How Sam Harris Beats Quacks Every Time (The Harris Method)

there's not that there's not a physicist sitting on this stage right now okay I would never be tempted to lecture a roomful of a thousand people at Caltech about physics I'm not a physicist you're not a physicist and and and basically every sentence demonstrates that that you speak on the subject that's how my fear works if you followed my channel for any length of time you probably know that I have a whole series of videos on quack manipulation tactics in that series I've identified several tactics and shown real-world examples of their use hopefully that series is helpful to those learning how to spot quackery but I know that many of my viewers want to go further by actually countering it when it arises that's where this video comes in I'm not under any illusions that I'm great at live debates or that I can counter quackery in real time better than anyone else most people myself included simply don't have the quick wit of someone like Hitchens to fall back on during a discussion so it's unwise to go into a discussion with any approach which requires that we do instead we're better off taking a measured methodical approach which is improved with a quick wit but doesn't require it one such approach is often espoused by Sam Harris Sam has gone through countless debates and discussions with well-known quacks in which he's invited by some simple but valuable principles which have aided in his success he didn't invent this approach by any means but he's used it consistently enough through the years that I think it may be aptly named for this video at least the Harris method the approach consists of four core practices steel Manning this is a practice which Harris has utilized for quite some time but has only recently begun to mention by name both Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson made excellent use of this practice during their discussions in Vancouver and Dublin in 2018 you're all familiar with straw Manning anyone who follows politics knows straw Manning but I've asked them to do the opposite tonight to start by Steele Manning the arguments of each other to present in the best possible most fair most rigorous light what they understand to be the others argument steel Manning is not only useful in discussions between those who disagree but share a mutual respect however the practice also aids in conversations with less than respectable interlocutors the reason being if you're sure to understand your interlocutors ideas thoroughly you gain the opportunity to formulate a response which counters their ideas thoroughly responding to a misrepresentation of a quacks ideas only allows the quack a chance to point out their opposition's fallacious criticism countering inaccurate representation of a quacks ideas on the other hand can actually defeat their ideas entirely steel Manning a clack before offering objections can also be helpful because it dis allows a quack from claiming they're being misrepresented without appearing dishonest to the detractor or audience as I've discussed in my previous videos in this series quacks often redefine their ideas when a valid criticism is offered essentially moving the goalposts of what it would take to prove them wrong steel Manning takes away some of their ability to do that and sam harris utilizes it to that effect cutting through tangents and red herrings harris is consistently effective in his discussions with disagreeable interlocutors because he just stays on topic this may seem like a simple task but it's much more challenging than it sounds even discussions with the most agreeable of people can totally stray from their intended purpose because those involved explore tangents unnecessarily quacks know this and often encourage the following of unnecessary tangents in order to draw attention away from their faulty ideas the Harris method is to see through this and cut to the heart of the issue in response from this point forward when displaying real-world examples of each of these practices we'll examine an excerpt from Harris's famous discussion with Deepak Chopra in 2010 as I think he put his method on display very well there check out the following clip where Harris cuts through a potential tangent and into the core issue a bit of context here Deepak had just finished evoking quantum physics to defend his idea that consciousness is not a product of the brain but a metaphysical part of the universe what he means by non-local is that everything in the universe is interconnected and it just is not true it just isn't and and there's no reason to think that it's active at the level of the brain that law nonlocality is a principle that is working Deepak you spoke for quite some time the deeper point to make here and and what I wanted to address that okay anything that you might not have to because the deeper point here and this is where the whole style and content of what you're saying is so deeply unscientific is that there's not that there's not a physicist sitting on this stage right now okay I would never be tempted to lecture a roomful of a thousand people at Caltech about physics I'm not a physicist you're not a physicist and and and basically every sentence demonstrates that that you speak on the subject there's some cutting to the core issue rather than arguing over the details of quantum mechanics next we'll see him stay on target even when Deepak throws out a red herring meant to undermine Harris's point well I take resentment that you're questioning my scientific credentials in fact if anyone on this stage is more scientifically credentialed it's me I took physics chemistry biology I'm an MD I'm a neuroendocrinologist and I want to object to be nonlocality you missed the point but I wasn't criticizing your scientific credentials you're an endocrinologist you're an MD you're not a theoretical physicist that the way science is done is when white political physicists in this audience to actually address okay so a theoretical physicist will be cut we'll be comfortable talking with with real confidence in a very narrow band of his expertise from that point on Harris was able to explain how an actual physicist or any reputable scientist speaks on topics in which they specialize and remains humble about those they don't he then continued to point out that deep Hawks attitudes stood in stark contrast to that early in this clip we saw a Deepak feign offense a tactic I've covered before in order to derail the conversation and take from Harris's point Sam saw through this and instead of allowing the distraction he confronted Deepak with his point again and made his full point successfully on the second try the best part though was that Harris's doubling down in this point led to Deepak attempting to defend himself in a way which seriously backfired the way science has done is my little physicists in this audience to actually address me okay what's your name Leonard Mladenov and so Leonard you are a quantum physicist I'm a theoretical physicist deepak to say would you like to have a short course in quantum mechanics sometime so that we can straighten out your slightly misuse of quantum notation recognizing and exposing evasive maneuvers this goes beyond keeping the conversation on topic in seeing through red herrings this practice consists of recognizing tactics quacks use to defend themselves from criticism directly when they haven't been able to distract from it unless you're especially perceptive this takes some pre-existing familiarity with the tactics commonly used so if I haven't plugged my series on those tactics enough already then there's a link in the card box of those videos Sam Harris is obviously experienced and perceptive enough to pick up on these tactics immediately here's a clip of Harris calling out detox inconsistency when he uses a tactic I've previously called the I'm just asking questions Maude I'm sorry if I give the impression that I don't know that I pretend to know things that I don't know I'm just offering a possible hypothesis that's why we're calling it a the future of God and I stand corrected so when you when you say just tie him down to this one statement though because this seems like new information if you're if you're saying that that when you say we are on a continuum the consciousness that I experience in myself is the creator of the universe what you said about five minutes ago you see creating their own already and through mobile or I just want is that a pipe however you said it is that a hypothesis or because you said it as just a blanket assertion this is a fact deep arcs disclaimer was meant to cover his mistakes and keep him in good favor with the crowd but as Harris pointed out it was too little too late this was not an act of humility it was Deepak dishonestly changing his tune after he'd been called out from there Deepak doesn't answer Sam's question but tries to distract his critics again fortunately Harris is able to cleverly used epochs words against him in a way which brings attention back to the actual problem at hand that deep hug does not operate within actual rigorous scientific methodology and this is a fact I think I'm ignorant see there are three ways of knowing one is through empirical observation what we call the eyes of the flesh then there's a deeper knowing comes from the eyes of the mind if I want to understand the theorem of Pythagoras its activity of the mind wise does mathematics for example describe so precisely the activity of nature it's one of the most astounding puzzles of the universe and then there is a deeper knowing which is the eyes of the soul you know what's his name William Blake said we are led to believe a lie when we see with and not through the eye that was born in a night to perish in the night while the soul slept in beams of light so what I'm saying is that's why William setting the example throughout the discussion we've been looking at Deepak gets very defensive regularly interrupts and even raises his voice at others a few times it happens to the best of us and I don't blame Deepak too much for this however such an attitude gives one's interlocutors good reason to fairly retaliate to interrupt a shout back to lower the overall discourse for their own cheap shots Sam Harris to his credit in the long run though never damaged the discourse by losing his composure for the sake of cheap gotcha moments this achieved a few things one Harris appeared more confident and comfortable throughout the event than Deepak that likely made him appear more reliable and professional to the audience which made his points more convincing to them too it helped him minimize distractions from the point of the conversation so that he could make more progress in communicating his ideas 3 it actually made Deepak himself more open to hearing Sam out in this discussion both Sam Harris and Michael Shermer spoke against Deepak although Harris in my opinion made more devastating points against Deepak consumer ever did Deepak still remained less guarded and thought more highly of Sam likely because Sam set a better example of productive discourse all of this can be seen in the following clip I mean your bet is likely to see real arrogance as you're likely to see nudity at a scientific conference I mean this is this is people are constantly offering caveats and toward what they say that every every statement is couched in I'm sure there's someone in the room who knows more about this than me but because everyone is desperate to avoid public embarrassment now this seems to be something you are not if I if I was worried if I was worried about being embarrassed embarrassed I wouldn't be actually influencing the people that I'm influencing and and I can also say something right now is that I agree that you know science is about a very specific methodology but for people like Michael not you so much but people like Michael to take all of inner experience all of the rich inner experience and try to explore defy it in a graph with data is absurd as opposed to what just calling it fuzzy words how does that help us understand out and one day that one's the woods fuzzy right use the words woowoo and you're maybe you are technical to give you a technical explanation hopefully if any one of us applies these practices well if we steel man cut through tangents and red herrings recognize and expose evasive maneuvers and set a good example of productive discourse we'll be able to counter quacks when we encounter them there's definitely plenty of quackery out there so it's best that we stay prepared to counter it effectively at all times thanks for watching I've been drew of genetically-modified skeptic as always go ahead and subscribe check out my patreon and follow me on twitter and facebook @ GM skeptic join my discord and until next time stay skeptical you

Channel: Genetically Modified Skeptic

Views: 366,907

Rating: 4.7995362 out of 5

Keywords: atheism, atheist, agnostic, skeptic, skepticism, genetically modified skeptic, gm skeptic, Sam Harris, Deepak Chopra, quantum healing, Michael Shermer, Jordan Peterson, Vancouver, Dublin, Waking Up, podcast, joe rogan experience, how quacks, how quacks manipulate, how quacks evade criticism, alternative medicine, quantum physics, sam harris religion, god, the harris method, deepak chopra debunked, debate

Id: bzZ3ttXGVXI

Length: 12min 54sec (774 seconds)

Published: Sat Jan 12 2019