Talk:The Moral Landscape

sorry

Sorry for the empty shell - I will finish this page over the next few days! -Tesseract2 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest not publishing it online until you have at least a couple of non-Sam Harris sources? It's easy to think you'll finish in a few days and then not. Richard001 (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well ideally I wouldn't be the only one working on it, and others who have read the book or discussion on it could add info. In the meantime, I think that even this stub provides some relevant links for the several readers that wander here each day.-Tesseract2 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins, et al.

The opinions of Dawkins, Krauss, Pinker and McEwan are a bit of joke. They are not critical reviews by notable, neutral persons and were not published in notable, reliable sources. They are, rather, swooning advance puffery from a bunch of shills, all of whom coincidentally serve on the advisory board of Harris's Project Reason, and published on Harris's own website. Cloonmore (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I do grant that the lot of them are a part of Harris' project reason - even if they were not, they are his friends regardless. But far from being just "a bunch of shills", these are each highly notable people, even though they have not delivered their opinions in The San Fransisco Chronicle. And they are actually professionals in relevant fields (unless Deepak Chopra can be said to have "mastered" alternative medicine?).

I see no good reason that their views should not be mentioned and I plan on reverting Cloonmore's edits. Of course, I await more input on this matter.-Tesseract2 (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Shills, pals, call them whatever you want. Their views are utterly POV and inappropriate for this article. Cloonmore (talk) 00:18, 7http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Moral_Landscape&action=edit November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV does not require excluding POV critiques, it rather requires that all POVs should be included. Anyone who doesn't understand this is inappropriate for editing Wikipedia articles. -- 70.109.46.5 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've included reference to the blurbs, properly identified as such and with some helpful context. Cloonmore (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It is NOT good enough. This article right now is totally biased against the book. Who of those negative reviewers do not have an already formed and biased opinion on the subject (that is part of the problem which Harris is talking about)? Of course, they are going to be critical, and yet their views, in the current article, is presented as objective. They are no more objective than Dawkins, Krauss, etc. If you read Dawkins' "The God Delusion", then you will know that he is probably telling the truth when he says that he previously hadn't thought about how science can determine morality. So I believe his review is more valid than a philosopher, who all his life has probably been against this position. He will be inclined to fail to understand the very good arguments presented in The Moral Landscape. And certainly Chopra obviously is going to have a negative review against someone he has debated publicly. Personally, I think that the positive are most unbiased, and should be presented as such. However, at this moment in time, it's probable that no science can give a clear picture as to who of the negative and positive reviewers already present in the article are most unbiased and most qualified (but perhaps someone else will be clearly more or less biased and qualified), so we can do no better than give them equal treatment. In the future however, I am confident that Harris' and his positive reviewers' POV will be vindicated. Mateco1263 (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding between mine and Cloonmore's bickering, the article benefits. Some of the "critics" are quite possibly biased (e.g. Chopra) but we've settled on including some details that allow the reader to suspect as much. Still, readers should know what everyone notable is saying about the book, particularly such notable sources (e.g. New York Times) - so that they can make an informed decision of whether to read it.

BTW, the article won't be as focussed on the critics once I get around to adding a synopsis of the book (one I will ensure does not overlap with theory I've been adding under the more general page of a Science of Morality).-Tesseract2 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

They are not critical reviews by notable, neutral persons -- This is grossly intellectually dishonest. No one who has critically reviewed this work is "neutral" -- nor is there any requirement that people be "neutral" in order to be quoted in Wikipedia articles. They are, rather, swooning advance puffery from a bunch of shills -- I will note that you yourself are clearly not "neutral", and leave at that in response to this grossly offensive comment about these leading scientists and thinkers. -- 70.109.46.5 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unqualified praise

The word "unqualified" is not POV. It doesn't mean bad or incapable. It means total or unconditional. In any event, I've substituted the latter to avoid future confusion. Cloonmore (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, and it's your POV (depending on how you're using it). We have sources that they are colleagues and members on project reason, but there are many other friends and colleagues there that have not provided a blurb - maybe because their honest view would not make for good advertisement? Or they didn't care to read his book? Either way, I have to recommend you revert your assumption that it is "unqualified praise" (i.e. unconditional) with wording that is more neutral like "total praise" (if not removing any adjective at all). At least until you find a source you think suggests these blurbers are lying or didn't read the book etc.-Tesseract2 (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point. "Unconditional praise," like "unqualified praise," is just a statement of fact. As you note, a blurb is basically an advertisement, so what else would one expect but a total endorsement of the product? (Which, of course, is why the blurbs don't even belong in the article.) There's nothing about the word "unconditional" or "unqualified" that connotes lying. Quite the contrary. No doubt Dawkins & Friends loved the book. But so what. The point is that they're offering product endorsements, not unbiased reviews. Cloonmore (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The book recieved a negative review in the English newspaper the Evening Standard:http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23938503-the-king-james-bible-bashers.do

It also recieved a negative review by cognitive scientist and anthropologist Scott Atran in the National Interest here: http://nationalinterest.org/bookreview/sam-harriss-guide-nearly-everything-4893

I think we should add these, particularly Atran's review. -Bookchap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.121 (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should just Google "negative reviews for..." and list your findings one after another in this section. Searching for and selecting reviews that clearly mirror your personal opinion(s) of the book, while purposefully omitting legitimate peer reviews which should have been included for balance, is about as far from writing with a NPOV as it gets. Kristoffer Lance (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Pictures (specifically in lower sections)

I must make an argument I have had to make before: Images are a powerful capability of Wikipedia (as long as we're not flooding a page). Paired with appropriate captions, they break up walls of text and provide decent summaries of sections. This is a big readability issue, especially for visual learners like me, who can bore quickly, particularly in dealing with amateurish writing (again, like my own).

That only the section, and not the entire article, is related to these thinkers does not seem to me to be a valid reason for deletion, particularly because there is no articulated cost that outweighs legitimate benefits of images. I plan on bringing back the visuals - very much contingent on discussions here. Alternatively, we might also discuss which images would best fit. -Tesseract2 (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's not about visual learners or readability. It's about pictures serving and having some relationship to the article or section. Neither the article nor the sections in question have anything to do with Chopra or Dawkins. The sections are about reviews and blurbs of the book, not about the reviewers and blurbers. Their photos are distractions; they don't advance the article in any meaningful way. Frankly, the other pictures seem also of highly dubious value and more likely to distract from rather than enhance the article. The "Darwin fish" parody, in particular, is completly irrelevant to and out place in this article and should be removed. Cloonmore (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I own the arguments against the Darwin fish - I have tried to provide another image for a clearer relation. This is exactly my point, I want us to be having conversations about what images/figures/graphs to put every once in a while, not to imagine that an encyclopedia with a wall of nothing but (sometimes) amateurish text is a pleasure to read for everyone. Besides, there is a lot of research that even just striking images increase attention and information retention. My more specific point, then, is that I am still failing to see how it is distracting to read a quote by Deepak Chopra and then see a small picture of him. This occurs in hundreds of other articles, where a section mentions/discusses the views of the one pictured. So long as it's just us with opinions - I'll compromise for now if you're that against them - but I maintain that they were a fine fit Tesseract2 (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Debate with William Lane Craig

You will notice I replaced the details of Craig's claims (including various long quotes) with a review by Religion Dispatches magazine, calling the whole debate unimpressive. That is, both speakers "talked over each other" and left the audience confused.

I did this because Craig's points are irrelevant. We can discuss this, but know that we are not discussing the unqualified straw-man bashing that was posted before...

UPDATE I have edited that section to include the counter point that is Harris' views. Everyone is welcome to weigh in on the decisions being made here.

An IP originally posted some helpful quotes from Craig, which I shortened because the whole quote was not really necessary to make the point (i.e. Craig says that Harris implied that well-being is not the same as moral goodness).-Tesseract²(talk) 02:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Craig's points were irrelevant. I think Harris' points were irrelevant though . I think at some point in the debate Harris decided he was tired of debating morality and decided to bash religion. Craig just wanted a debate with God as the foundation of morality (he said he wasn't interested in defending any religion in particular) while Sam Harris just wanted an opportunity to criticise Christianity and Islam (he kept bringing up issues like the doctrine of hell and problem of evil that Craig (rightly IMO) dismissed as red herrings). I think your reading of Harris is a bit contentious and controversial. Are you literally saying that Harris believes that if the majority of people were psychopaths , rape and murder would be moral? This is a strong claim to put in the mouth of Harris and I'd rather not defame him unnecessarily.I would rather not defame him this way unless you can find a direct and unambiguous quote where he says this. Given that one of Harris' criticisms of Craig in the debate was that if God was to command rape , then rape would be moral , it would be odd (and hypocritical) for Sam Harris to hold that rape and murder could be moral under his theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.183.213 (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my simply undoing edits. While it appears there is some willingness to discuss, I maintain that the version of the Debate with Craig section which only states Craig's objections, unqualified by Harris, is too far from neutral to be justifiable.

But you do raise some issues worth discussing. I would tend to disagree that Harris' arguments against religion and God were irrelevant. They were a part of Harris' negative case against Craig's views, besides Harris' positive case in favour of a moral landscape (the same way Craig had a negative and positive case). That does not really matter here anyway, because I am not proposing those arguments belong on this page, and have made no edits to suggest that.

I also disagree that I am offering a very contentious view of Harris' theory. But perhaps there has been misunderstanding about what Harris believes on this matter. What he calls "Moral" is what increases people's well-being. Rape may increase the wellbeing of one individual, but Harris doubts that such people are as happy as people who live a life of empathy. Here's an even more important point though: even if rapists were as happy, and their well-being therefore reached just as high a single small peak on the moral landscape as someone more honorable, we do not stop our analysis there. It is not a contentious reading of Harris to say that each person's well being is important, not just one person's. The fact is that rape causes great suffering to another person, and so there is no justifying it, morally (when all wellbeing is considered) compared to the life of empathy.-Tesseract²(talk) 14:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The main purpose of the article , for me was to articulate the 4 main criticisms Craig had of Harris' book. They were 1)Harris makes an contentious moral semantic claim when he equates goodness with well being 2)Harris landscape of well-being is not identical to the moral landscape. 3)Harris denies the existence of objective moral responsibility 4) Craig's later comments online on how it could justify torture and eugenics. I think these are all important criticisms I think the point about moral ontology and moral epistemology mentioned by reviewers was an important point too, as it was a key source of misunderstanding between Craig and Harris in the debate. Craig was claiming that he only wanted to address the ontological claim about God as the source of good and said he was not defending any moral epistemology. Harris kept asking him epistemological questions about how he knows what God commands. Some of what you added was irrelevant. Eugenics does not relate to your comments about Harris not advocating a Utopian society or Orwellian society. Not every society that practices eugenics is in Utopia or 1984. America used to have eugenic practices. If there is a quote from Harris where he directly addresses eugenics it would be preferable.

Your claim that Craig has a "straw man" is much too strong. I am looking at the passage and Craig seems to have a fair reading of Harris. Your reading of Harris' claim as a caustic remark and not meant to be serious seems to be strained.

"He is indeed committed to the idea that torturing a girl could be a moral obligation depending on the nuances of the circumstances (e.g. if the torture will save the entire human race from a terrorist's attempt at whole earth destruction)." This is a really strong claim to put in the mouth of Harris without citation.Are you sure Harris would agree in torturing an innocent little girl? In his writings on torture and terrorism he has only advocate the torture of the guilty terrorists. Anyway this doesn't refute Craig , its just agreeing with him.

I think the comments you posted from Harris do not add sufficiently to the discussion and are unnecessarily hostile (Harris accusing Craig of playing games and distortions) so I'd rather leave a couple of the comments we included from other more neutral and less bitter reviewers. I also would suggest moving the reviewer's comments on the debate to the end of the article , after the criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.183.223 (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to the neutrality objection, I would point out that other criticisms in reviews are simply summaries of their most important criticisms , which is what I attempted to do with Craig. If you would like to summarize what Harris said in the debate directly in response to Craig , it would also be suitable. However I think that the criticism of Craig you have based on your reading of that passage in Harris crosses the line. It is way too POV.

Thank you for the discussion!

To be honest, I really must stop editing. I have work to do haha. I am not in a position to resolve these in the next few days - for now you will notice I have not quite addressed your point about semantics. For now...

I have made first attempts to address some of your other issues, so tell me what you think. For one, I have generally added more tentative language.

As far as eugenics go, you are right that a direct citation would be preferable, but I am not sure one exists. This does not mean the point should go uncontested either however, so I have expanded on relevant opinions from Harris on the topic.

I will try to find a better support for Harris' views on something like torturing a little girl, and whether it is ever justified. We should not expect him to use Craig's words, of course. It will be more of Harris "generally talking about that sort of thing" - even if he does not use the same examples.

Harris' commentary at the end is still, I think, relevant. I have made that section much more concise however.

Also the debate really was awfully shallow (even the one reviewer agrees that Craig made it difficult to go very deep into any one topic by starting so many small fires). I actually think that is one of the most important points to come into a discussion of this debate knowing. That is why I put it first.

Thoughts?-Tesseract²(talk) 15:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for editing. It is good how the language was much more tentative than before. I want to be cautious on speaking for Harris but it does seem you have a fair representation of his views. I wanted this section to be on the criticisms Craig made of Harris' book moreso than the debate itself. This after all is the section about the book. I looked up Harris stuff on torture , but he seems to be advocating the torture of guilty terrorists. I am not sure whether he holds the view that you should harm an innocent person to bring about a greater good. If you can find a citation to that effect it would be great. About the debate, Craig made clear the 2 statements he planned to defend at the start “(1)If God exists , he could provide a source of objective moral values (2)if God did not exist , there would be no objective moral values.” and that he wouldn't defend anything else. Craig has literally been arguing these same statements in his debates, books and articles since the 90s (look up his debates with atheist ethicists like Paul Kurtz and Kai Nielsen) and his points have not changed. I would have expected Harris to take advantage of this and have a direct rebuttal to Craig in his speeches. Harris didn't seem interested in responding to Craig or challenging his points. He was much more interested in making criticisms of religion (like the problem of evil or the doctrine of hell) than responding directly to Craig's points. While the set topic of the debate (Is good from God?) is conceivably broad enough to include some of Harris' topics , it would have been much better if Harris had prepared a rebuttal in advance using Craig's available materials. I do think some of the criticisms Craig made of Harris' theory were very strong (which is why I felt it was important to include them here). I feel some , especially the charge that he had semantically redefined morality were more than small fires. If Craig's reading of Harris' claims about how the moral landscape relates to the landscape of well-being are correct then Craig's argument is devastating. However I am open to the possibility that Craig misread that "facetious" remark about the landscape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.183.193 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC) And in addition , about the debate . 1) Harris let Craig set the topic of the debate and agreed to the topic Craig had selected 2)Craig's opening statements and previous debates on the same topic were readily available to Harris so there could not have been any miscommunication on what Craig wanted to debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.166.129 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the language tweaks. Also, to be honest, I don't think we will find a Harris directly addressing Craig's criticism about the little girl. Moving past grey areas, I think I am correct in saying that his theory - being a sort of scientific utilitarianism - would be committed to torturing the little girl in a situation where it would save the human race, for example. But I doubt we will find him saying that (especially if we've both gone searching at this point).

Harris did repeatedly say he was being misread. But it's not just that he made that general claim - its that Harris' entire thesis is that the moral landscape is a landscape of wellbeing. Whatever that landscape looks like, it is the only thing nearly worth being called "morality" to Harris. That, to me, is why Craig's comment about the last few pages completely missed its mark.

That having been said, I think you identified a sharper critique of Craig's. It was one that, unfortunately, didn't gain as much prominence in the debate (and it should have, because it is perhaps THE main disagreement). I'm referring to Craig's argument about a semantic redefinition of morality. Actually, presumably this is the same argument he made against Paul Kurtz's Secular Humanism - so yes, Harris really should have seen that coming.

I really do think that is THE main disagreement: should the facts that Harris is talking about really be called "morality"? This has long been the debate between those who have any God-centered 'moral system', versus those who are using 'moral system' quite differently. They should have focused on that more in the debate, with Harris is saying "Yes, yes that is so worth of the name morality - and it doesn't need to be supernatural at all" and Craig countering "That's not good enough, and certainly not as good as a morality grounded in God". It would have been clearer if they had that exchange at least once lol. I did sort of address that in the debate section about Harris' views on "obligations", though.-Tesseract²(talk) 06:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS A DISTURBINGLY ONE-SIDED HIT JOB.

The massive ammount of criticism cited on this and Sam Harris wiki page are just shocking. This article isn't neutral by any means. It should be rewritten without any criticism, simply a summary of the book. This is a prime example of wikipedias slanted bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.146.169 (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost every competent philosopher or scientist of any note who has reviewed the book finds it shockingly bad - whether they are atheist or theist. Even to try to give balance we have to put a science fiction writer "on a par" with a top-flight atheist philosopher like Simon Blackburn. NBeale (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense. The book has been praised by many atheist organizations as well as many notable atheists, e.g. Richard Dawkins, Ian McEwan, Steven Pinker, Lawrence Krauss, Matt Dillahunty... These are not people you should equate with "a science fiction writer" (what science fiction writer?) --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the comment above that the article unfairly represents the reaction to Harris' book. While the response from reviewers in the humanities and philosophy has been largely negative, the response from scientists has been much more positive. And in addition to Krauss, Pinker, Dawkins, and McEwan's responses, I'd like to mention another person (and philosopher) who's reaction was positive: Pat Churchland. I direct everyone's attention to http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate, where Churchland makes a number of comments explicitly praising Harris' program regarding morality and likening it to her own. Also in this debate, Peter Singer says at one point "perhaps we do not have a disagreement" once Harris explains that his moral program utilizes science in a broad sense, inclusive of philosophy. This adds at least one influential voice (Churchland's) in support of Harris, and at least leaves open the possibility that Singer (perhaps the biggest modern name in ethical philosophy) has common ground with Harris as well. I don't think the article should be relentlessly expanded with back and forth details, but that debate should be mentioned briefly. Further, the discussion of the Craig debate is far too long. In all, I get the impression, especially from the inclusion of criticism by persons like Deepak Chopra, that the writers of this article have exhaustively searched for negative responses to Harris, and not put nearly so much work into finding positive ones.--LAR (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but Sam Harris was right: most reviewers were happy to spend some time sparring their own personal straw men ("Harris wants SCIENTISTS to STEAL your babies!"). But what makes the current wikipedia page accurate is that these misguided "reviews" are followed by Harris' own criticism of them, and acknowledgement of those few individuals who tried to take his ideas seriously. Grapplequip, I have argued elsewhere that Chopra's input is nigh irrelevant -and you may delete it at will.

Yes, the debate with Craig is too long.-Tesseract²(talk) 06:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad you agree Tesseract2. I've removed the Chopra section. And to add another point, I think it also unbalanced to characterize Dawkins, Pinker, Krauss and McEwan merely as "personal and professional acquaintances of the author", when each of them is a tremendously influential scientist and/or writer in their own right. The description of them included in the article, while technically accurate, is misleading, and seems intended to imply their impartiality, which is absurd. There is no evidence that their opinions are swayed by a personal attachment to Harris. Their relationship with him (as far as I can tell) has grown from the fact that they (largely) agree with him, not the other way around. I'm going to change it to this:

In advance of publication, four professional acquaintances of the author, biologist and science popularizer Richard Dawkins, novelist Ian McEwan, psycholinguist Steven Pinker, and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, offered their praise for the book.

While the change does make the sentence a tad wordy, I think it gives a clearer impression of the importance of their endorsements. If anyone objects feel free to revert/re-edit it and give reasons here. Also Tesseract2, what's your opinion on including something about Churchland and the science network debate I mentioned above?--LAR (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but moaning about Chopra being too hard on the book or the author is no reason to delete reference to his review. I'm restoring. Cloonmore (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all: I gave a very clear explanation! To claim otherwise is ridiculous. Especially from the person who claimed that the initial deletion wasn't explained, despite the explanation being clearly visible above. In the future, I would appreciate it if you try to get your facts straight, before making claims about others. As to moaning about Chopra being too hard on the book or the author... No ones doing that. There are plenty of equally critical reviews mentioned. Indeed, far more than positive ones. Chopra, however, has no authority on science, philosophy or any other relevant field or even theology. What he thinks of the book, is rather irrelevant, unimportant and uninteresting. The inclusion of his reviews, can thus be reasonably considered to have no use, other than to show as many negative reviews as possible.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cloonmore has been a very critical, but ultimately reasonable, and thus quite welcome, contributor.

I think the strongest argument against Chopra's inclusion is how much more relevant information the page has now been graced with. The negative reviews are now more than represented. Not only is Chopra generally unqualified for the reasons that Zarlan mentions, Chopra's comments were made without having even read the book.

I argue that Chopra's inclusion does not meet a reasonable standard of relevance. In the meantime, I will move Harris' comments to directly follow Chopra's, to at least ensure there is proper context. But let us know what you think, Cloonmore.

Grapplequip, Cloonmore and I compromised (on the title, for instance) to ensure that it was clear that these professional are, for whatever reason, ultimately Harris' colleagues (which surely has some influence). That being said, I think the rewording was great! As long as it stays in that section.

I think Churchland's, and even Pinker and Singer's comments, are all relevant. But they were not terribly focused on the book. And actually, they ended up discussing new explanations that Harris had not offered in the book (i.e. that there is, obviously, still a major role for philosophy to play in a science of morality). That is why you may notice I included them on the Science of Morality page as other proponents.-Tesseract²(talk) 17:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Tesseract, on second consideration, I agree with your assessment that Pinker and Churchland's responses are not explicit enough as references to the book to include here. I withdraw the suggestion. --LAR (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see any reference to the "largely negative" professional reviews. On the other hand, I see 300+ reviews averaging 4 out of 5 stars on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211 Doesn't make sense... 160.79.125.18 (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hello,

I feel the images in this article are unnecessary and irrelevant. If anything, they are confusing and contribute nothing to the understanding of the topic at hand. In my opinion they should be removed until suitable images can be found. If there are any images of specific things Sam Harris mentions (such as some area of neurology; I haven't finished reading the book, so I don't know), these would probably be good.

Thoughts? InverseHypercube 03:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Scientists studying the brain and happiness illustrated by a volunteer covered with EEG electrodes, a value in science like "curiosity" illustrated by researcher braving the cold, Harris' disbelief as a robotic human... I do not see a problem. I think the pictures are decent - but who knows what else could be found on wikicommons. I think we should certainly be open to suggestion.-Tesseract²(talk) 06:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

what does the image of the "Niskin bottle about to be deployed" have to do with Sam Harris? just to exemplify scientific curiosity? I don't get it and I don't know if anyone else will either... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1523:C34E:1CB0:43A3:C38A:77E5 (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Amazon.com reviews

are those really significant enough to mention in the Reception section? --71.54.198.111 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

mucha Chopra

I started a new section because the crazily titled "HIT JOB" section seemed to be veering off in various ways. All the complaining about Chopra seems to boil down that he's not a "scientist." So what? Harris seems to have aimed, as he typically does, to write a book for a general readership. Who says a reviewer needs to have a Ph.D. in physics? BTW, Tesseract, please share how you've deduced that Chopra wrote the quoted bit before reading the book. Cloonmore (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the assertion that Chopra did not read the book originates with Harris himself. (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-response-to-critics_b_815742.html) However, reading Chopra's article reveals it to be true. Nowhere in his article does Chopra claim he has read the book, instead he says that he has read an interview from Harris' website about the book. (He does vaguely describe the book's theme at the opening of the article, but again, this is drawn from the interview.) All of the quotes Chopra provides in his article are from the interview, and Chopra clearly states this while quoting them. (See the Chopra article http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-10-18/news/24140254_1_morality-sam-harris-science). The conclusion is clear: Chopra did not read the book. To his credit, I do not think he even intends to give the impression that he did. Rather the article is a critique of Harris' ideas about morality. For that reason it should not be mentioned in the "reviews" section here. However, if anyone feels that Chopra's article is sufficiently notable, it might be appropriate to insert a reference in the article about Harris himself.--LAR (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Harris acknowledges that Chopra's piece is a "review" and then purports to deduce, based on the fact that his book is not quoted in the review, that Chopra therefore must not have read the book. Sorry, but Sam Harris's opinion of a bad review of his own book is not a reliable source for an assertion that the reviewer didn't read the book. Harris is not exactly offering an unbiased opinion, you'd have to agree. Cloonmore (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Chopra isn't just "not a scientist". He's not an notable authority, in any way, on anything relevant. He's an unimportant non-authority. A Ph. D in physics wouldn't really be relevant BTW. Physics isn't in any way relevant to the issue, so a Ph.D in physics would, in this discussion, be a simple layman. Relevant issues are philosophy, science (not physics, biology, chemistry or something like that. Science), morality, theology (given that the book comments on it). As to Chopra not having read the book: It's not just Sam Harris' opinion. Not only does Chopra not say, or imply, that he's read the book, but as far as I know, no one else does, nor does anyone say Harris' conclusion was wrong. Indeed no one seems to take issue with it. Either because they see it as clearly true or simply because they don't care what Chopra may say.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am making the same argument, but: Chopra's insights may be somewhat irrelevant here for the same reasons that those of Eminem (although he may be a gifted rapper) would be. Besides being, not just somewhat, but completely unqualified, Chopra is extremely biased to start - because he has been embarassed by Harris on one or more occasions. I am not, however, trying to argue for Chopra's complete removal. He should be mentioned here, because the current page does a good job of making these issues obvious to the reader.

Let me instead take a quote, every few paragraphs, from Chopra's article (not review), to make mine and Harris' own deductions clear:

• "The book’s subtitle, “How science can determine human values,” gives a précis of the main idea..."
• "In an interview at amazon.com, the author sets the tone..."
• "When asked if science is really the right judge of morality, Harris says..." insert quote from interview
• "The interviewer points out that ideas of happiness come into conflict..."
• "The interviewer inserts a bit of realism by asking..."

Chopra winds down his own article by once again referring to his source, saying "Near the end of this extensive interview..." - presumably it was extensive enough to skip the reading. It is beyond me why he then feels justified in claiming that "Stripped of its rhetorical decoration, however, The Moral Landscape gussies up old-fashioned utilitarianism..." - as though he had analyzed the book himself.

I am not saying Chopra claimed to have read the book anyway. I am not saying that, if and when he reads the book, his views will become more reasonable or reflected. I am also not even saying that Chopra is completely wrong about everything he says (e.g. Harris' case is very similar to utilitarianism). Again, upon reflection, I think our current Wikipage's (with my undoing of Cloonmore's only most recent edit) treatment of Chopra is fine. But only because it warns the reader about Chopra's shallow engagement with the topic: The whole article is written like a highschool student trying to equivocate that he couldn't be bothered to read the book. I recommend each of you read the Chopra's article.

Anyway, my latest, current position is: keep the article how it is. With Chopra's input, but also the warnings about it. Thoughts?-Tesseract²(talk) 19:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your current position is flawed, my friend. Neither you nor Mr. Harris is a reliable source for the assertion that Chopra didn't read the book. As for whether Chopra, Eminem or my pet chihuahua is "qualified" to review the book, your beef is with the editor of the SF Chronicle. Bottom line: you need a source and you don't have one, so the assertion is out. Cloonmore (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Cloonmore, Chopra himself does not claim to have read the book in his article, and if you read his article (as Tesseract and I both have) you'll find that Chopra only quotes the interview, not the book. (As I stated above, and Tesseract outlined in even greater detail.) Chopra does not provide a single quote from the book's interior, nor does he demonstrate any knowledge of what text it contains outside of the information provided in the Harris interview. The only quote he does provide from The Moral Landscape is its subtitle, indicating at the most that he has seen the book's cover. I don't see how his article qualifies as a book review, given these facts. I agree that neither I nor Tesseract qualify as sources, obviously, but that is beside my point, as I am not talking about including Chopra's response while simultaneously asserting that he did not read the book. Rather I am saying: Chopra's article is not a review of Harris' book, it is a response to Harris' ideas, and so does not belong in this article. I think my suggestion that Chopra's criticism of Harris be excised from this page, and instead placed in the "Sam Harris" article here at wikipedia is a reasonable compromise. If any and all published responses to Harris' thesis (which Chopra does not even demonstrate a clear understanding of) qualifies for inclusion in THIS article, then we should further include the quotes I mentioned (see the "hit job" section) from Churchland and Singer. I have agreed such an inclusion would be irrelevant, and by the same standard so is Chopra's article. (I feel the same is true regarding the William Lane Craig debate, by the way.) The reviews currently referenced in this article do a fine job of presenting the reaction to The Moral Landscape. Chopra's article is not a book review, however, and so should not be included. And by the same token that Harris' assertion does not prove that Chopra didn't read the book, your point about Harris' own un-careful use of the term "review" to denote Chopra's article is not proof that the article should be considered as such.--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The title, timing and content of the Chopra article make plain that it is a review. I've read many book reviews that do not quote from the book. The lack of direct quotes does not prove anything. There is no reason it does not belong in the "Review" section, except for Harris's and some editors obvious animosity towards Chopra. But so what. I do agree that the Craig debate section seems completely out of place here. Why is it here?Cloonmore (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The title and content of Chopra's article make it clear that it is a comment on Harris' views on morality (as far as Chopra understands them). As to the Craig debate: Perhaps it should be moved to either the page about Harris or Science of Morality? Also, I'm relatively new to wikipedia, so I may be wrong, but your editing habits seem dangerously close to, if not being, edit warring, to me.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Between individuals here saying Chopra should be removed completely, and Cloonmore feeling like Chopra offers a valid review, but only quotes the interviews for some reason rather than the words of the book itself - I think my position is the compromise. That is, keep him in the article, but make these issues clear. That is again the purpose of my latest edit: compromise. Be sure that (a) you read Chopra's article and (b)think carefully before editing further. Thanks all-Tesseract²(talk) 11:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If we cannot reach an agreement on the deletion of the Chopra section, I'll agree to its inclusion under phrasing along these lines:

Alternative-medicine advocate (and one-time debating opponent of Harris) Deepak Chopra wrote a response to the main thesis of The Moral Landscape for The San Francisco Chronicle. Referencing a promotional interview from Harris' website, he wondered whether Harris "is writing a satire on morality" and asserted that Harris' "naiveté ... raises suspicion about his connection to psychological reality."[48]

Though I'm not even sure if this takes it far enough, and in any case I will not agree to the article's inclusion at all unless Harris' dismissal of it is also included. If we can't agree to something like what's above, we must remove the reference to Chopra. The article could only be improved by such a removal, given the number of reviews already referenced.--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Marilynne Robinson section

In response to Cloonmore's reversion of my minor edit to the Robinson section due to his presumption that "MR's ref to Harris as unitarian (is) clearly mocking": Cloonmore is right that I did fail to give my reasons (see the edit history) for changing "sardonically noted" to "asserted" in the section about Robinson's review. So here they are: My rewording of that sentence was simply to clarify that Robinson was not making a statement of fact, and give the sentence a neutral tone. "Sardonically noted" is not NPOV, can be interpreted as offering tacit agreement to MR's position, and is not a necessarily factual description of Robinson's intention. I first read Robinson's review when it came out, and did not in any way perceive the statement to be sardonic. It seemed to me that she was simply pointing out a cogent similarity (as she sees it) between Harris' and the unitarian's ideas. For the comparison to be "sardonic" she'd have to be degrading the unitarians in some way as well, and this does not seem to be what she intended at all. (Just a note, I'm not suggesting this because I like the unitarians, but because it seems to me that Robinson does.) In the interest of fairness, however, I will refrain from replacing the change I made (which Cloonmore duly reverted) until I've received a response, assuming that response comes within a couple of days.--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of response I have made the change. If anyone takes exception, let's discuss it here before changing it again, eh?--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A new "debates" section?

I've given some further thought to the idea that the Craig section should be deleted completely (and Cloonmore, I am glad to see we could agree on something) but have thought of another possible solution. In addition to the debate with Craig, Harris also participated in "The Great Debate: Can Science determine Human values" hosted by The Science Network, which was convened to debate the assertions made by Harris in The Moral Landscape. (I mentioned this earlier, see above.) Since both of these debates bear upon the book and contain public responses to it (both positive and negative), a section describing them both might be appropriate. Most non-fiction best-sellers don't provoke public debates like these, so that fact does seem rather notable. HOWEVER, I think that this new "debates" section should be shorter than the current section about the Craig debate to prevent bloat and make this a leaner, meaner article. This is not the book itself we're talking about, after all, but its public impact. Opinions?--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I was about to post here to say that the Craig debate should be deleted, but I see that's already been discussed (at least tangentially). I'm going to boldly remove it now. The subject of this article is Harris' book (not the content of his book), and I don't see how Craig's debate relates to that. I could, perhaps, justify a one-sentence mention that "Sam Harris and William Lane Craig debated on the subject..." if we are first able to establish a reliable secondary source clearly and directly linking the debate to Harris' book. Any more content than that, particularly a point-by-point replay, seems to be undue weight. I'm happy to discuss this further, if wanted. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As you state it, I agree completely.--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

This edit, which has been repeatedly introduced, is not appropriate without a reliable source. Youtube is not a reliable source. To justify this inclusion, we need secondary coverage of the comment.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:VIDEOLINK - Youtube can be a reliable source. Secondary sources are not required unless there is some interpretation of the content. My edit consists of direct quotes and a summary of what Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg said in his criticism of the book. This does not constitute a BLP violation, since this is purely criticism of the book, not the author. Please justify your repeated reverts. Saint91 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You broke 3rr trying to force this content into the article. You should revert your most recent edit and discuss it first, or you are likely to be blocked. The criticism you've inserted says that Harris' ideas are "nonsense", which certainly places it in the purview of WP:BLP.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As detailed on the page, you broke 3rr first, by trying to remove sourced criticism that had been added to the page. I only did this to prevent the content from being suppressed, subsequent to your own reverts. The criticism comes from a Nobel Laureate, Steven Weinberg, who stated this criticism at a gathering of academics. He described Harris' ideas as nonsense (not the man himself). Weinberg also explained the way he felt they were nonsense. This and this alone was added to the article, not an attack on Sam Harris himself. This in no way falls foul of WP:BLP. Saint91 (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No action was taken after the 3RR report. User:Mann_jess's problems with the edit were:

1. "Youtube is not a reliable source."

ANSWER: WP:VIDEOLINK shows how it can be.

2. It falls in "the purview of WP:BLP".

ANSWER: When closing the report, User:EdJohnston stated: "If you're uncertain whether a BLP issue exists, ask at WP:BLPN. Quoting the published views of a notable person whose comments are relevant is not 'libelous' for purposes of WP:3RRNO item #7. If you don't think the Youtube video constitutes a reliable source ask at WP:RSN."

- Revision as of 15:56, 21 March 2014

User:EdJohnston also commented: "I don't see a BLP argument for either side here, if we are quoting the exact words of Steven Weinberg's criticism, and there is no reasonable doubt that he did make that statement at a conference. It is up to consensus whether the words he spoke are important enough to include in the article."

- Revision as of 19:49, 20 March 2014

Are there any other arguments to address before the content is re-added to the article? Saint91 (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You haven't sufficiently addressed the concerns. I'll reiterate that WP:VIDEOLINK is an essay, not policy. Even still, it says youtube is discouraged, and provides a number of reasons. We require secondary coverage to include any content like this. On top of that, the commentary adds nothing of value to the article, besides indicating that Steven Weinberg disagrees with Harris. Find secondary coverage of this, and we can consider including it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:VIDEOLINK is a supplement that is directly linked from a content guideline page, WP:CITE. It's not just something to be dismissed - it's specifically designed to provide advice for Wikipedia editors in circumstances like this. It does not say that there is a blanket ban on Youtube as you have claimed - rather it asks us to consider whether the original producer is a reliable source, it asks if it is informative rather than promotional content, etc. In every sense, this link satisfies the criteria. It was produced by Sean M. Carroll who is a reliable source. The video itself features multiple scientists and philosophers at an academic conference, and each and every person present in the video is a reliable source. There is no reasonable doubt that they are saying these words.

You have asserted that a secondary source is required for the addition of this content. However, both WP:VIDEOLINK and WP:OR permit the use of primary sources, so long as there is no original research. My edit did not interpret his comment - it consisted of a direct quote from Steven Weinberg and a summary of what he said. Nor is the criticism a BLP violation, as you have previously claimed.

3. User:Mann_jess's newest objection to the inclusion of the content is that "it adds nothing of value to the article."

ANSWER: The edit adds comments by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, in which he explains why he is unconvinced by Sam Harris' arguments about human well-being. It says Sam Harris attempts to dodge the usual criticisms of utilitarianism by using an even vaguer term for the highest good. It says that by using increasingly vague terms, the idea becomes essentially nonsensical as a standard by which we can make moral judgements. Even Sam Harris would likely acknowledge the significance of Steven Weinberg's thoughts - he adds articles by Steven Weinberg to his own website. In summary, this adds reasoned criticism to the article from a highly notable, reliable source, and is therefore of value to the article. Saint91 (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think the argument of unreliability is untenable. It's Sean Carroll's own youtube channel for the event he hosted (see [1]) and that's clearly Weinberg saying those things. Weight is a different argument though.

I think it's worth pointing out that reviews are strange things, because really they are primary for their own point of view, but secondary for some specific commentary about the book. Weinberg's comments are just as much primary as any review is though; we are quoting what the reviewer said in each case, and so with Weinberg. A secondary source for a review would be someone commenting on the review. I think his distance from the book makes him effectively secondary and his comments may be relevant. The difference is the prominence of the other reviews though. They are featured on newspapers etc for the purpose of providing reviews. For sure anyway I think the quote is too long. It could easily be half the length and say the same point. Second Quantization (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I trimmed the sentence about Weinberg being annoyed, the rest of the text seems fine. I think it adds to the article, Second Quantization (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)