Is Sam Harris a Legitimate Neuroscientist?

[jongarvey]

@Djordje

Who, if I may ask, is the singer?

Modesty prevents…

(Not actually as plummy as that!)

[Djordje]

@jongarvey

Modesty prevents…

You have a voice of an angel.

[PdotdQ]

@dga471

In experimental particle physics, where the experiments are designed by thousands of people and run by only a few staff scientists and technicians, there are plenty of experimental high energy PhDs who spent most of their thesis finding new ways to analyze data or optimizing some aspect of the experiment without getting to actually run the whole thing.

I agree that my view breaks down for huge collaborations like CMS or ATLAS. However, I think it is clear that Harris’ experiment, which can be done by one person (JTK), does not excuse him from not doing his own experiments.

@dga471

Depends on which field of physics… In my field of precision measurement for fundamental physics, it is common for an experiment to publish a major paper only once every 5 years, or even longer, with only minor smaller ones in between.

Your field is an exception then. I don’t know any other field of physics in which this is true. Even grad students who work in large collaborations like ATLAS, who do not publish first author papers in journals, still publish multiple internal papers - which then become chapters in their thesis before they graduate.

Note that:

@dga471

There have been grad students in our lab (some of whom went on to faculty or permanent research positions) who published only one major paper by the time they graduated

This also happens in say, astrophysics. It is possible to get a faculty job with one extremely good and well cited paper. But this “put all eggs in one basket” scientists are very far from typical.

@evograd

“he hasn’t published enough papers to call himself a neuroscientist”

@evograd

“he doesn’t deserve his PhD since he didn’t do the experiments to get the results he analysed”.

I never said these. My point is just that not all PhDs are minted equally.

@evograd

I’ve never seen Harris try and use his title of “neuroscientist” to bludgeon his opponents or puff himself up, and I think most of his “fans” are perfectly aware of his status, not under illusions that he’s a distinguished professor of neuroscience

I do not think that this is true. He gained fame in the New Atheist community as a neuroscientist who uses his neuroscience to debunk religion. In my experience talking with people who support his views, they will invariably mention his being a neuroscientist within the first few minutes of the conversation. Look at @NLENTS’s comment that sparks this thread for example. He felt the need to mention Sam Harris being a neuroscientist to somehow support Harris’ philosophy.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@PdotdQ

evograd:

“he hasn’t published enough papers to call himself a neuroscientist”

evograd:

“he doesn’t deserve his PhD since he didn’t do the experiments to get the results he analysed”.

I never said these. My point is just that not all PhDs are minted equally.

In response to Nathan calling Harris a neuroscientist, you said:

“This is extremely dubious. Sam Harris I believe only ever produce ~3 papers in neuroscience, the last of which is in 2011.”

How am I to read that other than you suggesting that co-authoring ~3 (4 actually) papers in neuroscience isn’t enough to call himself a neuroscientist?

I didn’t say that you said the second statement (“he doesn’t deserve his PhD since he didn’t do the experiments to get the results he analysed”) I said you implied it. I think you implied it when you said:

You can ask @swamidass whether he would graduate a grad student who did not do their own experiment (or in @swamidass’s case numerical simulations) for their own thesis.

To me, that’s pretty clearly meant to suggest that the idea of a PI graduating a PhD student “who did not do their own experiment for their own thesis” (i.e. like Harris) is dubious. In other words, Harris didn’t do the appropriate work to earn his PhD, in your eyes.

@PdotdQ

evograd:

I’ve never seen Harris try and use his title of “neuroscientist” to bludgeon his opponents or puff himself up, and I think most of his “fans” are perfectly aware of his status, not under illusions that he’s a distinguished professor of neuroscience

I do not think that this is true. He gained fame in the New Atheist community as a neuroscientist who uses his neuroscience to debunk religion. In my experience talking with people who support his views, they will invariably mention his being a neuroscientist within the first few minutes of the conversation. Look at @NLENTS’s comment that sparks this thread for example. He felt the need to mention Sam Harris being a neuroscientist to somehow support Harris’ philosophy.

I can’t speak to his rise in the “new atheist” community, that was before I paid any attention to Harris or new atheism. Mentioning that Harris is a neuroscientist is quite different from saying “look, he’s a neuroscientist, therefore he’s right about everything he says on all subjects relating to neuroscience”. I think you’re reading too much into how @NLENTS phrased his introduction of Harris in that thread.

[PdotdQ]

@evograd

How am I to read that other than you suggesting that co-authoring ~3 (4 actually) papers in neuroscience isn’t enough to call himself a neuroscientist?

I can see how it can be viewed that way, but I do not mean that a certain number of papers is a requirement to be called a scientist. I do mean that being in active research is important in calling oneself a scientist. The rate upon which paper is produced is highly correlated to one actively doing science or not.

@evograd

I didn’t say that you said the second statement (“he doesn’t deserve his PhD since he didn’t do the experiments to get the results he analysed”) I said you implied it. I think you implied it when you said:

Much like perhaps I read too much into @NLENTS comments, here you are reading too much into my comment. I do mean that certain advisors will allow someone a PhD with stronger requirements than other advisors. There is no denying that he has a PhD, this is just a trivial observable fact.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@PdotdQ

I do mean that being in active research is important in calling oneself a scientist. The rate upon which paper is produced is highly correlated to one actively doing science or not.

How would you answer the questions I posed in my original comment then? How many papers does a person have to publish before they’re allowed to call themselves a “scientist”? How many years after doing research does it take before a person is forbidden to use the title of “scientist” any longer?

I suppose you’d say that you’re a “scientist” as long as you’re actively doing research, but then do you lose the right to that title when you finish up all your immediate projects and step away to do something non-research related? If I work in research for 20 years, publishing dozens of papers, then decide to become, say, a science journalist, would you think it inappropriate for me to be introduced as “a scientist” in some contexts?

@PdotdQ

I do mean that certain advisors will allow someone a PhD with stronger requirements than other advisors. There is no denying that he has a PhD, this is just a trivial observable fact.

Of course it is, and I never suggested that you were denying that he has a PhD, I was suggesting that you think he doesn’t deserve it. I really don’t think I was reading too much into what you said there.

[PdotdQ]

@evograd

How would you answer the questions I posed in my original comment then? How many papers does a person have to publish before they’re allowed to call themselves a “scientist”?

As a I said,

@PdotdQ

I do not mean that a certain number of papers is a requirement to be called a scientist.

Being a scientist is about being involved in active research.

@evograd

I suppose you’d say that you’re a “scientist” as long as you’re actively doing research, but then do you lose the right to that title when you finish up all your immediate projects and step away to do something non-research related?

Yes.

@evograd

If I work in research for 20 years, publishing dozens of papers, then decide to become, say, a science journalist, would you think it inappropriate for me to be introduced as “a scientist” in some contexts?

No, I do not think it is appropriate to introduce you as a scientist in this case.

@evograd

Of course it is, and I never suggested that you were denying that he has a PhD, I was suggesting that you think he doesn’t deserve it. I really don’t think I was reading too much into what you said there.

Sorry I misread you text. However, I do think that you are reading too much to my comment. I think who deserves a PhD is anyone who can convince an advisor+institution to give you one, my point has always been that this means a different standard for different advisors and institutions. PhDs from a creationist university is a PhD, and students with PhDs from creationist universities deserve this title. But the title do not entail that the person is capable of the same standard of scientific rigor as graduates from scientific programs.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@PdotdQ

No, I do not think it is appropriate to introduce you as a scientist in this case.

Ok, so really your gripe with Harris using the title “neuroscientist” is that he’s not an active researcher, although he does seem to occasionally publish, like most recently in 2016. How would that kind of “very part-time” research activity factor into your view? Also, how should we refer to retired scientists in general?

@PdotdQ

I think who deserves a PhD is anyone who can convince an advisor+institution to give you one, my point has always been that this means a different standard for different advisors and institutions.

Personally I think this is a bit problematic, but ok. So Harris deserves his PhD (by virtue of the fact that he has one), you just think his work was of a lower than average standard. I don’t have much to add in that case.

[PdotdQ]

@evograd

Ok, so really your gripe with Harris using the title “neuroscientist” is that he’s not an active researcher

Correct. Keep in mind that I made this statement before knowing that, as you correctly pointed out, that he did publish in 2016. If he is still doing these “part time” research, then he is a scientist, just not a prolific one. Perhaps the term part-time scientist is the most apt description.

@evograd

Also, how should we refer to retired scientists in general?

They are retired scientists.

Just to be clear, when I respond to the negative on this statement:

@evograd

I suppose you’d say that you’re a “scientist” as long as you’re actively doing research, but then do you lose the right to that title when you finish up all your immediate projects and step away to do something non-research related?

I do not mean that when you are brewing coffee in the morning you are not a scientist. I mean that someone who has finished their projects and then move on to say, science popularizing is not a scientist.

I am against the fetishizing of scientists in society. A scientist is a job like a car mechanic is. All my answers to the questions you ask can be answered just by substituting “car mechanic” into “scientist”.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@PdotdQ

I am against the fetishizing of scientists in society. A scientist is a job like a car mechanic is. All my answers to the questions you ask can be answered just by substituting “car mechanic” into “scientist”.

Ok, I disagree slightly but you are being consistent.

[NLENTS (Nathan H. Lents)]

Yes, y’all are reading way too much into why I called him a neuroscientist. It wasn’t anything about credentials and definitely not about authority. I was making the point that he came to his positions from the perspective of science. That’s all I meant. I probably didn’t state the position well and I certainly left out a lot of the details, caveats, and corollaries, but the moral landscape does claim a place for science in the discussion of morality, and not just to support the “real” home of this question in philosophy or theology or whatever. Also, I didn’t know about how questionable his papers and PhD are, but I did know that he left science quickly and only got the PhD in support of his real work as a public intellectual, something I do not condemn. I wish all people who claim authority in the public sphere would get a terminal degree first. But, as others have said, I’ve never heard him use his PhD or his publications as proof he’s a scientist, though others do.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

There’s some irony in making a comment about not making a point about credentials and authority via an email that contains all your credentials at the end

[PdotdQ]

@NLENTS

Yes, y’all are reading way too much into why I called him a neuroscientist. It wasn’t anything about credentials and definitely not about authority.

Thank you for the clarification and my apologize for reading too much into your statements.

In any case, evaluating the claim of the moral landscape itself is more interesting than evaluating whether Harris is a scientist or not. I would love to hear your response to my post Can Science Demonstrate Racism or Genocide is Morally Wrong? - #49 by PdotdQ and @jongarvey’s post Can Science Demonstrate Racism or Genocide is Morally Wrong? - #58 by jongarvey in the original thread.

Note that

@NLENTS

but the moral landscape does claim a place for science in the discussion of morality

That science has a place in the discussion of morality is not new, and indeed is a trivial consequence once one adopts utilitarianism. This is also not the central claim of the moral landscape. The central claim of the moral landscape is that the is-ought gap can be bridged and that the entirety of the field of morality, including the axioms of morality (e.g. why pick utilitarianism over deontological ethics, and why one choose a particular utility function) can be obtained through science.

[NLENTS (Nathan H. Lents)]

@evograd

There’s some irony in making a comment about not making a point about credentials and authority via an email that contains all your credentials at the end

That was a mistake because I sent my reply by email from my phone, but thanks for the snark. Super helpful.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

I was only making a joke.

[NLENTS (Nathan H. Lents)]

@PdotdQ

The central claim of the moral landscape is that the is-ought gap can be bridged and that the entirety of the field of morality, including the axioms of morality (e.g. why pick utilitarianism over deontological ethics, and why one choose a particular utility function) can be obtained through science.

Right. I certainly don’t follow him all the way there, and I agree that he hasn’t done a ton to clear up what could be the major shortfalls of this idea, that many others have you pointed out. I hope no one thinks that I’m a zealous disciple of him or his ideas on morality, but he definitely made me think differently about the role of science in this discussion and I’m glad he did.

Also, someone in the thread maligned him for his work on psychidelics and meditation, but I would say that he is helping to bring some important ideas into the mainstream. Both psychedelic drugs and meditation (and other ego-quieting techniques) are showing great promise in the treatment of certain mental illness and the general maintenance of mental health. In general, I think very few of us engage methods to “quiet our minds” often enough. Some religious practices generally do this well (meditation, certain forms of prayer, contemplative worship, etc.) and so I think it’s very important that there are secular alternatives for those that aren’t interested in religion. I wish I could carve out time to meditate and I keep saying I will. But I do get this effect a little bit when I run. When I really work at it (and when I run in a peaceful place where I don’t have to be alert or make decisions), I can really quiet my mind so that I really “veg out” and I’m not actually thinking about anything. I can get to that point for 10-15 minutes at a time sometimes and it’s extremely satisfying and rejuvenating when I do. I’m sure the endorphins and endocannabinoids help with that euphoric feeling, too. Anyway, there are plenty of things that Sam does and says that make me cringe, but he has some merit as a public intellectual as well.

[PdotdQ]

@NLENTS

Right. I certainly don’t follow him all the way there, and I agree that he hasn’t done a ton to clear up what could be the major shortfalls of this idea, that many others have you pointed out.

I am curious, if you did not go “all the way there” into his conclusions that

@PdotdQ

the is-ought gap can be bridged and that the entirety of the field of morality, including the axioms of morality (e.g. why pick utilitarianism over deontological ethics, and why one choose a particular utility function) can be obtained through science.

Then how far did you go? It seems to me that said conclusion is the essential thing that separates Harris from the many utilitarian/consequentialist before him. How can you claim that your views are shaped by the moral landscape if you reject its central thesis?

[NLENTS (Nathan H. Lents)]

@PdotdQ

How can you claim that your views are shaped by the moral landscape if you reject its central thesis?

I said he made me think differently. Can you ask your question without putting words in my mouth or exaggerating what I actually say?

[PdotdQ]

Before I answer, my main point is that

@PdotdQ

I am against the fetishizing of scientists in society. A scientist is a job like a car mechanic is. All my answers to the questions you ask can be answered just by substituting “car mechanic” into “scientist”.

I believe that the fetishizing of scientist in society is the cause of scientists reaching beyond their expertise to make naive statements about philosophy/morals/politics/etc with false authority.

That said,

@NLENTS

What about someone who gets a PhD, postdoc, faculty position, publishes a lot, moves up the ranks, tenured, then full professor… but then moves into administration. If she becomes a dean and gives up her lab, is she not a scientist anymore

If she does not work in science anymore, then no, she is not a scientist. A car mechanic that moves to become an admin is not a car mechanic still.

@NLENTS

Could it be that once you’ve earned the label, you get it for life?

Again, in my view scientist is a profession, not a label that one gets for life.

@NLENTS

Another example… Ian Tattersall is retired and doesn’t do any lab work anymore, but he publishes about a book a year (mostly in university presses, so scholarly and peer-reviewed) and still writes articles in the peer reviewed literature, mostly commentaries and review articles, but those are scholarly and can have impact, even if they aren’t primary papers.

I don’t know what these books are, and how much science is in it. If he is still engaging in science, then he is still a scientist. One does not need to work at a lab to engage in scientific work. I am a theoretical physicist. I have not been in a lab for over half a decade.

@NLENTS

I said he made me think differently. Can you ask your question without putting words in my mouth or exaggerating what I actually say?

I apologize, I have then misinterpreted your previous statements:

My thinking on this has been impacted by Sam Harris’s work and I urge you to read “the moral landscape.”

this is grounded in scholarship on moral philosophy and it came to me through the writings of Sam Harris, a neuroscientist

But the question stands:
If you did not go “all the way there”, then how far did you go? Do you affirm anything more than the typical utilitarianist/consequentialist? If so, then science cannot demonstrate that racism or genocide is morally wrong.