece by a college associate prof. who also refers to other individuals as "loony" - red flag there - or a piece that calls books, not people, "polemics") do not meet Wikipedia's requirements.

• Read what you wrote again. You are simply paraphrasing what I just said. danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Incorrect. You want to use "media" sources that don't convey what you said they did. I, and Wikipedia, insist on using reliable sources, and conveying what they convey. Let me know if there is anything else you need clarified. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• That is not true. You must have overlooked The Nation article that I cited. danielkueh (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Incorrect. I addressed your citation to the Nation commentary piece by the name-calling college associate prof. above. Let's please stick to sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements. (Note: I agree Harris has written some polemics, and at times argued polemically, but unless he self-describes as such, much better sourcing is required.) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think the point I am trying to make is lost in the details here. I am not trying to include a description of Sam Harris as a polemicist. Rather, I am trying to make the point that if we use the rationale that we must include all descriptions of Sam that can be sourced, then we would have to include every description of Sam Harris, some of which may not necessarily be informative, neutral, or encyclopedic. That is the problem that I foresee. Granted, the example or source I provided (polemicist) of Sam is not the best one as you correctly pointed out, but I hope you see where I'm coming from. Anyway, this is a peripheral issue now. danielkueh (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• So you do have one high quality source. I'm not sure about its notability.

One high quality source after less than 2 minutes of casual looking. As for "notability", that is a requirement for the creation of a Wikipedia article, but has no bearing on evaluating the reliability of a source used within an article.

• By notable, I meant "well-established' or "prominent." danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I do not see any reference stating that Sam Harris "self-identifies"

I haven't checked. I was merely repeating what was asserted a few paragraphs up in this same discussion. If it gets asserted in the article, it most certainly should be accompanied by a citation to a reliable source.

• Then let's drop this and move on. danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• The best source for stating Sam Harris's credentials and profession is his own website

Wikipedia has no problem with you citing his website for content about him, providing that content isn't unduly laudatory or promotional. His website, however, is not the sole source of information about him, nor is it necessarily "the best". Lack of information in any one source about Harris does not mean that information doesn't exist.Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• It is the best with respect to his credentials as it is an organization that he is directly affiliated with. Furthermore, the site is the closest thing that we have to a CV of his credentials. We can also use UCLA as well. danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• As I said above, Wikipedia has no problem with you citing his website for content about him, providing that content isn't unduly laudatory or promotional. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I know you said that, and I wasn't responding to that point. danielkueh (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Feel free to cite the above mentioned sources; I really have no problem with that. We can have hundreds of cited sources. I don't have much interest in what source you feel is best, or prettiest, or whatever. That's subjective, and I'm sure we will disagree. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think the description of Sam Harris should mirror closely the description from his website...

Yes, you have explained as much. I, on the other hand, feel that the description can certainly draw from his website, but should not "mirror" it when it can be more expansive and informative. Input from other editors would be a good thing.

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• See my further explanations below on why I think we should keep the lede more focused and neutral. danielkueh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Jweiss11 and Xenophrenic, I appreciate both of you taking the time to reply to my comments. I was responding to Xenophrenic's comments about critics of Sam and editors not being RS. While I don't dispute that there are editors who do not like Sam Harris and who may vandalize this page, I think we should be avoid making comments that may cast an aspersion on the other editors in this section who have genuine concerns about the description of Sam Harris as a philosopher. By the way, Xenophrenic, since you believe strongly in WP's policies, you should review WP:AGF very carefully. It is one of the fundamental principles of WP which all editors are expected to follow. As Jweiss correctly pointed out, I too should and will assume good faith on your part.

(pardon the interruption...) I have always avoided casting aspersions on the editors in this section who have genuine concerns. Any misperceptions of aspersions that don't really exist are probably born of a lack of good faith. re: Policies; yes, I do espouse following them. As for guidelines, principles, essays and other informative pages, they have some value as well. No need for me to re-read the AGF guideline (I've even helped craft versions of it); I know it well, and I know that it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. In fact, the operative instruction is to not assume malice unless there is specific evidence of malice, and that instruction comes without caveats. I do follow that advice. Unlike the "assume good faith" part, which comes with caveats, limits, exceptions and loopholes -- yet people love to quote and misrepresent. Thanks for the nod to assuming good faith on my part — barn doors & escaped horses, etc. — but we should probably just stick to discussing content and sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. danielkueh (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not disputing that news outlets that describe as a philosopher such as the BBC, CNN, etc do exist. I have nothing against the use of media organizations. In fact, I myself rely upon them everyday. What I am saying is that the use of the label by these organizations may not necessarily be the best one, especially for a lede sentence. And the rationale provided is not that great either. Pardon my language, but suppose these new outlets describe Sam as an "asshole." That doesn't that we found a "fact" that he is an asshole does it? Should we include that description in the lede sentence? Should we not remove it until that there is counter argument from another source? Or should we include both? As you can see, I think this sort of argument is problematic and detracts from the main purpose of article, which is to provide information on the attributes of Sam that readers will find informative. Calling him a philosopher is contentious as the above discussion has shown and will continue to do so. I have read all of his books and writing and I know he does not describe himself as such. In fact, he doesn't like labels, such as atheist, much to the chagrin of other atheists.

Rather than just cite what sources say and sticking them all in the lede, I think we should focus on how best to inform our readers on who Sam Harris is and he is best known for. For example, I think we can use other featured articles such as Emily Dickinson and or Ernest Hemingway, just to name a few, as our guides. The lede descriptions in both articles are short and simple. We can do the same here by improving upon the current description of Sam by keeping the language tight and neutral. Upon further reflection, I would like to take a step back and have us all rethink the lede sentence, which I think is not as informative as it potentially could be. Sam is known primarily by his books on atheism, religion, morality, and free will. I believe we should have a lede that describes him as such. Even if he is described as a philosopher by some, that is a secondary issue. Just as whether he is male, 5 feet plus, married, etc. Thus, I would like to suggest improving the lede sentence as follows:

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. Trained in philosophy and neuroscience, Sam writes and discusses prominently on subjects pertaining to religion, atheism, science, and morality.

I apologize for my lengthy response and I hope you will see that I am trying to improve this article by tightening up the language. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to expressing what he is versus what he is "trained in", I'll defer to reliable sources. Adding that he writes and discusses prominently on subjects pertaining to religion, atheism, science, and morality, does not appear on its face to be problematic. It should properly summarize more detailed information in the body of the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you would agree with me that he is trained in philosophy and neuroscience as he has degrees in both fields, which can be verified by multiple reliable sources. In fact, from the man himself [12][13][14]. People go to universities to receive training, which is verified by the degrees that they receive. Whether they continue to use their training or be identified by their degrees is a different matter. Sometimes a muddy issue I might add. danielkueh (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with you that he is trained in stuff. But as saying "he's a philosopher trained in philosophy" gets to be a bit redundant for the lede, the specifics of what "training" he went through would likely be best expounded upon in the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It won't be redundant if we don't specify what he is beyond being an author and CEO of Project Reason in the first lede sentence. Just to be clear, this is what I'm proposing:

• Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. Trained in philosophy and neuroscience, Sam writes and lectures prominently on subjects pertaining to religion, atheism, science, and morality.

I believe listing his credentials and linking them to what he does will allow readers to discern who he is or what he is about very quickly. If we are to list what he is, which as you know is not my favorite choice, then it would look like this:

• Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. As a philosopher and neuroscientist, Sam writes and lectures prominently on subjects pertaining to religion, atheism, science, and morality.

danielkueh (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• It won't be redundant if we don't specify what he is beyond being an author and CEO of Project Reason in the first lede sentence.

It won't be redundant if we don't specify what he is beyond being an author, philosopher, neuroscientist and CEO of Project Reason in the first lede sentence. Why, exactly, is your version shorter? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm fairly certain I've figured it out.Xenophrenic (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I see where this is heading. You don't want the first sentence in the lead to directly convey that Harris is a philosopher and neuroscientist. Despite numerous reliable sources ranging from news to high quality academic, you still balk at conveying what reliable sources convey. Perhaps you can better describe your reasoning. So far I'm only catching hints when you say: *"I'm not aware of an academic source that describes Sam as a philosopher or a neurophilosopher..."*"concerned about the accuracy of calling him a philosopher or a neuroscientist. I think these are very reasonable concerns..."*"It is also the most neutral and it doesn't take away from Sam's expertise in these areas..."*"Calling him a philosopher is contentious as the above discussion has shown and will continue to do so..."

Incorrect; calling him anything positive is contentious, as the above discussions have shown. He certainly has critics and detractors. However, numerous reliable sources say he is, so Wikipedia says he is. I'll ask for the 4th time: Are there reliable sources that say he is not? Looks like we're I am done here, until those sources are produced and examined. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You did not even review my two proposals, which included a description of Sam as a neuroscientist and a philosopher in one of them. In fact both of them are consistent with the sources. You have not even responded to the long explanation that I provided above. danielkueh (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed your latest two proposals. The concern I expressed above stands unaddressed. Perhaps others will take this opportunity to contribute to this discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It does address your concern. One of them explicitly so. It just happens to be in the second sentence. I am hoping other editors can comment. danielkueh (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My second proposal does not exclude describing Sam as a philosopher or neuroscientist. I included those two descriptors in the second sentence of my second proposal. The issue now is whether we can improve upon the lede sentence to make it more informative. Just because something is sourced, does not mean it gets front seating. danielkueh (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing more to add, really. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What problem do you have with saying Harris is a philosopher and a neuroscientist in the first sentence, in the lead, right up front? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a different question, which is closer to the issue at hand. I have already answered it. Please see my explanation above (which contains the proposals). If you don't mind, I am going to take a break from this and wait for others to respond. danielkueh (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind. If you don't want to give me a brief answer here about this "issue at hand", that's fine. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not cutting off the conversation. It was late and I was a little tired from editing. When I get around to it, I will try to give a brief summary of my previous explanation. Plus, I really would like to hear from other editors as well. By the way, I appreciate the gesture and have followed your lead. danielkueh (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

First, let me just clarify that I do agree with you that there are reliable sources that describe Sam Harris as a neuroscientist and a philosopher. Let me also clarify that the main concerns raised above and below by the other editors is that these labels are usually reserved for professionals who are actively engaged in these fields (neuroscience and philosophy). There is obviously a difference in the way these terms are used among professionals in the field and by media outlets. While it is true that calling him a neuroscientist and philosopher would be consistent with the sources, it may potentially confuse our readers. You are not going to find sources that dispute these descriptions of Sam because there is no official body or licensing board that regulates the use of these terms. Much of this is convention. Furthermore, since neuroscience and to some extent, philosophy (e.g., bioethics), are part of the biomedical field, we should rely upon better sources such as scientific or peer-reviewed articles as the popular press is not necessarily the best source (as described in this section of WP:MEDRS) for this kind of information.

Second, Sam is primarily known as an author of multiple books on morality, atheism, etc. In fact, his first book, The End of Faith, was published before he received a PhD in neuroscience. In summary, my proposal identifies Sam Harris as first and foremost an author as well as a CEO of Project Reason. Since he has earned degrees in both philosophy and neuroscience, we could label him as such in the second sentence, which will also allow us to link these descriptions to his work on atheism, morality, etc. This will allow readers to make the connection between his area of expertise and the topics that he tends to write about. Plus, it makes it easier to read. The current lede sentence unnecessarily crams too many adjectives into one sentence.

Finally, I apologize if this is not brief but I am trying to take the time to get you to understand and appreciate the nuanced argument is being made here. danielkueh (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. We agree that reliable sources describe Harris as a philosopher and neuroscientist. Those reliable sources include news agencies as well as scientific and academic sources, and he has been referred to as such by others in those fields. We also agree that no reliably sourced refutations to those descriptions have been produced. He has formal education in these fields, and has conducted activity in these fields. We both agree that some folks have questioned whether Harris' level of activity in these fields warrant the use of these descriptions, but as we both acknowledge, there is no regulating body defining the use of these descriptions -- so those "concerns" don't really bear practical weight on this discussion. As your "tongue-in-cheek" article link humorously, but quite accurately, conveyed: "What is a philosopher?" is still very much an open question. Fortunately for us as Wikipedia editors, we have clear cut policy guiding us as to the use of these descriptions in BLPs.

Conclusion: Harris is a philosopher and a neuroscientist, per reliable sources and in the absence of anything to the contrary. Moving to your second point: We agree that Harris is most widely known as an author. That is why "Author" is listed first and foremost among his several descriptions. We agree. I disagree with you that he is equally well known as the CEO of Project Reason; I would contend that he is much more widely known for his lecturers & debates & intellectual commentaries in his various philosophical and scientific fields of specialization, with his CEO-ship of the relatively obscure Project Reason being less known. As such, I would suggest a lead sentence such as this:

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author, philosopher, public intellectual, and neuroscientist, as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason.

Short, succint, and lists his significant descriptors in order of notability. And it avoids the obvious pitfalls of unintentionally diminishing those descriptors by using a passive voice, or burying them in subsequent sentences. It also follows the conventions set by other featured articles, like those of Emily Dickinson and Ernest Hemingway, in that it states their descriptions in the first sentence as "XXX is (or was, if deceased) an ABC and a DEF." Much easier to read. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the descriptor, "public intellectual" as well sourced as "neuroscientist" and "philosopher"? If not, I think we should omit it as it does not add anything to the introduction and it is actually quite redundant. If you want everything in one sentence and would like to keep it succinct, then I suggest grouping the labels by categories as follows:

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American philosopher and neuroscientist who works as an author and as a CEO of Project Reason.

This suggested lede sentence has the advantage of parsing his training and expertise (philosophy and neuroscience) from his current occupations (author and CEO), which would be informative. Plus, it transitions well to the next sentence. danielkueh (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the motivation for "parsing training and expertise from his current occupations" in that way; philosophy and neuroscience are actually integral to, and the foundation of his "current occupations". Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I fail to see how listing descriptors of Sam in subsequent sentences or in different tenses will diminish those descriptors. Not everything has to be squeezed into the first lede sentence. There are no WP rules or logical basis for such a concern. Since Sam has multiple roles, another example would be the article on Steve Jobs. danielkueh (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Standard practice is to give a concise description of the subject in the WP:Leadsentence. The present sentence isn't overly long or cumbersome, and accurately conveys the descriptors of the subject. Why relegate selected descriptors to subsequent sentences in the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If Sam Harris is a philosopher because he writes poorly on topics covered by philosophers such as metaphysics, and because he considers himself a philosopher, I think we should add philosopher to Deepak Chopra's Wiki entry. It's only consistent.

See Talk:Sam Harris (author)#RfC:Should Sam Harris be called a philosopher? --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh good! You agree that Deepak Chopra is a philosopher. I assumed that you would. I shall make the changes. 109.156.238.136 (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:V and Logic. --Λeternus ^(talk) 10:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Birth date

Is there any source on his specific birthdate, other than "1967"? XXL2oo 10:49 26 July 2009 (GMT+08:00) —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC).

Isn't there any more information about his early life? There's practically nothing listed.203.131.210.82 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

Fascinating question re Harris's birthdate and more. Here's why. I know his uncle and I know the names of his parents as well as their very exotic, relevant professions. Thus, a few days ago I entered that specific parental information in the article. I also entered it on the existing Wiki page of Harris's mother, a prominent woman in her right. However, I have since found this entry missing from the Harris article. Perhaps that's because I did not cite a published source for the facts I inserted (since there is none as far as I know other than my own accurate personal knowledge.) However, there seems to be another reason that personal family specifics about Harris might be removed. This insight comes from an existing reference in this article--a Washington Post piece from 2006 which includes the following:

''"Harris is 39 and looks uncannily like Ben Stiller. He grew up in Los Angeles, in a home he describes as non-religious. (For the record, his mother is Jewish and his father, now deceased, was a Quaker.) Harris asked that all but the most basic biographical details be omitted from this article, even where he lives and where he studies. Nobody has threatened his life, but he thinks you can't be too careful. Plus, a movie deal is in the works that could make him the focus of a documentary about atheism. He would like to minimize his tracks sooner rather than later."''''Italic text

Question: should an objective reference entity such as Wikipedia honor Harris's--or anyone else's--desire to "minimize his tracks" by not including factual material about his parents? I guess that's fair question to discuss here. Agree?

Mwprods (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Transubstantiation

I've removed "In the context of religion, though, such teachings need not — and cannot - be questioned." Even Harris cannot be so ignorant to suppose that the doctrine of Transubstantiation has not been questioned by Christians! Indeed it is impossible to think of a single Christian doctrine that has not been questioned heavi;y. NBeale (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it not just mean that it "cannot" be questioned in certain theologies? Obviously there's nothing in any religion that "cannot" be questioned (if not within the religion, then certainly without). I read the sentence as simply noting that certain "truths" cannot be questioned within certain faith traditions (lest charges of heresy be made and/or pyres of firewood assembled). No more than that. And my understanding of transubstantiation is that it's a fairly mandatory belief in certain segments of Christianity. --PLUMBAGO 13:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the statement is unrefed it is hard to know whether he really says it or not. But even before the Reformation most of the Catholic doctrines were heavily questioned by Catholic philosophers - debate was a fundamental part of the university system. You were only liable to a charge of heresy if you actively proclaimed a false doctrine rather than questioning an accepted one, and even then you would only be punished if you repeatedly did this after you had been had up the first time. Anyway, unless and until there is clear evidence that he says anything so absurd and ignorant we'd better leave it out. NBeale (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything online that would support the statement, and though I still think you're reading too much into it (i.e. it's "obvious" that all faith statements are open to question; he's just talking about faith hierarchies and dogma), I don't think it's all that important a line, so it doesn't need to be added back. That said, since our interpretations are perpendicular on this point, if he did say something like it, and if someone wanted to add it back in, it needs to be absolutely clear what's meant (i.e. carefully contextualised and/or straight-quoted). It's not helpful to have statements in an article that mean two completely different things to people. --PLUMBAGO 14:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree (with your last 2 sentences). NBeale (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Neuroscientist

Harris is no more a neuroscientist than he is a philosopher. This article now says he got his PhD but it isn't sourced. I removed it.

Savagedjeff (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In the Washington Post article, dated Thursday, October 26, 2006 it says that "he is working on a PhD in neuroscience" [15]. The LA Times article, dated September 30, 2009, says "Harris recently completed a doctoral dissertation in cognitive neuroscience at UCLA." [16]. I've removed the non-reliable IMDB reference and replaced it with the LA Times reference. More importantly, Harris has published two first author papers in peer-reviewed journals which list his affiliation as University of California Los Angeles Brain Mapping Center, Los Angeles, CA [17], and UCLA Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, United States of America, The Brain Research Institute, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, United States of America [18]. The first article is available only to subscribers, but the second, in PLOS One is open-access, and anyone can go read it here . So, as assessed by verifiable, WP:reliable sources, Harris, the very same Harris that we are talking about here, has completed a PhD in neuroscience, sometime between 2006 and 2009, and has additionally published (to date) two peer-reviewed papers in cognitive neuroscience using fMRI. I have recently added a section detailing this research in a section titled Neuroscientific research. Edhubbard (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So, again, where is the evidence that he was actually awarded a PhD? They seem to just go on what he tells them and using deductive reasoning. You can't even tell me when he got it. And I really don't think his "research" is noteworthy or deserves its own section. Besides the fact that Sam Harris doing research on religion is about as honest as David Duke doing research on Jews. Talk about a competing interest. The guy has a personal and financial stake in portraying religious people in a certain way. This is useless scientific handwaving to try and impress the layman that Harris' bigotries are somehow backed up by science.

Why is he called an author? He's got a PhD in neuroscience, he should be called a neuroscience. Savagedjeff (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remember, we follow WP:BLP on talk pages too. Your denigration of Harris is unnecessary and unhelpful. Auntie E.

Whereas I disagree with the tone used above by the previous wikipedian, I think there may be a valid concern that by starting the article with the acknowledgment that Harris is a neuroscientist now, there is the perception that all the opinions attributed to him throughout the article were possibly made after he became a neuroscientist and not before, and thus do carry the inaccurate perception that they carry some sort of scientific seal of approval. I'm unsure how to go about editing to make the article more clear. Suggests and comments would be appreciated. I'll wait a little while before making any changes if I don't get an immediate response back. Dantedanti (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the editors that reverted the addition. If he was anyone else, would he be called a neuroscientist after only two papers? It's a matter of editorial judgment, and IMHO he's not there yet. Auntie E. 02:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

When you reverted, you said that merely having his degree is not enough to make someone a neuroscientist. I've added verifiable reliable sources that he got his degree (much better than the previous IMDB reference). In addition, I added references to his published papers, in part because of your complaints that the degree did not make him a neuroscientist. They show that he is doing the same work as any other neuroscientist, he just hasn't been on the job as long (he did just recently complete his PhD). I would say that someone who is currently publishing in neuroscience is a neuroscientist (whether they have two papers or twenty). The question is, will he continue to publish in neuroscience (that is, will he stay a neuroscientist) or will he take his degree and leave academia? (I would guess the latter) In that case, he would cease to be a neuroscientist, in the same way that a waiter ceases to be a waiter if he or she takes a job as an actor or a telemarketer. But, as he is currently doing the same work (albeit more junior) as any other neuroscientist, I find it hard to argue that he is not a neuroscientist. One other question raised above is about the relation of his degree and the timeline of his book. A couple of sources from UCLA (perhaps not quite reliable enough for the main page, but informative for the talk page) suggest that he was "a mere dissertation away" from his degree when TEOF came out [19] [20]. So, he was already pursuing his PhD (a neuroscience student?) when his book brought him fame... and perhaps, that's really where the crux of this lies. He clearly is a neuroscientist (he's doing that work) but that's not why he's notable enough for wikipedia. In *that* case, the thing to do is not to make a decision about whether this should be completely in or completely out, but how much weight we should be giving this. In making the addition about his research, I did add it after all of the other things for which Harris is notable, and accordingly (I thought) gave it appropriate weight. Now, perhaps listing it *first* on par with his work as an author in the lead is incorrect, but eliminating it entirely seems to be going overboard in the opposite direction. Edhubbard (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I see this as a split between "real world" and "wiki world". In the real world, someone who is working in neuroscience would be a neuroscientist. Case closed. But, in wiki world, someone who only has two published papers wouldn't even exist (i.e., would not have a wiki page). So, we have no wiki-neuroscientists with only two publications, except Harris. I've been approaching this from a real world perspective, arguing that since Harris has earned a PhD and (recently) published peer-reviewed studies in neuroscience, he is working as a neuroscientist. But, if this was all he'd done, he wouldn't have a wiki page. So, in wiki world, what makes him notable is not his neuroscience research. But, let's not deny the fact that he is, indeed, a neuroscientist in the real world, even if this wouldn't earn him a page on wikipedia without his other activities. Accordingly, neuroscientist should probably be de-emphasized, but not eliminated from the lead, and the article. Any ideas for what we'd like to do? Edhubbard (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

ok, well you all bring up some interesting aspects. Does anyone know if the work that was published by Harris in neuroscience is just his dissertation work or work done aside from his diss? From comments he's made, I very much think it's just his dissertation work and nothing more. However, he does have a degree in neuroscience now. Maybe intro to the article would be better if we mention he has earned his phd in neuroscience but that the work he is known for was written before he received his degree. If we do it this way, we can always update it as things move along if he ends up publishing work as a neuroscientist. I also do hear what you're saying, edhubbard, on calling him a neuroscientist in the introduction, since thats not why hes actually on wiki. Perhaps we could just drop the title from the intro and leave the section discussing his recent degree, though I would like to add to all the sections about what he has written, that he was not a neuroscientist. (edit added to talk page, ie i forgot to sign in): Dantedanti (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we need to go through every section and proclaim that Harris "was not a neuroscientist when he did this", as then we go too far to the other extreme. This is especially the case since according to the refs I pointed to above, he was already enrolled and had completed his coursework requirements ("mere dissertation away") at UCLA when he took time off to write his book. But, I do think that the timeline here needs to be clarified. Harris started his PhD (I can't find any reliable sources for when) then took time off to write TEOF (published 2004). Then, after the book tours and all, went back to UCLA (Fall, 2007) and completed his PhD, sometime before September 2009. The most detailed sources I have are these UCLA newspapers, which might or might not meet other people's standards for reliable sources. As for the papers, I would assume that they are his dissertation work; as a PhD requires independent research, these would probably be the first fruits of that independent research. Whether or not there are more, we'll have to wait and see. Here's a draft of a new lead. Let's see what others think Edhubbard (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American non-fiction writer, and proponent of scientific skepticism. He is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award, and Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to the criticism his first book attracted. Harris was pursuing a PhD in neuroscience at the University of California, Los Angeles when he took time off to write The End of Faith. Harris returned to UCLA in the fall of 2007 and completed his degree in 2009.

This lead is much better than the present. Whether or not he now qualifies as a neuroscientist (and in some sense he probably does) he is certainly not first and foremost a neuroscientist and it is misleading to suggest that he is. I note that the PLOS1 paper reports research that was part-funded by his earnings from books, which does not of course disqualify it but does strongly suggest that he would not have got this published paper if he had not first been a writer. NBeale (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply NBeale. I think you're right about the relative weight that this new lead gives to Harris' work in neuroscience. Let's give it a day or two for other people to comment, but I'm glad to see that I've got at least one 'yea' vote.

On the subject of the PLoS One paper, two things are important to note. The PLOS One publishing model is, unlike say, Nature or even the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, is an Open Source model, as is wikipedia. Wikipedia depends on the donations of people like me and you to stay afloat. Nature charges readers and libraries to stay afloat. PLOS One charges authors open access charges to publish. So, every paper in PLOS One has had to pay to publish, not just this one. Now, concerning the funding source, and whether there is any conflict of interest, that a study examining the neural substrates of belief in some way was funded by Harris' foundation, Harris' PhD mentor comments on exactly that here [21]. Conversely, should we treat all research on religion funded by the John Templeton Foundation as equally suspect because of Templeton's strong religious beliefs? Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed. I'm not casting doubt on SH's research because of the fact that he part-funded it - though I note in passing that almost all published FMRI studies of this type have far too small sample sizes to be really convincing (see eg s3.3 of this v good paper). My point is simply that the funding of this research depended on his being a best-selling author. Therefore, as you rightly suggest, it is more reasonable to decribe him as an author who has recently done a PhD in Neuroscience rather than as a Neuroscientist. In addition the fact that someone has a PhD in (say) Geology does not mean that they are a Geologist: one of my friends has a PhD in Geology from Cambridge but is a Chartered Accountant. Is there a WP:RS that describes Harris as a Neuroscientist? NBeale (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we are on the right track with the above-posted edit. However, I do think the sentence flow is a little "lumpy"; I may pop back in in the next few days to rewrite it (and post it here first), though keeping the content the same as edhubbard's. I will be checking out the info on Harris having funded and what not. I think there are some interesting implications that should be explored (though not necessarily here). Any way we could include the information about open-source and the funding? Dantedanti (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

forgot to add: the templeton page outlines criticisms of the foundation and its backing. however, these are published criticisms. their research does seem to be treated as suspect in many circles. im not saying this to suggest we should add comments in this article... at least not until they come up in published sources, if ever. Dantedanti (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Some atheist fanatics treat Templeton research as suspect but given the number of Templeton-funded papers published in Science and Nature this says more about the bigotry of these people than it does about the research. However I agree that this is beside the point here. NBeale (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few reasonable atheists find much if not most of the Templeton research to be not just suspect, but a waste of resources. And the number of published papers is not commensurate with quality or value. Sorry you have such a hard on for atheists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

He should be a neuroscientist not an author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.173.222 (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well let's at least have a reasonable lead

I've been bold and put the lead EdHubbard suggested in. It's not perfect, but is ridiculous to have an article on Sam Harris (author) which begins by claiming that he is a neuroscientist. He may, or may not, now wish to pursue a career in neuroscience, but he is notable as an author. NBeale (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest for the lead: Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American non-fiction writer, and proponent of scientific skepticism. He is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award, and Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to the criticism his first book attracted. He completed a PhD in Neuroscience at UCLA in 2009.

The details can then be put in the career section. What do people think?NBeale (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If no-one objects I'll try to do this in a day or so. But I'd really appreciate some other input. NBeale (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW Harris's PLOS paper was largely scooped by a much better paper by some really good neuroscientits in PNAS published in March, and curiously un-referenced by Harris. NBeale (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait - you people are questioning Harris's status as a neuroscientist? That is utterly ridiculous. Sam Harris has a PhD in neuroscience, therefore he is a neuroscientist. That's all. Also, the notion that if he leaves academia he will "cease to be a neuroscientist" (and the analogy of the waitress) is wrong. First of all, why you would even think to compare someone with a Doctorate degree to a wage-labor position is beyond me. Second, Doctorate degrees never "go away" - they remain with you for life. Once a neuroscientist, always a neuroscientist, regardless of what work you do. Furthermore, the concept of a "wiki world" where credentials are different from the real world is also ridiculous. Do you have any idea the kind of devotion it takes to get a PhD? Anyone who receives a Doctorate has clearly devoted his life to the subject. I don't care about your "wiki world" standards - Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, and that is equally as important as his being an author. I'm sorry, but some of the comments in this discussion are repulsive. ArcadianGenesis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcadian Genesis (talk • contribs) 08:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SineBot, to the letter. Moreover, the comments about him 'not being a neuroscientist' are laced with snide side comments about how he is a bigot, and doesn't speak for science. Frankly, I think this is an NPOV issue. As in, regardless of what the article says about his beliefs, the article as it pertains to him is not NPOV. 71.195.86.253 (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Making this article NPOV

There are a number of places where this article implicitly or explicitly endorses Harris's positions, even when they are highly controversial and/or downright wrong. I've tried to straighten out a few, but if I do too many without discussion I feel I'm in danger of being mass-reverted. Can we have a consensus that we should state his positions without appearing to endorse them? NBeale (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

NBeale, which parts do you feel are endorsing is views? I'm sorry, I just don't have the time to reread the entire article, though I've gotten the same feeling in the past. Dantedanti (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I've tried to show this by editing the Worldview section to make it NPOV. I have also put some "fact" tags in because even Harris cannot (surely?) be so stupid and ignorant as to assert some of the things that are claimed here. NBeale (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that another editor (sadly an anon, but thanks) has removed one of the more abusurd claims. NBeale (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Would this count as a source for said "absurd" claim? Search for "elected". As for the purported absurdity of this statement, it's not relevant for us to discuss that here. --PLUMBAGO 10:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing absurd about suggesting that atheists have a hard time getting elected in the US. But the views ascribed to Harris in the article that I was concerned about ("considers that, by the light of biblical prophecy, general Armageddon is regarded by many as a necessary precursor to the Second Coming, or the Rapture. Harris suggests that a significant proportion of the American population may see a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East as a welcome portent of the End times. Harris further asserts that the same individuals who hold these views both elect and are elected as presidents, senators, and representatives, rendering it essentially impossible for someone who does not express such faith to run for office") don't appear there. Believe me, if we could find a reliable source for his holding such absurd views I'd be minded to put them in :-) NBeale (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. There appears to be some video footage of him discussing this sort of thing, but I've yet to look at it to check if it helps. All we're looking for is a source for these purported assertions by Harris (preferably in print I guess). I'm not so sure that they can't be found since his assertions, while out-there, don't seem too outlandish. Certainly, as much as one can judge from the television and internet, belief in the Rapture, and its imminent arrival, is non-trivial in the US (which isn't to say "significant"). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there are some people in the US who hold such views. What is compleletely absurd is to say that "the same individuals who hold these views both elect and are elected as presidents, senators, and representatives, rendering it essentially impossible for someone who does not express such faith to run for office" The truth is that much of the Militant Atheist road rage was directed against G.W. Bush and seems absurd against Obama. NBeale (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

maybe you have been in a coma and have not noticed that Obamma's religion played a huge role in his election, even who his preacher was brought about a firestorm. We have a sizable percent of the American population that thinks he's not even a christian, they publish crap about his religion all the time. They seek to run him out of office because he is not a "true" christian or worse, he may be a muslim! the chances of an atheist being elected to a high office is about the same as me flapping my wings and flying to Peru from the state of Kansas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

im pretty familiar with all harris' work and speeches, as well as a good deal of his conference material that is available, and unfortunately, Nbeale, he often engages in arm-chair philosophy, which can produce some pretty crazy and ignorant sounding beliefs. in relation to your criticism of his elected-officials belief, it doesnt sound like something thats out of the park for harris, in fact it sounds like his typical conclusions. i dont recall totally, but the beliefs you quote to him seem more like a bric-a-brac of things he's said in various venues and not in one place specifically. Dantedanti (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming book

Putting Harris' upcoming release in the intro seems like a marketing blurb, so I'm taking it out. If someone would like to make a "works" section near the bottom to add it to, that would be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.75.152 (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in the Books section near the bottom. I've put the reference you removed next to the new book's entry there. Tayste (edits) 23:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tayste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.225.97 (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

New Newsweek article on Harris

What are we to make of this? How does this fit with what we already have on Harris? It certainly complicates the interpretation of Harris, in the same way that we have a complicated interpretation of Albert Einstein, but I think that there is a consistent reading of Harris that denies any accepted, religious meaning of God, while accepting some sort of transcendental experiences as being real, valuable, and enriching. Edhubbard (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does complicate interpretations of Harris and point out one aspect of his thought that is controversial among atheists, as I pointed out in an article that I wrote about the New Atheists, see:

http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant/Papers/129476/The-New-Atheism--and-New-Humanism-

JimFarm (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We all like to quote ourselves don't we? says PalindromeKitty. PalindromeKitty (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Spoken like a true sockpuppet. JimFarm (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly legit to refer to your own work, Jim (although it would be another story if you were citing it ON the page lol etc. etc.) Mostly I hope we do not lose track of Ed's point.

Ed, imo - if you were saying that the source you cite was sensationalizing, that Harris does not believe in what most people call "God", and that the current section on spirituality is fine - then I agree :) -Tesseract²(talk) 20:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Worldview

"This, along with his praise for fascists' positions on European immigration, has undermined his credibility."

I've never heard of sam harris praising fascist positions on european immigration in his lectures or writings. In fact, in "letter to a christian nation" he writes "With a few exceptions, the only public figures who have had the courage to speak honestly about the threat that islam now poses to european society seem to be fascists. this does not bode well for the future of civilization."

It seems that sam is saying that it's a bad thing that only fascists are the ones that are opposing muslim immigration to europe. sam is not in any way suggesting that we take the fascist approach to muslim immigration. he is merely saying that we should be honest with ourselves and start demanding that the islamic communities all across europe respect the european culture they chose to live in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.251 (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything to support the claim either, nor the claim that it somehow affected his credibility. I removed the sentence and the one before it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.187.191 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Harris criticizes Judaism

The fourth sentence in the first paragraph under Worldview reads, "He has also been derided for selectively criticizing Christianity and Islam and refusing to criticize his former religion Judaism ..."

Yet Harris wrote in The End of Faith, "Judaism is as intrinsically divisive, as ridiculous in its literalism, and as at odds with the civilizing insights of modernity as any other religion."

His alleged refusal to criticize Judaism is patently false, and I think this should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.187.191 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing in to support the allegation that Harris refuses to criticize Judaism. The cited Hitchens article indeed calls Harris a "Jewish warrior," but does not explain why. And the next sentence under Worldview reads, "This, along with his praise for fascists' positions on European immigration, has undermined his credibility." Again, it cites the Hitchens article, which says nothing of the sort in regards to Harris's credibility. I'm removing these two sentences.

Quick question

Lede says "He has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years." Is this supposed to imply he has actually done any structured study (eg an actual qualification in comparative religion at say a university) or research in these or that he has published stuff on this going back 20 years or what exactly? If it is just that he is old enough to have thought about it on and off for 20 years then I guess we should delete it? --BozMo talk 21:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism by Hedges

Chris Hedges, an eminent writer and intellectual, has written an entire book critiquing Harris and Hitchens. Why is his analysis missing from the criticism section in which a single article by Meera Nanda, who undoubtedly is also an intellectual, is given prime importance? We should also have a section on alleged misquotes because there are too many of them, ranging from torture to nuclear strikes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.90.3 (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Haidt has a section titled: Criticism**, can anyone -at least consider doing -collect or find some similar or otherwise critical assesment or review of Sam Harris

• • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt#Criticism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.248.138.60 (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Writing for Truthdig

Harris clarified on his blog recently (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-chris-hedges/) that he no longer writes for Truthdig, and has not done so in years. I've edited the relevant section accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapplequip (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Entrepreneur?

Sam Harris is no more an entrepreneur than he is a non-neuroscientist. The source provided for this information in the article header is from Harris' website, but nowhere does this source call him an entrepreneur. Its true he is the CEO of Project Reason, but PR is a non-profit organization, not a business. I suggest we should remove the claim that he is an "entrepreneur".--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the silence as agreement on this and made the change. Qui tacet consentire videtur. --Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Communism

Why is there no addressing of the "800 pound gorilla in the room"? I refer to: communism. It should be patently obvious that much of what Harris espouses about religion can be found in Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" and is what Vladimir Lenin practised in the early days of Soviet Communism. How did it go, "religion is the opiate of the people", or something? Just sayin'...
--Atikokan (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, first off, The Communist Manifesto is not critical of religion and certainly doesn't espouse much similar to what Harris does. At the same time, Harris has responded to this point, saying that communism is a problem because it's too much like a religion. Of course, that's pretty much a terrible argument, but it may stood to be added if anybody wants to. I don't really see how it's necessarily relevant to Harris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iank125 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sam Harris and Islam -- request for editing assistance by others

The section on Sam Harris and Islam is very much out-of-date, and needs help. I devour each Harris book upon release, and his statements on Islam have changed radically. "The End of Faith," his first book, was written in the wake of 9/11, and reflects that fact. As an atheist with many Muslim friends, I had a negative reaction to it, but he changes with each new book, and, in my view, just gets better and better. This article's section on Harris and Islam should be changed, to reflect this.

However, I can't do this myself, or I already would have. I'm a huge fan of Harris, and am in the very unusual position of being an atheist who finds much to admire in Islam, and is very defensive of my numerous Muslim friends around the world, who demonstrate, with their lives, that the popular stereotype of Muslims is the unfortunate result of the actions of a small number of extremists, and doesn't reflect the reality of how millions of Muslims actually are.

Anything I modified in the article would, clearly, not be objective at all -- these things are far too personal for me to do the necessary work myself. However, it needs to be done, and I hope someone else has both the knowledge, and the necessary objectivity I clearly lack, to be able to improve this article in this regard.

It would also be nice if Sam Harris's full date of birth were given -- I came here today to find that one bit of information, but only found the year, 1967. If I can find the full date, I CAN take care of that much, myself.

Thanks, fellow Wikipedians. RobertAustin (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

An appeal for objectivity, civility, and signing your posts on this talk page.

More thorough review of this article, and especially this talk page, has left me profoundly disturbed. Since Sam Harris is my favorite living author, I have refrained from editing the article myself, because I realize I lack the necessary objectivity to do so. Anyone with the same problem should not edit this article, and the same goes for those who hate Sam Harris. Non-objective input is only appropriate on a talk page, NOT an article which is supposed to be encyclopedic in tone. I am proud of Wikipedia as a whole, and glad to have played a small role in creating and editing parts of it, but this article, as it stands, is shameful. It isn't "B-class" right now, as it is labeled -- it deserves a flat "F," in its present form. The article is presently a mixture of propaganda from two opposing sides, and that is NOT what Wikipedia is supposed to be. It probably should be re-written from scratch, rather than edited, for there is very little in the article right now that is useful -- and I have never written, nor even thought, such a thing, about any article on Wikipedia, before today.

On to the talk page: what's with all the personal attacks here, against Harris, his critics, and your fellow Wikipedians? Civility, please! Also, please sign your posts. Typing four tildes isn't difficult. I'll demonstrate, with my real name. RobertAustin (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sense of self

By paying close attention to moment-to-moment conscious experience, Harris suggests, it is possible to make our sense of "self" vanish and thereby uncover a new state of personal well-being.

I haven't had a chance to review the sources on this, but this popular interpretation (probably written by an editor rather than attributed to Harris) is wrong. Aside from extreme ascetic practices (including drug tantra) the sense of self does not usually vanish as is popularly believed, but rather one notices that the self is not separate from anything outside the mind and body. So the self doesn't vanish, it's our perception of the separate self that disappears. This experience ("a new state of personal well-being") is similar to viewing and becoming aware of cognitive illusions and understanding patterns and perceptional organizations. Our thoughts are no different. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It is unfair to call him a neuroscientist

Sam Harris's qualifications should mention his work in neuroscience, however to blatantly state that he is a neuroscientist in the introduction is inaccurate. This implies that he is an active researcher in the field of neuroscience, an academic at a university or research institute. This is not true.

For example, if someone has completed the Bachelor's of Science degree, would you call him a scientist? Only in a vague sense, because you know that until he/she actively becomes part of the research/scientific community, they are not really a scientist per say. Being a scientist is an active role, not a passive role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.153.120 (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Also from reading above, it appears that this issue has been raised before. And it also appears that proponents and supporters of Mr. Harris want him to be called a neuroscientist, and his opponents do not. I implore you to keep personal judgment out of this place. And I repeat, it is not nearly enough to have completed a degree in a field to be associated with that field. You can state his qualifications, but he cannot be grouped together with other neuroscientists who are active/well known in their research. Why else would you mention someone on wiki, if he/she was not notable in the field of neuroscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.153.120 (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Philosopher? Neuroscientist? Neurophilosopher?

Critics and ideological opponents of Harris (and a considerable number of Wikipedian's) have tried to qualify, diminish or outright reject these descriptions of Harris. I'm going to assemble some of the reliably sourced descriptions in one place here.

• CNN -- "the philosopher Sam Harris..."
• Herald -- "In a fascinating new book, the well-known secular philosopher Sam Harris makes the case for accepting that these impulses..."
• Telegraph -- "the American neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith"
• NPR -- "while philosopher Sam Harris explores how science should shape human values."
• BBC -- "guests include the neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris, who argues that science ought to influence human morality rather than religion..."
• Los Angeles Times -- "bestselling philosopher-turned-neuroscientist ..."
• Why We Need to Believe in Free Will. By: HORGAN, JOHN, Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 6/17/2011, Vol. 57, Issue 39. -- "Sam Harris--the neuroscientist, philosopher, and renowned religion-basher..."
• The New Atheists' Narrow Worldview. By: ASMA, STEPHEN T., Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 1/28/2011, Vol. 57, Issue 21. -- "With tongues in cheeks, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett are embracing their reputation as the "Four Horsemen." Lampooning the anxieties of evangelicals, these best-selling atheists are embracing their "dangerous" status and daring believers to match their formidable philosophical acumen."
• The Oxford Handbook of Atheism -- "American philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris..."
• Philosophy Now -- "Dawkins' chapter on these two tyrants ends by quoting the philosopher Sam Harris in glowing terms"
• The Philosophers' Magazine
• Keynote Speakers -- "His degree in philosophy from Stanford University and Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of California give Harris a unique perspective as both a philosopher and a scientist. As the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason, an organization aimed at disseminating secular values and scientific information, Harris is well-versed and possessive of expertise in both science and religion. Harris has authored numerous New York Times bestsellers..."
• SamHarris.org
• Project Reason
• Google Plus

Xenophrenic (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted deletion of struckthrough comments

In order to maintain the sense of discussion. Is there consensus for a) deletion of comments or b) archiving of threads? I only reverted in order to ask. --Lexein (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard an objection to autoarchiving; eventually a talk page gets long enough to activate it. In this case I'd say we're at that point, though I recommend keeping a moderate active thread count, only because it's not an extremely active talk page...say 7 active threads? Sædon^talk 02:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Lexein, I appreciate you taking the time to ask. But my struck-through comments were unhelpful as well as unnecessary to the flow of the current thread. According to WP Talkpage guidelines, my comments are considered unacceptable. It is common practice to delete or revise such comments on talk pages. So I'm deleting them again. Other than that, I think archiving makes good sense. danielkueh (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for assessing your comments! --Lexein (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

His famous mother, "Golden Girls" creator Susan Harris?

She's listed as his mother at the IMDB -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0365358/bio -- and in an old profile of Susan Harris. Given that Susan Harris was famed for clashing with Christian fundamentalists over edgy TV content, this seems like highly relevant information that should be in Wikipedia. I know Harris says in the Washington Post profile that he doesn't want his origins examined, but it seems like really obvious missing information. And I don't think it is Wikipedia's job to hide this information, even though it probably works against Harris's brand image to be outed as a Hollywood rich kid. 50.143.146.234 (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The IMDb is not considered a reliable source because its content is largely user-generated. Wikipedia does not hide information. Rather it aims only to represent information published by other reliable sources; see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Has this information about Harris's mother been published anywhere beside the IMDb? If not, I'm afraid it won't last here. Even if it is true, it needs to be substantiated. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Jweiss11 is correct about IMDB not being a reliable source for the assertion of fact in Biographies of Living Persons. I've removed that assertion pending the location of reliable sourcing. Please note that WP:BLP policy also covers Talk pages on Wikipedia. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sam Harris is not American atheist, he is American Buddhist

here is an extended quote from an Amazon review of his book The End of Faith that documents this (wikipedia doesn't let me link to Amazon but you can find original on google) :

Attentive readers may pick up on hints along the way, such as his early, offhand mention of "a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science" (?), and a footnote that cites "some credible evidence for reincarnation" (?!?), but Harris saves his all-out evangelistic pitch for the very end, which may explain why so many of these five star reviews don't indicate any awareness of it whatsoever. On top of this stealth tactic, Harris defends his Buddhist views by resorting to arguments from ignorance: "But the truth is that we simply do not know what happens after death. . . . Consciousness may be a far more rudimentary phenomenon than are living creatures and their brains. And there appears to be no obvious way of ruling out such a thesis experimentally." This is absolutely despicable; it's the very lowest sort of apologetics, always retreating to the as-yet-unknown and possibly unknowable, and hiding behind the ever-shrinking margin where science and human understanding haven't yet come to satisfying answers.

Harris also engages in some shameless special pleading for Buddhism, trying to exempt it from arguments that he uses earlier to savage the biblical religions. He insists on an ordinary, layperson's sense of "faith" when it comes to the latter, and condescendingly sets aside Paul Tillich's attempts to explore a more sophisticated approach to Christian faith: "But this is not the 'faith' that has animated the faithful for millenia." Fair enough, and I would certainly agree that such rarefied theologies are nothing more than refinements of error. But then Harris turns around (in a footnote) and says: "While Buddhism has also been a source of ignorance and occasional violence, it is not a religion of faith, or a religion at all, in the Western sense. There are millions of Buddhists who do not seem to know this, and they can be found in temples throughout Southeast Asia, and even the West, praying to Buddha as though he were a numinous incarnation of Santa Claus. This distortion of the tradition notwithstanding . . ." If you're going to insist that the crudest, most stupid forms of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the definitive versions of those faiths, then you can't reasonably turn around and insist that the most exalted version of Buddhism is the only true one and all others are distortions.

So he is not an atheist who hates faith - he is a Buddhist who hates Abrahamic monotheistic religions. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia lets you link to Amazon, e.g. http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Faith-Religion-Terror/dp/0393035158! Apparently, that is only the beginning of what you don't understand about Wikipedia and the subject at hand. That Harris may be guilty from time to time of subtle self-contradictions (a virtual inevitably in any complex analysis performed by a mortal human) does not make him a Buddhist. That said, an Amazon book review is not considered a reliable source, so this discussion has little to add to Wikipedia if it is not outright inappropriate for inclusion even on a talk page. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to know what he thinks about meditation and Buddhism, just go to his blog and read "Kill the Buddha." While Harris practices non-religious meditation, Harris is NOT a Buddhist and explicitly rejects any of the religious notions surrounding the practice of meditation.

Shouldn't the above quote be removed form this talk page as a copyright violation?

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "review" on Amazon arguing that somehow deep-down Harris is in fact a very religious person. - DVdm (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Greenwald

Now that Glenn Greenwald's criticism of Harris is mentioned here, perhaps we should add something about the way he and Murtaza Hussain have misrepresented many of Harris's published positions and have committed libel. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely, Jweiss11. Here is some info on the misrepresentation: [22] [23]. Lucien504 (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the Greenwald thing doesn't belong here to begin with. Who is Greenwald anyway and why would he matter? This article is about Harris, not about his critics, their motives and their methods. Let's get rid of it. - DVdm (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a strong reason to keep it either, primarily because it only conveys one-half of the argument. There's no mention of any rebuttal or explanation, and this probably isn't the proper place for what appears to be an extensive back & forth. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I also do not think the Greenwald entry belongs here. As DVdm said, "This article is about Harris, not about his critics". If Wikipedia articles included all the criticism and rebuttals etc. for every public figure, it would be a complete mess. I personally think the "Criticism" section here is quite convoluted and question its inclusion in this article in its current state. E.g. the Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig, and Reza Aslan pages are without such sections. Lucien504 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Should Sam Harris be called a philosopher?

There seems to be an obvious consensus that there are sufficient WP:RS that support Sam Harris being identified/described as a philosopher. The below discussion sufficiently pointed out, on both sides, that any degree, especially a bachelors, does not identify/describe a person. In this RFC, the consensus is to include philosopher as a descriptor. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

:The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.----Should we be describing Sam Harris as a philosopher? Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Please use the threaded discussion section for any responses. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose This would be original research. He doesn't even describe himself as a philosopher on his website. For instance here[24] he discusses a debate, describing the participants as "The panelists were psychologist Steven Pinker, author Sam Harris, philosopher Patricia Churchland, physicist Lawrence Krauss, philosopher Simon Blackburn, bioethicist Peter Singer and The Science Network’s Roger Bingham." We probably shouldn't use "neuroscientist" either. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support He has a degree in philosophy. Other people in mainstream sources call him a philosopher [25], [26], [27] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support The degree is a bit of a clincher -- but reliable sources use the term. [28] show one NYT review calling him one, and they do so elsewhere as well. Meets requirements for the term. And somehow thinking that people use five or six adjectives to fully cover each participant, ain't likely. Collect (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per sufficient sources. In order to stop this recurring back/forth yes/no changing in the article, we should attach two of the best sources to "philosopher" in the lead. - DVdm (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per numerous reliable sources (see this list above) and absence of a single refuting source, as required by Wikipedia policy. Pointing to a single link, which mentions only the single most relevant descriptor of each panelist, as a reason to remove other well sourced descriptors (Neuroscientist, Philosopher, religion critic, American, etc.) is original research. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support RSs and a degree in the discipline are enough for me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)*Support: He is proponent of a specific ideology, and it is one of his profession. That makes him philosopher. Bladesmulti 11:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)*Support per the degree and the reliable sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support He's also written on what I would say counts as philosophy. For example, I think his book The Moral Landscape can be regarded as a book on philosophy. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 04:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Dougweller.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support I came into this debate neutral. After looking at the sources used, I find the CNN source cited by User:NeilN and the NYT source cited by User:Collect the most convincing (though, under very close scrutiny [perhaps too close], NYT does not directly call him one). User:Dougweller brought one from his website in an effort to show how he describes himself. Note however that this description is not Harris's; it came from the description on the YouTube clip, making it no more reliable than something like this (where he is described as a philosopher, for example). He is definitely a scholar, polemicist, and public intellectual. Having found two other sources (the Los Angeles Times and a book review in the Oxford Handbook of Atheism) that describe him as a philosopher, I see no problem with the description. --Precision123 (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I will also add that I agree with User:Dougweller when he says an undergraduate degree is insufficient for the description. My opinion is based on the sources used. --Precision123 (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I really don't understand the idea that an undergraduate degree can be defining. My question is what academic philosophers call him a philosopher? I wouldn't count media sources for labelling a BLP in this way. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't simply pointing to a single link, I was pointing out that the subject doesn't describe himself as a philosopher and does describe himself as an author. That is certainly to be dismissed as "original research". Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the degree realy matters—although it can help. Even without a degree, one can be a philosopher and be regarded as such. The question is indeed of course "called as such by whom?". Perhaps the RFC should be "Are the available sources sufficient to call SH a philosopher?" - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Calling oneself something (or not) should have limited weight. Many subjects are described in unflattering terms they wouldn't use and a self-description of "entrepreneur" or "philanthropist" is basically meaningless. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Doug, the point of my comment is that while you can indeed cite that link to claim Harris "does describe himself as an author", you cannot cite it to claim Harris "doesn't describe himself as a philosopher" -- to do so would be original research. At best, you could only claim that Harris doesn't refer to himself as a philosopher at that one link. Yet he may have done so elsewhere. He certainly hasn't raised objection to being described as such by his publicist, book jacket descriptions, speaking engagement adverts, etc.

I agree with the comments above noting that an advanced degree is not required to be a "philosopher" (a completely unreferenced Wikipedia article, mind you); our article doesn't claim he's a Professor of Philosophy or teaching it as an academic philosopher. He has studied and wrestled with the same moral philosophy questions; he has published in the discipline; he has lectured and debated in the field. I also agree that how one refers to oneself has less weight than how the vast consensus of third-party reliable sources regard an individual. Harris has been known to argue against being pigeon-holed as an "atheist" and criticized the label. Yet reliable sources still describe him as such. Likewise, Harris has eschewed the use of formal "academic philosophy" terminology and structure when he writes and speaks, yet reliable sources note that he still tackles the same philosophical subject matter. Philosophy Now calls Harris a philosopher, and The Philosophers' Magazine quotes him. Perhaps his comments in this article would prove informative. This interview with Krauss (whom Harris TSN describes as a physicist in Doug's link, but Wikipedia described as a "philosopher" ... go figure), touches on the Science vs Philosophy subject as well. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I take your point. But it is the case that he does describe himself as an author. Is there a case for saying that he describes himself as an author and has been described by others as a philosopher and neuroscientist, so that it isn't Wikipedia doing the labelling? Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's standard across biographies to label what a subject is notable for without qualifying who is doing the labelling (aside from a source). See Bertrand Russell for example. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It is the case that the reliable sources describe Harris as a philosopher and author, among other labels. That is why these facts are conveyed in Wikipedia's voice. I see no motivation to attribute these descriptions to "others" as if they were mere opinion, or in some way contested. By the way, if you'll inspect closer the link you provided above -- the one that prompted you to say "He doesn't even describe himself as a philosopher" -- you'll see that he doesn't describe himself as an author there either. In fact, those aren't Harris' words. That description was copied by Harris from TSN, which used only one (most relevant) descriptor per panelist. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, a further search shows that he copies descriptions from the sources he's linking to. I actually started at [29] where he doesn't call himself a philosopher, but that's irrelevant now. I tend to be conservative about using what I see as academic descriptors. I really brought this after I saw a bit of edit warring and although I still think we should simply call him 'author' - maybe also neuroscientist as at least he's published with other specialist. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• question Has he written anything in the field of philosophy?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Like on the topic of "free will", for example? Given our broad definition of the field of philosophy as "the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language", a more relevant question would be: Has he written anything that does not relate to a field of philosophy? Like Dougweller and other editors commenting above, I agree that having an undergraduate degree does not make one a philosopher. But neither does having a doctorate; most of world's most renowned philosophers don't have degrees at all. A stronger argument could be made that having a bushy beard is a requirement. While there is ample reliable sourcing for the description of Harris as a philosopher, I've not seen sources which support categorizing him as a philosophy academic -- but I don't think anyone is arguing to use that academic descriptor. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OK, I now see this RfC, but I find it somewhat dubious that obvious points weren't pushed; in particular, with regard to whether secondary sources describe him as either of the categories he is allotted on Wikipedia in the capacity of a "professional". The comment

It's standard across biographies to label what a subject is notable for without qualifying who is doing the labelling (aside from a source).

seems to fly in the face of WP:RS; that is to say, how can a subject be notable if there are no RS attesting to the fact? I will do a little research before launching a new RfC, as appropriate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Two different issues:

1. Are there sources calling Harris a philosopher? Yes, see above RFC.
2. Do we explicitly name these sources in the lead instead of just citing them? No. We don't have XYX, is called a YYY by the NY Times...

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I see those sources, all mass media sources, not one academic source describes him as a philospher, because he isn't, and a BA degree doesn't change that, no matter what a bunch of Wikipedia editors vote. I see that the PhD gets him a couple of mentions in books as a neuroscientist, but that seems to be as far as it goes.

Categories like "philosopher" should not be assignable on the basis of mass media sources, no matter what a bunch of Wikipedia editors vote.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A few clarifications, Ubikwit: The Philosopher's Magazine published by Philosophy Documentation Center isn't exactly detached from academia; Philosophy Now is edited by a herd of philosophy PhDs and professors. Harris' works are starting to appear in the academic PhilPapers philosophy database (you can search for him here). The two Chronicle of Higher Education sources listed above are definitely academic sources. I can't tell if he's in this directory yet, but that's mostly for academic philosophers anyway. I recall him self-identifying as such near the end of a recent, long YouTube discussion/debate on The Young Turks. Several of those "mass media" sources are also top-tier news organizations (NPR, BBC, CNN...), and the RfC wasn't decided by "what a bunch of Wikipedia editors voted" — RfCs aren't decided by "votes" — it was decided based on the arguments presented for and against the description. (See This partial list of sources.) Categories are assigned based on reliably sourced descriptions. Now my question for you: Now that you've seen how reliable sources describe Harris, where are your sources to back up your assertion: "because he isn't"? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

He has published one book appearing to advocate a form of determinism against free will, making use of neuroscience, apparently. I haven't read the 96-page book, but on first impression from the briefs reviews I've looked at, it seems to be a type of quaint popularization of discussions in academia about "intentionality", etc.

He might be on the road to publishing something considered to be an original contribution to the field of philosophy, but there isn't enough to justify such a categorization, in my opinion. Here's a CNN piece that calls him a philosopher, too, as such<

Religion causes people to fixate on issues of less moral importance, said Harris, a well-known secularist, philosopher and neuroscientist who is the author of the books "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."[30]

. He appears to be notable due to his high-profile attacks religion, as the new section below demonstrates. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know about the books he has published; haven't read them. The above descriptions of him as a philosopher are from reliable sources. (Your CNN source was already listed twice, above.) Xenophrenic (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the material posted below, including the Chomsky quote, indicates that relatively few people consider Harris to be a philosopher.

None of his books are published by peer-reviewed academic publishers, probably because nothing he writes is considered to advance the relevant fields of study (academic discipline). I don't intend to examine this any further, but here is a link to google search of books with "philosopher Sam Harris".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Excessive content

It looks like 2/3 of this article is a detailed expose of the man's views as distilled from his books. This is an encyclopedic article, not a hagiography/plot summary: we should summarize what his views are but we should do so based on secondary sources. It is not our position (esp. if we're going to characterize him as a full-blown philosopher) to distill his views from his works, which may require significant interpretation (meaning Original Research). Because all these views of his seem to be put in here without any editorial oversight (for instance, is it referenced with secondary sources?), this simply reads like a puff piece. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

These citations and information were added to determine a high quality match between his views about various subjects and how others have viewed his material. What we can do without missing important information, and what are you going to propose? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. "Missing important information"--, well it depends on what "important information" is, and as far as I'm concerned it's secondary, not primary sources that determine what's important enough to include. It is the same in this case: if it's not secondary sources that determine what goes into an article, you end up with...well, fill in the blank. (This one has even more information--important information, I suppose.) Drmies (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I had to be more clearer about the removal of Religion and women, Morality and ethics, Moderation. Some of information seemed important, for describing his views and writings about these matters. How about we just make one section called views and add 2-3 liners about every subject? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the easiest thing to do is to go through the newspaper archive and the journal reviews and pick up on what they noticed--no? Drmies (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What is more important is how secondary sources interpret his views, not our own interpretation of his words. Second Quantization (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)