I was reading a totally different article by Paul Bloom entitled "Progressives should worry more about their favorite scientific findings" The reason I thought it might apply to this debate is that he suggests "consumers of scientific information should be more skeptical when journals produce findings that are in lockstep with the politi…
I was reading a totally different article by Paul Bloom entitled "Progressives should worry more about their favorite scientific findings" The reason I thought it might apply to this debate is that he suggests "consumers of scientific information should be more skeptical when journals produce findings that are in lockstep with the political views of their editors, reviewers, and readers." He also suggests that readers find it most compelling if the research supports findings that are in opposition to their political views because releasing their data will cost them some social capital.
When I look at Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris who are two people that I respect, I think the more compelling argument was Ben Shapiro based on the fact that he was not a Trump supporter in 2016 and wrote that he would never support Donald Trump. Sam Harris as far as I can tell has never been a Trump supporter and therefore has not changed his mind about Trump.
I listened to Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster interview Bill Ackman who admitted he was not a Trump supporter even throughout the primaries ,who now supports Donald Trump and an interview on Dan Crenshaw's podcast of Shawn Maguire who was very against Trump until he was "converted when all his beliefs about the Russian collusion and the Laptop were proven to be exactly opposite of what the mainstream media was telling the country on a daily basis. These weren't debates but because these men changed their mind about Trump and could articulate why they did so, they offered a more compelling argument. I wonder is interviewing a previous Trump supporter, maybe one of those 40 people who Sam Harris kept claiming worked for Trump and now cannot support him versus someone who was for Biden and now is a Trump supporter would offer an even more compelling argument.
As a total side note, as a Christian I have always felt that Alex O'Connor offers a much more convincing argument in support of atheism than does Sam Harris for many of the same reasons his argument against Trump seems weaker. His argument seems more subjective and emotional, perhaps because he is very dismissive of the other's viewpoint rather than understanding that it might have some elements of validity.
I was reading a totally different article by Paul Bloom entitled "Progressives should worry more about their favorite scientific findings" The reason I thought it might apply to this debate is that he suggests "consumers of scientific information should be more skeptical when journals produce findings that are in lockstep with the political views of their editors, reviewers, and readers." He also suggests that readers find it most compelling if the research supports findings that are in opposition to their political views because releasing their data will cost them some social capital.
When I look at Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris who are two people that I respect, I think the more compelling argument was Ben Shapiro based on the fact that he was not a Trump supporter in 2016 and wrote that he would never support Donald Trump. Sam Harris as far as I can tell has never been a Trump supporter and therefore has not changed his mind about Trump.
I listened to Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster interview Bill Ackman who admitted he was not a Trump supporter even throughout the primaries ,who now supports Donald Trump and an interview on Dan Crenshaw's podcast of Shawn Maguire who was very against Trump until he was "converted when all his beliefs about the Russian collusion and the Laptop were proven to be exactly opposite of what the mainstream media was telling the country on a daily basis. These weren't debates but because these men changed their mind about Trump and could articulate why they did so, they offered a more compelling argument. I wonder is interviewing a previous Trump supporter, maybe one of those 40 people who Sam Harris kept claiming worked for Trump and now cannot support him versus someone who was for Biden and now is a Trump supporter would offer an even more compelling argument.
As a total side note, as a Christian I have always felt that Alex O'Connor offers a much more convincing argument in support of atheism than does Sam Harris for many of the same reasons his argument against Trump seems weaker. His argument seems more subjective and emotional, perhaps because he is very dismissive of the other's viewpoint rather than understanding that it might have some elements of validity.