What he says is unremarkable and obvious. What he misses is it isn't an argument. Anyone can say the same thing, i.e., "You refuse to believe what I say because you don't want to".

The argument is that wood fires are harmful, supported by scientific facts. Why people reject the argument has nothing to do with the truth of the facts and logic.

The argument that wood fires are harmful is secondary. It could have been any argument about something people commonly hold to be true and the science that disproves it. The point is to give a tangible illustration of the emotional reaction people may experience when a treasured belief gets broken because of science.

I agree - but so what? I can say the same thing about Harris' scientism, except for the "because of science", for which I would substitute "because of truth".

So...what the article says. It is an interesting insight into our emotional tendencies. That is important in and of itself, it doesn't have to imply anything further.

Now you are probably right, if someone managed to provide the evidence and rational that was convincing of a deity, I am sure many atheists would have an experience much like having to discard the enjoyable notion of a fireplace. However, since religious people have yet to provide any such evidence or rational that is even a tiny bit convincing, this isn't a possibility we really have to worry about.

"because of truth" sounds like a pretty vacuous yet simultaneously conceited phrase.

This is a pretty obvious misreading of Harris in my opinion. He is not making an argument against theism (nor is he claiming to). Rather, he is, as Aaron W. says, making an emotional analogue between people's religious beliefs and the emotional attachment some people (even atheists!) have to fireplaces to help those atheists understand on an emotional level why some people resist the scientific evidence against religion.

I didn't say he was making an argument (though he is about the evil of wood fires). I said what he says isn't an argument. And what he says about the fact people have biases and prejudices is unremarkable and obvious, and can be made about ALL people, including Harris. Who I believe has a ton of biases and prejudices, but would never appeal to that as an argument for the unsoundness of his position.

It wasn't so much the making of his point (that people have biases they don't like to get rid of) but to give us an explicit example that some people could experience first hand what that emotion felt like. And sure you can say it is "obvious" but it is a point that people are often totally blind to in their lives.

Thankfully, the reason his position is sound has nothing to do with whether he has biases or not, it because his position is sound.

I'm all for open minds and for deciding questions without or even in spite of bias. So more power to Harris on that score, so long as he also applies it to himself and his BRIGHT friends.

No it isn't.

In what way, exactly, is harris NOT being consistent? His central thesis is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Is there an example where he does provide evidence of his claims, or ignores the enormous evidence of others?

I tire of these "oh ya that guy i disagree with is just so biased hint hint wink wink" without further substantiation.

The particular thesis you mention here is from Hume and is just simplistic. If you're interested I can give you some discussion on that issue by Craig.

But as I said I don't use the fact that he's biased as an argument that he's wrong. Which is why I said the fact the opponent has bias is obvious and unremarkable - at least, concerning the truth of an issue.

I'm pretty sure that I'm reacting to a kind of bait-and-switch that he did in his post.

Fireplace, fireplace, fireplace, dung.

He cited a 2000 WHO report. I found lots of WHO reports, but not the one he referenced. However, I cited and linked a scientific paper that cites a WHO report that is different from his value. And that number is different from his by a significant amount.

I never claimed it was relevant to any point he was making. This is the point that I've claimed he was making:

Well it is the one sentence platitudinous version of it, but yes. I am pretty amused that after blasting harris about his biases you use WLC of all people.

But anyways, can you state precisely what your criticism here is? Outside of the point of the article in the OP being "obvious"?

Exactly, you didn't find it, hence it is unknown to us. I am sorry, but I am still lolling to much at your hypocritical rounding down to a million

Okay....I don't know why you said it then if it is not relevant. Whatever. I agree with your summary that it is an emotional analogue, I used the same terminology myself.

What are you confused by? That this is harris's central thesis? (In general, not the article, perhaps that is the confusion) He repeats this line ad nauseum.

I think I would be laughing harder if it turns out 1.3 was rounded up to 2.

I didn't blast Harris about his biases. As for WLC, if that's your opinion, I don't see much hope for any real discussion.

Yes, that is the confusion. I thought for a moment that maybe there was some other article linked or something.

(I would have said that that line is a "mantra" and not a "thesis." But that's nitting up the word choice.)

ya fair enough mantra is a better word for it.

If someone thinks WLC is biased you can't have a real discussion with them?

strange

Come now, internationally recognized laws of humour objectively make the more funny situtation to be the guy who fudges the numbers in the same thread as getting mad at someone allegedly fudging the numbers.

Well I am not quite sure why you starting bringing up Harris's biases all over the place if you were not blasting him. But whatever. I am somewhat bemused that you seem quite willing to talk about Harris having bias but if I start implying anything about WLC the conversation must be over? Please.

Round



Fudge



Questions?

So I assume if the 2000 study came out as 1.6 million you would be totally happy with him rounding up to 2 million right?

Regardless, since none of us are going to be able to do better than an order of magnitude guess on this naively, whether the number is 1 or 1.3 or 2 makes precisely zero difference. It is just you nitting it up because you don't like the guy and can't even find his source to see if he did anything bad.

Sure. I would still wonder why he would use a 2000 study when there's a more recent and presumably more accurate study, but I would at least grant him rounding up abilities if it turned out to be that.

Pretty much.

Well, after contemplating a little while, I tried a new tactic, and I win at the hunt the reference game.

http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/vfe/...eview-2007.pdf

So what do we learn?

Here's what he said:

1) He cited the wrong year in his essay.
2) He definitely rounded up.
3) He was given a range of values and picked a number on the high end.
4) He claimed it was "nearly" this many, and I think that's a poor word choice given the data (which gave him an explicit range).

I think I'm justified in believing my original statement:

If I was told that somewhere between 0.8 and 2.4 million people died in a certain manner, I think it's a gross exaggeration to claim that "nearly 2 million" people died in that manner.

This is very different from simply rounding up 1.6 million.