20
21

More intellectuals like Sam? (self.samharris)

Sjoerd920 が 投稿

Hey guys are there more intellectuals like Sam. I am not really looking for an atheist but just people who have intellectual honest and sound discussions. Doesn't really have to be about philosophy.

Thanks in advance

Greetings from the Netherlands.

全 70 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]coincrazyy 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Nobody mentioned Dan Carlin.

Dan Carlin is a hobby historian (hardcore history podcast) which is probably why no one mentioned him, but he also has a podcast named common sense which is him sharing his opinions on current and past events.

He and Sam meet intellectually on many points, and miss on a few too.

I actually share Dan's opinion of trump/Hillary more so than Sam's

[–]MazzMediator 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Dan is the man. Strangely enough, Dan's Hardcore History (HH) was the first podcast I ever listened to after I saw that Sam recommended it on his blog. Over 2 years later, and Waking Up, Common Sense, and Hardcore History are my favorite podcasts.

For anyone who hasn't listened to HH, it is the best history podcast out there (imo). Even if you only have the slightest interest in history, Dan pulls you in like none other, and his preparation and spectacular narration will have you binging.

As for Common Sense, it is a little bit harder than HH to go back and listen to older episodes, because some start to become less relevant out of the context of the times. BUT, there are definitely some great eps from the past year that comment on the election. Dan pokes and prods at issues and leaves you answering relevant questions that you haven't ever heard asked before.

Now I'll step off my "listen to Dan Carlin!" soapbox.

[–]FurryFingers 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I 2nd this. Dan is a smart, careful thinking, reasonable guy. Well worth listening to.

[–]Polemicize 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I actually share Dan's opinion of trump/Hillary more so than Sam's

Can you summarize Dan's position? I haven't listened to him in a while.

[–]coincrazyy 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

He hates them both equally. He is guided more by his personal moral compass than coldly voting for Hillary as a way to ensure trump doesn't become president.

His stance has an ironic punchline. He has for years, supposedly, been yearning for a "out of the box" candidate that shakes up the establishment. He says it's a cosmic joke of epic proportions that Donald Trump happened to appear and is carrying that banner.

He won't say who specifically he is voting for though he states that even if Donald trump is elected the many layers of checks and balances will ensure he can't accomplish anything. He really dislikes trump so I don't think he is voting for him regardless of this fact.

[–]Polemicize 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think any moral code or compass that favors its own rigidity to the utilitarian value associated with a pragmatic, "lesser of two evils" vote is worthy of criticism, especially when it's based upon a certain intellectual laziness in refusing to adequately distinguish two distinct candidates.

That is to say, while hating Trump and Clinton equally is arguably defensible, believing that their presidencies would be equal or look anything alike certainly isn't. They're wildly different people who advocate wildly different policies. Once you acknowledge that, it simply becomes a matter of assessing which will do less harm. If Dan Carlin or anyone else hasn't come up with an answer to that question yet, it's because of a failure to engage in this analysis, and given everything that's at stake in this election, that's a huge problem.

EDIT: Relying on checks and balances as a restraint on the power Trump would have as president is silly. He would be the most powerful person in the world, and that's frightening enough.

I'd urge you to really look into Jill Stein and the crazy things she has said. I'd also urge you to reconsider the extent to which Trump and Clinton are distinguishable. Finally, consider that pragmatism isn't in conflict with any respectable moral code, it's a prerequisite.

[–]anclepodas 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wonderfully said. If you start your own podcast, let me know

[–]coincrazyy -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

while hating Trump and Clinton equally is arguably defensible, believing that their presidencies would be equal or look anything alike certainly isn't.

I never said Dan Carlin hated both candidates for the same reasons so everything you state afterwards is irrelevant.

I'd urge you to really look into Jill Stein and the crazy things she has said.

I'd urge you to really look into Hillary Clinton and the crazy things she has done.

[–]Davidjamesinfo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Same, I went and explored Dan's work after Sam's recommendation. Blueprint to armageddon is a masterpiece, Dan is a great storyteller and couldn't stop listening to this till it was finished.

[–]jsuth 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is brief but philosophers tend to have such conversations. Check out philosophy podcasts like Philosophy Bites.

[–]Joplinpicasso 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

In terms of lighter and funnier fare but in the same intellectual, discussion-based ballpark, I'd say Josh Zepps' WeThePeople Live and Neil deGrasse Tyson's Star Talk.

[–]FlerPlay 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't recommend Star Talk. It's quality is all over the place and really tries hard to be like a network production if that makes any sense. A lot of pandering. Dumb jokes, stupid segments with a comedian to keep the attention of the listener. It's clear that it's not meant for science enthusiasts. That has its place of course but in the end you get 15 min of stimulating conversation in a span of 30 min. Not to mention the time wasted by reading ads and music.

[–]MazzMediator 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yup I completely agree. I got disinterested with StarTalk pretty quickly after I listened to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (SGU) and realized how much better/intellectually stimulating a science podcast could be. Now SGU is one of my faves and I haven't listened to StarTalk in over a year.

[–]NuggaInTheMist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah the amount of ads is nuts

[–]n0tpc 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

zosh zepps seems cool, listened to him on rogan's podcast and hannibal debacle podcast.. tyson is just over the top all the time even when the point he is making is pointless, there are many great physicists out there..nobody I've heard is even remotely close to sam.

[–]SgorGhaibre 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Very Bad Wizards is a collaboration between Tamler Sommers, a philosopher, and David Pizarro, a psychologist. Sam Harris has been a guest on their podcast on a couple of occasions and the pair sometimes critique Sam's views.

[–]NihilismPlus 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (13子コメント)

A few off the top of my head

Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Gad Saad, Richard Dawkins, Peter Bogossian, Matt Dillahunty

Not necessarily exactly like Sam but are people intent on having intellectually honest conversations.

Greetings from the UK!

[–]PixyFreakingStix 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Incidentally, I'd love for Matt Dillahunty and Sam Harris to have a conversation. Matt is much more concerned with social justice than Sam is, and thinks political correctness is more valid. But he's very reasonable and honest (as far as I can tell) and it'd be great to hear them have a debate about this stuff.

[–]NihilismPlus 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I really like Matt. Such a conversation would be brilliant.

I have a sneaking suspicion that such concerns are catalysed by their significant others.

All such usually reasonable people often have partners that give the impression that they rally to any and all SJW alarm bells.

No evidence to support this hypothesis, just a hunch.

[–]Slizzard_73 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

SO's really do have an effect from what I've seen. Another host on the atheist experience went off the SJW deep end because of his wife.

[–]Keith-Ledger 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Matt Dillahunty is excellent, or atleast he was - I haven't watched TAE for years now. Very eloquent and impassioned, yet ruthlessly logical and cerebral, much like Sam. A joy to listen to.

[–]NihilismPlus 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He still is. Still listen to AE as a podcast. Really like Tracey Harris. Another great thinker. Not too sure as to how much Matt actually goes for the whole identify politics "SJW" schtick. It is an unfortunate brain sapping trend currently inhibiting conversation in many it seems. Matt was definitely influence on my embracing of scepticism.

[–]Sjoerd920[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I will certainly check out Matt Dillahunty. I like when a discussion is not driven by emotion.

[–]Feierskov 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He has his own channel on YouTube where he posts a lot of debates and deconstructions of religious arguments.

[–]FlerPlay 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maan... TAE is so old school. Always felt bad for them for having 0 budget

[–]GKCanman 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Matt has recently done a few debates posted on youtube if you're into listening to the apologists on the other side.

[–]n0tpc 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Gad Saad is brilliant, has his own podcast on youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLH7qUqM0PLieCVaHA7RegA very insightful and intellectually honest opinions.

[–]common_crow 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Gad Saad is so up his own arse I can't bear to listen to him.

[–]chartbuster 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I have a hard time getting past Gads voice as well. Call me shallow. A lot of "clear talkers" as I like to call them... Sam has had a few on his podcast, Paul Bloom being the most guilty and unlistenable. It's kind of a Californian hard R hard CL sound that irks the hell out of me. Every word with an R sound, the stress on the R is incredibly hollow and over clarified.

[–]tyzad 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't care about his accent, I care about his self-righteousness and arrogance.

[–]BWV639 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Peter Singer is an interesting philosopher who's pretty easy to digest for the layman. And he talks a little like sam (very mellow)

[–]thedugong 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU

[–]FlerPlay 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah but you won't find good material by him. Just his books.

Here and there, there is a badly recorded lecture but lectures aren't dynamic and hard to listen to

[–]hjjslu 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's a conversation on bloggingheads between Singer and Tyler Cowen. Honestly Cowen comes out looking quite a bit better imo but Singer holds up reasonably well to a pretty tough interview. Very intellectually stimulating conversation all around.

[–]english_major 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Steven Pinker. Right now, I am reading The Blank Slate. He has that same incredible way of being so much more articulate than you could imagine being yourself.

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]bobthebuildor 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Already some great ones but I'll add a few that haven't been mentioned.

    • Richard Feynmen (probably the modern standard for an intellectual)
    • Yuval Noah Harari
    • Sean Carroll
    • John Searle

    • Stuart Hammeroff

    • Closertotruth is a PBS show and YT channel that features a variety of intellectuals with some theologians mixed in.

    I would also recommend some reading as well - Thomas Paine major works - Common Sense & Rights of Man - Socrates and Plato's Republic in particular. - Mary Wollstonecraft - one of the first feminists, inspired in some ways by Paine

    Then Hitch of course, even though others have mentioned him, he is the only human being I know of who I disagree with vehemently on multiple issues but whose arguments I can't honestly rebut.

    [–]ggliddy357 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Carroll's book The Big Picture was damn good.

    [–]FurryFingers 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    I have a feeling OP is looking for people who are alive and discussing things now

    [–]bobthebuildor 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    so he/she can ask them questions? :p

    [–]FurryFingers 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    So he can follow them on current issues

    [–]bobthebuildor 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    most of the ones I gave are up and kicking, the reading material is beneficial far beyond current issues, OP said looking for people who have intellectually honest discussions so idk.

    [–]SilentMajority420 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Alan Watts

    [–]Davidjamesinfo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Most good ones have been mentioned, some other good personalities also with podcasts that you can check out quickly:

    Skeptics with a K - Mike Hall, Michael Marshall and Alice Howarth tackle pseudoscience, woo and various other stuff in a light hearted funny manner. (Im a patron of the Merseyside skeptics - they do great work)

    The infinite monkey cage - Prof Brian Cox and Rob Ince.. Need I say more?

    The skeptics guide to the universe - Always consistently good and smart with Steve Novella

    The you are not so smart podcast - Matt Dilahunty said this is the only podcast he really listens to. Explores critical thinking, logical fallacies etc..

    [–]CrashBand777 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Steven Pinker is the person you are looking for. He's measured and incredibly intellectually honest.

    He doesn't have a podcast, but he has written many excellent books. There's also a bunch of youtube clips of him.

    I have a hunch that Steve is (one of) Harris's favourite intellectual lol.

    [–]tabularassa 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Douglas Murray

    [–]Huldipapin 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Thomas Sowell. If you want to leave the 'liberal' leftie echo chamber then hes great.

    [–]CaptainStack 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Ezra Klein, the editor-in-chief of Vox.com. He has a longform interview show a lot like Waking Up called The Ezra Klein Show, and a 3-person policy discussion show called The Weeds. I would say that those two plus Waking Up are my top 3 podcasts. Klein and Harris appearing on each others' podcasts would basically make my life.

    [–]ilikehillaryclinton 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Yuck, Ezra is really not intellectually thorough (or honest) at all.

    [–]CaptainStack 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Any specific articles/claims you can share that demonstrates this? I think The Weeds is the most thorough policy discussion show I'm aware of.

    [–]Davidjamesinfo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    As for the more intellectual intellectuals; you may want to pick books up from:

    Obviously Dawkins and Hitchens. Sean Carrol, Ben Goldacre, Lawrence Krauss, Alice Roberts, Kat Arney, Steven Pinker, Jared Diamond and Peter Borghossian.

    All great authors

    [–]BridgesOnBikes 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    On the topic of race relations and racism I love the conversations that Glenn Loury and John McWhorter are having on Bloggingheads TV. Here is a link to the most recent Pod: http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/44020

    [–]nate_rausch 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Steven Pinker is a really close analogue, both in writing and in audio. His style is similarly calm, reasoned and intelligent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH4tf-w-RKA

    David Chalmers is a philosopher, unfortunately doesn't have so much content out, but he is also insightful and clear https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzg2godidZE

    Another from Sam's podcast is David Deutsch, after the podcast I read his book the beginning of infinity and it is AMAZING https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J21QuHrIqXg

    [–]Sjoerd920[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    thanks

    [–]Sjoerd920[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Another from Sam's podcast is David Deutsch, after the podcast I read his book the beginning of infinity and it is AMAZING https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J21QuHrIqXg

    I am listening to it now and I am really liking it. Thinking about buying his book.

    [–]TotesMessenger 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

    If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

    [–]AndTheBeatGoesOnAnd -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I met a new one this week as it happens.

    I went to a Skeptics in the Pub talk entitled is "Is Islam really Violent?". I was convinced it was going to be regressive but in fact it could have easily have come from Sam. The Speaker was Jonathan Pearce, a philosopher, author and Podcaster ("Skepticule").

    He's also written on Free Will, Morality, and Christianity.

    [–]interestme1 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    I think this is the wrong question to ask. Rather the question should be just "Where can I find more open, honest, and intellectually based conversations."

    Why the distinction? Name-dropping is in itself anti-intellectual, and unfortunately anyone who gains any amount of steam and publicity is bound to have their ego get in the way of their goals of an open and honest discussion. It's just how it works.

    Anyway I understand the pursuit, and it's one I have too, but what I really would like would be anonymous arguments presented without all the preambles that come with having to defend and position one's ego. If we think toward that rather than this person vs this person I think it becomes a better conversation.

    [–]Sjoerd920[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    When I meant like Sam, I didn't mean people who think like Sam. I mean someone who will use data and logic to argue their point in a honest and unemotional (Don't really mean without emotion but not emotion driven) conversation or debate. I don't always agree with Sam but I love to hear him talk.

    I thought this would be the place to ask because I am counting on the people that are in to the same thing follow Sam and therefor are here. I wouldn't know where to ask. r/philosophy is not really an option for me because I like philosophy but not to the extent they are talking about. I like open and honest conversation about more material and mundane things like foreign policy/climate policy etc.

    [–]interestme1 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    When I meant like Sam, I didn't mean people who think like Sam.

    Sure i didn't think you did. I didn't mean to criticize you really as I too seek the same thing (I think his podcast is really one of a kind when it comes to the depth and breadth of discussion topics though I hope it does inspire more, it is truly fantastic). More I just meant to insert my own bit that I didn't think others would and offer what I think is absolutely important advice in this day and age: trust/evaluate the idea not the source.

    I think that when you look at the problems in the domain of philosophical discussion, they can almost always be attributed to ego. Breakdowns in communication, slander or mud-slinging, groupthink, political correctness, talking past one another and creating straw mans, etc, etc, these are all bourn of an innate desire to be right and assert oneself as such. Of course it is important to try and find what's right, but as I said I think the best path to that end would be to find a way to position ideas without a person attached to them. Let the ideas speak for themselves stripped of the various cognitive tools we use for persuasion and evaluate the chips.

    Anyway, I completely understand your question and have had it myself as well. I just any time I can like to warn against following people rather than ideas.

    [–]Davidjamesinfo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Not convinced about "anti-intellectual name dropping".

    We look to our peers and authorities in subjects of interest. The only purpose of referring the O/P to these individuals is so he/she may go explore their ideas. The good thing about most the recommended people listed on this thread are they are mostly critical thinkers, scientists and sceptics. All will be aware of cognitive dissonance, biases and ego's. Still fallible apes; But possibly some of the least fallible apes we have.

    [–]interestme1 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    We look to our peers and authorities in subjects of interest.

    Right but this is a problem I think to some extent, and it needs to be controlled for. Just as when conducting a scientific experiment it's important to maintain objectivity and factor out biases of the self and peers, in philosophical discussions it's just as important to control for these biases and remove them whenever possible.

    And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying dabbling in the people listed here is a bad thing, it's certainly a great place to start. After all one has to gain exposure to certain ideas to get the ball rolling and people are often easier to find than ideas when one doesn't know quite what one's looking for. My point was though to be wary about seeking out an "authority," and to be aware the most fruitful discussion will always come without the burden of egos or worship/condemnation that inevitably gets attached to the ever more public eye.

    [–]Davidjamesinfo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Apologies if i strawman you here but I'm trying to understand your position. Are you saying we shouldn't seek out authorities in subjects and that peoples motives can't be trusted if they are in the public eye?

    If Sam Harris published an article tomorrow declaring the earth is flat, he would be ridiculed by everyone on this page but he may still be correct on Islam for example. We take peoples individual arguments and critique them on their merit. It seems you have low expectations that individuals can critically think and separate ideas from people.

    "And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying dabbling in the people listed here is a bad thing, it's certainly a great place to start" - This was all the the O/P asked

    [–]interestme1 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Apologies if i strawman you here but I'm trying to understand your position.

    To avoid the strawman here you'll need to acknowledge a bit of nuance to understand what it is I'm saying.

    Are you saying we shouldn't seek out authorities in subjects and that peoples motives can't be trusted if they are in the public eye?

    Kind of. "Authority" is important to be able to be able to recognize expertise, but if over-relied on it can stifle creative thinking and lead to rhetorical back and forth. In philosophy especially there is often an over-reliance on using arguments like, "Well this person says this," or "As so and so argues," when the person saying it should be wholly irrelevant to the discussion. It often serves mainly to discourage dissent against a trustworthy authority.

    If Sam Harris published an article tomorrow declaring the earth is flat, he would be ridiculed by everyone on this page but he may still be correct on Islam for example.

    For sure.

    peoples motives can't be trusted if they are in the public eye?

    Audiences affect people. There's just no way around that. The bigger the audience the greater the effect. It changes motivations, actions, thoughts, etc. I'm not saying you can't trust motives, but it would be naive to ignore the impact.

    It seems you have low expectations that individuals can critically think and separate ideas from people.

    Not at all. However when I see a thread where someone is looking for philosophical discussions and most people just give names then I think they may be missing the point.

    And here's where the nuance is important. Of course I'm not saying people can't at all separate the person from the idea. But it would again be naive to presume we can separate those perfectly and we're not frequently subject to forms of biased thinking that prevent clear thinking on a subject. The fact that Sam frequently feels it necessary to conduct "housekeeping" before episodes to defend himself against others is I think the clearest example (in the given context) of how frequently battles of the ego can usurp or become muddled in the free exchange of ideas.

    "And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying dabbling in the people listed here is a bad thing, it's certainly a great place to start" - This was all the the O/P asked

    Sure, and they got plenty of feedback they probably were looking for. I just offered a slight aside I thought may be helpful. Maybe the OP didn't find it helpful. So it goes.

    [–]Davidjamesinfo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I think we agree mostly but still differ on authority. Agreed on nuance, an authority shouldn't be given a free pass; Which is why we still only hold any information given even from an authority as 'likely accurate' until we have chance to verify.

    However, If i want to know to understand about Memetics/cultural information transfer; I'd consult an authority - Dawkins (Bearing in mind the caveat in the first paragraph) and, If someone was to ask me about memetics - I'd recommend they consult Dawkins work - an authority and source on the subject. Every time we pick up a book, we look to an authority on the given subject.

    Good point highlighting Sams housekeeping. I think this only realistically proves not everyone is led by reason and critical thought (or are genuinely malicious in some cases). Guessing their motives isn't an area I'm going to speculate in.

    [–]interestme1 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    If i want to know to understand about Memetics/cultural information transfer; I'd consult an authority

    Sure, it's the easiest way to do so. It's a hueristic method, and like all such methods useful for speed but you sacrifice some accuracy. If you were wanting to discuss various disputed ideas in Memetics it would be ideal to be presented faceless ideas so you can evaluate them void of any other presuppositions.

    Good point highlighting Sams housekeeping. I think this only realistically proves not everyone is led by reason and critical thought (or are genuinely malicious in some cases). Guessing their motives isn't an area I'm going to speculate in.

    I think perhaps you think I made a different point than I was trying to. What I was trying to hint at was that even on a show like Sam's where he makes a great deal of effort to have an impartial exchange of ideas, because of the spheres he operates in he is often dragged into defending his ego. Also, for me, I follow Sam but I don't follow Glen Greenwald. I've caught myself unfavorably viewing things I see by Glen elsewhere because most of the context I have on his ideas are in a battle of egos. Ideally, the ideas stripped of their owner have better permeability.

    Also look at the apparent upcoming talk Sam and Dawkins are giving that apparently sold out without any content stated. People just want to see them talk, regardless of what it is they're actually going to talk about. Of course this is because people identify with a lot of things I talk about, but it's another example where I think the person becomes more important than the idea, which is at best sub-optimal and potentially dangerous.