If she is a real scientist then just present scientific facts, the audience can reach their own conclusions based on those facts. Why the name calling? Making me wonder her credibility.

I'm not even sure I follow any of that. She is not a scientist and didn't claim to be one. She did give all the relevant facts as to her main point of the video. I'm sorry if this is not a troll, but it's almost like we seen two different videos.

@JeffB If she's not a scientist then what's her credibility for criticizing an area of science? Why do you think some random woman's opinion on the internet is relevant to quote? What relevant facts did she present other than her own opinions and a lot of name calling? Watch the video I posted everything this woman said has been debunked.

@peststudio sigh. If only scientist can comment on scientific ideas, then why are you asking a question on this form that has lots of not scientist.

That is besides the point, because I didn't like the video to criticize evolutionary psychology, but to give I mild criticism to Sam Harris. Since that is not obvious to you, I'm guessing that a dialog might not be possible.

What facts did she present? I believe you mentioned that rhetorically, but in the interest of dialog, I'll answer. She presented that the fact that Kevin MacDonald received a defense in a publication that Sam Harris is on the board of. She also mentioned His had on people like Charles Murry. Those are facts. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you don't think there is much of an issue. Maybe she is mischaracterizing these people and their works. But I'm not sure how you said there were no facts only opinions.

I did watch the video and it criticized her presentation of evolutionary psychology at a Skeptics convention. Maybe he has a point or not, but it was of topic. The topic bring Sam Harris.

I didn't post that video to debunk Harris, only to give to a minor place to start looking for criticism. It's not the best case against Harris, not did I present it as such. It was something I just ran across and posted. I don't think I would spend much time on Harris.

It was just strange that you didn't even seen to caught what the criticism was.

@JeffB I guess you don't seem to be able to distinguish facts and opinions, she mentioned Murray and her distaste for Murray is a matter of opinion. Bringing Murray onto the show does not automatically discredit Sam Harris. Maybe you want to read Murray's book before you make an informed decision. Although your opinion on Murray is also beside the point. You presented this video as a criticism of Harris with facts and reason and I completely failed to see the point. It is a fact Harris had Murray on the show, does this fact lead logically to Harris being a racist or there's something missing in the middle of this link, which is her opinion of Murray? If you can not logically deduct something that simple there's indeed no point in conversation. It is true not only scientists can comment on scientific ideas, but I would think when you quote someone you would quote someone with credibility not some random woman you might have met in the supermarket. But hey you are free to quote whomever you like just don't expect to be taken seriously

Why a chauvinist lol, I'm not aware of his views on gender equality

@peststudio Not a gender chauvinist but a cultural one.

@Krish55 I don't think he is condescending towards every other culture that's not Western, and even when it comes to Islamism he treats it the same as he treats Christians, he is always subjective to the facts.

@peststudio He ignores the role of Western imperialism in nurturing and spawning Islamic fanaticism. He ignores the role of economic injustice in creating conditions that prompt religious fundamentalism.

@Krish55 It still doesn't justify calling him a chauvinist though, by definition a cultural chauvinist thinks his own culture is more superior than every other culture, that certainly is not Sam Harris. Religious fundamentalism is ingrained in the religion itself, the west didn't create the word jihaddist.

@peststudio You are right. But it was the West that fed the jihadist bulldogs red meat, creating the problem we have now. Harris ignores the role of imperialism in creating the wealth that made the Western Enlightenment possible. He ignores the links between economic injustice/Western imperialism and the instability that promotes fundamentalism and jihadism.

I think one of the point they are making on this podcast is that all those political acts are turning people against the lefts, thus creating the situation of Donald Trump, rather unfortunately

I think that affirmative action turning some people against the left is a fair point to make, if it is supported by some data, like opinion polls. From a moral standpoint I think it is still problematic. A parallel example would be slavery. 200 years ago, should you stop doing anything against slavery just because it might turn somebody against you? Should you stop proclaiming your ideas just because some racists won't vote for you anymore? Change only happens if you do something aabout it and I think racism in the USA is still an issue. My question to Harris would be "What are your solutions?" Maybe economic equality, by which I mean helping poor people in general, in the long run helps abolish the racial inequalities, maybe. Maybe not.
Regarding the creation of the whole Trump debacle, I think it is a bit of an overstatement to lay the whole blame on the left, specifically affirmative action, when the right has been campaigning against science, education and a fair society for decades. It is a bit more complex than that, is what I'm trying to say.

Obviously there exists inequalities between how different races are treated in the society, the point Sam is trying to make is not to deny that but to propose the question if dealing with those issues with political means is the best way, does it help elevate those discriminations or does it actually drawing people's attention more on racial differences than necessary. Wouldn't it be better to not pay attention to race when we look at a person at all but base solely on their qualities as a human

@peststudio I think the conversation is more so about having the ability to address the actual issues without being called at racist. Sensibilities, not omission of. How do you tell black people that most crimes are done by black people, to black people without it seemly being conveyed as racist. The point made regarding "Redlining" holds presedence historically and I agree with Hughes regarding the admission process changes to income gaps versus ethnicity.The conversation of cultural influence regarding the importance of educating someone on fiscal responsibility is more than true but what is missing is the difficulties of assimulation to American culture or the reality of generational growth limitations via culture. The culture of self limited success is what's being discussed but it's being discussed as self inflicted instead of systemically taught and limiting. As a 2nd generation immigrant, myself, I see the processes of struggle that first generation immigrants have and I also see the success that 3rd and 4th generations have. But it's based on a progressive educational curve. But I thank you for the discussion. I do like Sam, and Hughes brings up some interesting, yet limited perspectives.

Yep just listened to this yesterday