![]() |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Neuroscientist?
I don't think he is a real neuroscientist. Jweiss11 has posted a link to a couple of studies Sam Harris helped work on while he was pursuing his degree, but that doesn't mean anything. He never worked as a scientist after he got his degree, or wrote anything that neuroscientists respect. I have a degree in biochemistry and had to write a thesis just like Sam Harris, but I am not a chemist and it's insulting to real neuroscientists to say that he is one.
That is resume padding and it should be removed. It lets ideologues link the credulous to his Wikipedia article as an authority, and say he's a neuroscientist or else Wikipedia wouldn't say it. And I don't think we should let Jweis11's motivated reasoning control this article when his Facebook is covered in Richard Dawkins quotes and he has edited this article repeatedly to undo criticism going back 10 years.
47.145.108.23 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- For others' reference, Harris has published a total of four peer-reviewed studies. These were published in Annals of Neurology (2008), PLoS One (2009), NeuroImage (2011), and Nature Scientific Reports (2016), and they have each been cited 198, 216, 85, and 111 times, respectively. It is true that this would not be enough to maintain a tenure-track position at an R1 or R2 research institution. For perspective, a typical researcher at an R1 university may publish 20-40 articles in a year, and most of those articles will reach 10 citations within a year, while only one of those will surpass 100 citations within five years. However, publishing a peer-reviewed article in a journal by Nature (as Harris did) is extremely competitive, and it is a much more impressive accomplishment than obtaining an equivalent number of citations in a different journal.
- While I personally do not believe Harris would be able to hold a tenure-track position, I also do not think it is unreasonable to consider him a neuroscientist, given his record. Smiiikes (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- He is referred to as a neuroscientist largely because that is how he markets himself. A large percentage of the world's population has one or more degrees in a field, but they are generally not defined by that field unless they have relevant professional experience within it. Also to Smiiikes's comment about his publications record, there is no such journal as Nature Scientific Reports. Scientific Reports is a general science journal with no notability threshold for publication acceptance, ie. they will publish anything provided its methodology is generally sound. Although it is published by Nature group, it is in no way comparable to Nature, or the even the other journals that carry the Nature name in their titles. 2A02:8071:6BA:D500:2DF6:F410:995F:6616 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think WP should use the criterion of "relevant professional experience." That is WP:OR. We are not experts that can assess such experience. We need to go by what independent reliable sources say. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Personal life
The citation for "Harris has been reluctant to discuss personal details such as where he now lives, citing security reasons" is outdated. Harris lives in Los Angeles, which he has mentioned a couple times on the Making Sense podcast (such as ep. #178 & #189). I'm new to editing, so I'm not sure what the protocol is here. Twedt 03:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtwedt (talk • contribs)
- Harris has never concealed the fact that he lives in LA. I think that passage is referring to Harris not publicizing specifically where he lives in LA, as in even the neighborhood. Perhaps that could be written better. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
New material in Reception section
Some material was recently added to the "Reception" section and I'm not certain it all belongs there, but I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia policies to say for sure. Two main questions:
- For biography articles of authors who have separate articles for their books, is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline for the extent to which the books should be covered on the author's page? And, more specifically, whether the reception of the books should be covered under the author's reception? If it should be included, I'm going to make the book review coverage more holistic and well-rounded rather than just selectively including two of the worst reviews. If not, I'll take them out.
- Are YouTube videos by academic sources considered WP:RS even though they haven't been peer-reviewed?
Input from more experienced editors would be much appreciated. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Youtube is a self publishing mechanism. You need an actual publisher for content. See WP:SPS, and WP: BLP. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Kolya Butternut, thanks for the prompt response. I removed self-published sources accordingly. Do you know of any guideline regarding putting reception of an author's books on the author's page? For other author pages I've looked at, reception of the books is usually not there (placed instead on those books' pages), but I'm not sure if that reflects an actual WP policy or guideline. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, at least one of those videos was Al Jazeera, so it probably could have been replaced with a link to the video on their site, or a story about the interview. I'm not sure about the second question. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Views on Islam
I'm not sure why this was removed. It seems relevant to Sam Harris' views on Islam.VR talk 02:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem sufficiently sourced to include. One critical book doesn't justify such a controversial claim about a subject. Plus as the reverting editor said, if it goes anywhere, it should be reception, not views. It may be relevant to his views, but it's not a view or about his view: it's about his level of expertise. Jmill1806 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why is his level of expertise on Islam not relevant to his views on Islam? And why do you think it is not "sufficiently sourced"? The source is published by Oxford University Press, which qualifies as a WP:RS.VR talk 01:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Neuroscientist, Philosopher
There has been much discussion above about these two terms. I'm creating a new heading, because I think both can be determined by the same wiki policy (WP:NACADEMIC). I think Harris can be called a neuroscientist, but not a philosopher. I think he qualifies as a neuroscientist because he has a PhD, has published and has been cited. These alone would not qualify him as a notable neuroscientist, but he achieves notability for other reasons, such as WP:AUTHOR, so there is no reason not to mention it on his page. However, he does not qualify as a philosopher because he has no such degree, has not published and is not cited. There is an argument above by Jweiss11 that neuroscience is a type of philosophy, and that he has been called "philosopher" in WP:RS. These are good arguments. However, he is not actually a notable neuroscientist (see criteria below), and "philosopher" is used colloquially by none academics. (Remember a philosopher, for our purposes, is not synonymous with a deep thinker or a person who has good ideas; or even with one who discusses philosophy. See, for instance, all the discussion about whether or not Alan Watts is a philosopher. He is not. Here are the criteria by which one is determined to be notable in an academic field, per WP:NACADEMIC:
- The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
- The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
- The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
- The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
- The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
- The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
- The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
- The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
Harris scores a zero for both neuroscientist and philosopher. You could make an argument as a neuroscientist he qualifies for #7 "substantial impact outside academia" however, Sam collected his PhD after being a public intellectual, so this is not the story of a neuroscientist who became a public figure, but of a public figure who became a mediocre neuroscientist. But as I said above, he should get a pass for neuroscientist, but not philosopher. Namaste DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed.VR talk 09:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
If the significance of a person's work in a discipline is demonstrated by how independent reliable sources treat him and his works, Harris clearly qualifies as a philosopher. Independent reliable sources routinely refer to him as a philosopher. His works have been cited and discussed in peer-reviewed philosophy papers. The philosopher Daniel Dennett's Reflections on Sam Harris' Free Will in the peer-reviewed Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia is an example of the latter. Best, Inimesh (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)"The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."
- thanks Inimesh. Your link was dead, so I'm re-including it here. Do you have other examples of him being cited? I only got one hit on Stanford Encyclopedia. I am personally most persuaded by the idea that WP:RS call him a philosopher. However, since we are using the word philosopher as an academic term, we need to look to the relevant epistemic community, not the popular media. So yes, Dennett is a philosopher who is commenting on Harris, but... is this an example of "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline"? I don't believe Dan Dennett ever called Harris a philosopher, and a review in which Dennett says Harris gets the philosophy wrong, can hardly be an example of Harris being considered a philosopher by other philosophers. So let's look for examples of philosophers calling Harris a philosopher. Not examples of philosophers disagreeing with Harris. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oops. I have no idea how the "in" slipped into the link. If you're looking for philosophy papers that have cited Harris, you might want to look here, here, and here. If you're looking for an instance of a philosopher describing Harris as a philosopher, you might want to consider The Oxford Handbook of Atheism co-edited by Michael Ruse. Inimesh (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- thanks Inimesh. Your link was dead, so I'm re-including it here. Do you have other examples of him being cited? I only got one hit on Stanford Encyclopedia. I am personally most persuaded by the idea that WP:RS call him a philosopher. However, since we are using the word philosopher as an academic term, we need to look to the relevant epistemic community, not the popular media. So yes, Dennett is a philosopher who is commenting on Harris, but... is this an example of "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline"? I don't believe Dan Dennett ever called Harris a philosopher, and a review in which Dennett says Harris gets the philosophy wrong, can hardly be an example of Harris being considered a philosopher by other philosophers. So let's look for examples of philosophers calling Harris a philosopher. Not examples of philosophers disagreeing with Harris. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am new to this discussion, but isn't it true that a philosopher is not a completely academic construct, and therefore these criteria are overly restrictive? From Wikipedia, "A philosopher is someone who practices philosophy," and philosophy "is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." Why would WP restrict its construct of philosopher to people who have done that study through academia (PhD, publications in academic outlets, professorship, cited by philosophers, etc)? This comes up more with ancient philosophers, many of whom wrote important philosophical texts but did not do so at academic institutions. In general, do we need WP guidelines for intellectuals who undertake their work outside academia? Jmill1806 (talk)
- Inemesh, looked at your links and the first few were confusing search pages. Can you repost or quote the best examples? The Michael Ruse book didn't seem to ever refer to Harris as a philosopher but only as an atheist. (Am I missing the part where Ruse calls him a philosopher?) I guess you could argue that atheist is a philosophical position, but see below for more about that. Honestly I don't think Sam is a philosopher. To have only one reference as a co-author at https://plato.stanford.edu/ is pretty conclusive. Why work so hard to get Harris an honorific he doesn't need, and doesn't seem to want himself? DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I hear you Jmill, but I think there is a good reason for this policy. The key concept, as you probably know, is notability. And when it comes to academic fields we have the 8 criteria above otherwise there is no end to the debate. This policy is actually good for inclusion because there are philosophers that are mostly only known by other philosophers, and if not for the above policy an editor could argue that there isn't enough WP:RS for them. See my exchange about Evan Thompson for an example of that. That's why we shouldn't use "Philosopher" as an honorific even if we really like a thinker, and even if they talk about philosophy (FYI I'm a huge fan of Harris). For instance, by strict definition, because Sam had talked about owning a gun (I think? Just an example) we could say "Sam Harris is a marksman." While true by definition, and we could probably back it up with a source. But he's not known for his marksmanship, especially amongst other marksmen (marksfolk?), so if we really feel like that needs to be in his page, we'd say something like "Harris has talked to Rogan about going to the range." If we went by your more open standards, there are plenty of cult and business leaders who have paid PR firms to froth up how smart they are L. Ron Hubbard, Deepak Chopra, Steve Jobs. And what about Malcolm Gladwell, Robert Wright? Next thing you know, we are all philosophers (and we are, by your definition, just not notable ones). (Side note, do you have any examples of ancient thinkers who aren't getting a fair treatment? I'd like to work on those pages. You can leave that info on my talk page.) ThanksDolyaIskrina (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC) DolyaIskrina([[User
- Inemesh, looked at your links and the first few were confusing search pages. Can you repost or quote the best examples? The Michael Ruse book didn't seem to ever refer to Harris as a philosopher but only as an atheist. (Am I missing the part where Ruse calls him a philosopher?) I guess you could argue that atheist is a philosophical position, but see below for more about that. Honestly I don't think Sam is a philosopher. To have only one reference as a co-author at https://plato.stanford.edu/ is pretty conclusive. Why work so hard to get Harris an honorific he doesn't need, and doesn't seem to want himself? DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
talk:DolyaIskrina|talk]]) 04:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh I found it! p 246, he says "American philosopher and neuroscientist" Is that the only one? DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @DolyaIskrina: Puppets: The Major Works of Philosopher Steven Colborne is in Google Books, and also describes Harris as a philosopher. Inimesh (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, okay I'm personally moving from oppose to weak oppose "philosopher", and I weak oppose on the grounds of notability.DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @DolyaIskrina: Puppets: The Major Works of Philosopher Steven Colborne is in Google Books, and also describes Harris as a philosopher. Inimesh (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- That is informative, DolyaIskrina, thank you. I don't think Hubbard, Chopra, and others would be included if we had a less academia-specific policy because they have not, as far as I know, produced significant philosophical work. And maybe Harris hasn't either, but I think his work isn't being given a fair appraisal here. Maybe the best policy is not whether it's significant academic work but whether it's significant philosophical work. I am, however, more convinced by the info that Harris himself doesn't present his own work that way. I just think that, if he did, we should be open to inclusion even if it is not done through academic channels. I think Wikipedia would be a better place if we called everyone who does a lot of philosophy a philosopher, even if they haven't taken the conventional academic path. Jmill1806 (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- To put it another way, I don't think the philosopher label in a WP lead should be an assignment of career status, prominence, or specific notability. It should just be a descriptor of what they do or have done with their life. Having conversations like this debate on Sam Harris just shows how much of this amounts to WP:Original Research because there are no agencies out there endowing some writers with philosopher titles. That is not what a PhD does, just as one can work for decades as a plumber even if one didn't get a formal plumbing education. Jmill1806 (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh I found it! p 246, he says "American philosopher and neuroscientist" Is that the only one? DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@DolyaIskrina: I don't see the need for reluctance here. You seem to be comparing Harris being a philosopher with him being a "marksman", which is deeply flawed. We don't have an extensive number of reliable sources, which range from The Washington Post to The Guardian, calling Harris a "marksman" at all. Also, what Harris "wants" might be irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but as far as I know, Harris has expressed his dislike for needless philosophical jargon, but he has never objected to someone's description of him as a philosopher. Harris was on BBC's HARDTalk recently, and Stephen Sackur did introduce him as a philosopher (among other things). In addition, you seem to be under the impression that it's almost only the popular media that has described Harris as a philosopher. Please know that the search queries "philosopher Sam Harris", "philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris", and "philosopher and author Sam Harris" return a total of 125 results in Google Scholar and quite a number of results in Google Books as well. Although we already have a couple of examples of philosophers describing Harris as a philosopher (and there could be more), WP:RS in general is the strongest argument here. Do we have a consensus? Inimesh (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links. He still doesn't qualify as a notable philosopher, because if you want to establish him as a notable academic under criteria #1, you have to show that he is "highly cited" which is not the same as getting returns on "SH+Philosopher." There is a whole section on determining citations on the WP:ACADEMICS page if you feel like doing that, but it seems to me the question is "does he get a pass for being notable in other ways, the way I suggested with Neuroscientist?" And here is the answer:
"Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria."
- DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- So I change to support.DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@DolyaIskrina: We seem to have a consensus, but it seems to me we're referring to different policies here. If an academic is someone who is affiliated with a university (even just as a researcher), as far as I know, Harris is not an academic, but I'm not sure if he had an academic affiliation as a researcher in the past. If that is the case, I don't think it makes sense to cite WP:NACADEMIC to justify calling him a philosopher or a neuroscientist. The philosopher article that the term in the lead links to defines a modern philosopher simply as an "intellectual who contributes to one or more branches of philosophy, such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, philosophy of science, logic, metaphysics, social theory, and political philosophy," and not necessarily as someone who does academic philosophy. Likewise, a neuroscientist is someone who "has specialised knowledge in the field of neuroscience". So Harris is a philosopher and neuroscientist not as per WP:NACADEMIC but on the basis of his contributions in the form of philosophical works and specialization in neuroscience respectively, as substantiated by WP:RS. By the way, when I wrote my first reply, I was under the impression WP:NACADEMIC laid out the criteria for establishing a person's notability in an academic field of study, not necessarily exclusive to people who work in the academia. Inimesh (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I just want to add that, in general, I disagree with the use of WP:NACADEMIC or other notability criteria to determine whether labels such as neuroscientist should go in the first sentence of a WP page. That is not what notability criteria are made for, and if we want to extend them to apply to that, it's a bigger discussion that should be had on a page like WP:NACADEMIC. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)