A Slip-Up?

[Chesterton]

Here's another "slip-up" or two by Harris which are very "courteously" exposed and corrected by Tyson.

I think Tyson is wrong. If someone doesn't know what words mean, if someone thinks the word "most" means "all", that's not Harris' fault.

To be fair, everyone else in the thread is familiar with C.S. Lewis, if not with fullblown scholasticism, so we knew where you were coming from without needing to be told. I don't think you can expect the same instant understanding from everyone.

Nihilist understands. He's argued about reason more than once before.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think Tyson is wrong. If someone doesn't know what words mean, if someone thinks the word "most" means "all", that's not Harris' fault.

Actually, I have to disagree just a little on this. There is such a principle in communication theory (and in hermenuetics) as speaking/writing to "your audience," which really requires a person to take into consideration just who the receiving parties will be at the receiving end of one's speech act.

So, if there was an idea from Harris' book (e.g. Letters....) that was misconstrued among the public, he probably should have taken into consideration that the average educational attainment (and thereby analytical/cognitive level) of those reading the book would be somewhere approximating that of the average secondary school student, not the Master's or PhD level in which he is "thinking" when writing in the more exacting terms of the Analytic Philosopher.

I'm not saying this to "dis" you, Chesterton. I do get what you're saying, but at the same I'm going to elucidate what I find to be the [hermeneutical] strength of Tyson's comments over those of Harris in the video I chose.

Anyway, your video in the OP is interesting, too, and as soon as I can finish watching the contents I'll comment.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[cvanwey]

Interesting. Listen to what Sam says beginning at about 103:27. Sounds like he's making the C. S. Lewis argument from "Miracles".

For me, reason is the only thing...that takes us out of who we are and scales to some universal point of view.... If you're actually reasoning, what you're arriving at is not just true for you, it's true for anyone who could be in...it's true from essentially above, on any given topic. You know, it does offer the view from above, or a view from any possible perspective,...[then a bit more]​

This might even slightly or even remotely matter if skeptics and non-believers adhered to every word Sam Harris happened to state (which I doubt practically anyone actually does). It's fair to say that most/all Christians do not take every statement and phrase presented by 'their favorite apologist' to 'heart' either.

Fellow Christians disagree about certain aspects and perspectives
Fellow republicans disagree about certain aspects and perspectives
Fellow atheists disagree about certain aspects and perspectives

So what is the point of this 'observation'?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This might even slightly or even remotely matter if skeptics and non-believers adhered to every word Sam Harris happened to state (which I doubt practically anyone actually does). It's fair to say that most/all Christians do not take every statement and phrase presented by 'their favorite apologist' to 'heart' either.

Fellow Christians disagree about certain aspects and perspectives
Fellow republicans disagree about certain aspects and perspectives
Fellow atheists disagree about certain aspects and perspectives

So what is the point of this 'observation'?

No one seems to be suggesting some monolithic Atheist dogma that is thus negated. If someone does hold similar views to Sam Harris though, on Reason as ultimate intersubjective arbitrer while holding to a materialistic determinism, then the criticism might be equally applied.

What is being said, is that Harris is being inconsistent here. More than that, he is saying something completely at odds to what he is known to espouse. For a materialist and determinist, that even tries to treat spiritual qualia as mere epiphenomena, to hold such a 'mystical' idea of Reason as an intersubjective truth - is a bit silly.

This is the equivalent of Richard Dawkins saying that Evolution seems to follow a predetermined plan; or Hitler saying the Jews seem to have an innate advantage in life.

The point is that perhaps Harris needs to re-evaluate his views - for this is decided doublethink going on here. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[cvanwey]

No one seems to be suggesting some monolithic Atheist dogma that is thus negated. If someone does hold similar views to Sam Harris though, on Reason as ultimate intersubjective arbitrer while holding to a materialistic determinism, then the criticism might be equally applied.

What is being said, is that Harris is being inconsistent here. More than that, he is saying something completely at odds to what he is known to espouse. For a materialist and determinist, that even tries to treat spiritual qualia as mere epiphenomena, to hold such a 'mystical' idea of Reason as an intersubjective truth - is a bit silly.

This is the equivalent of Richard Dawkins saying that Evolution seems to follow a predetermined plan; or Hitler saying the Jews seem to have an innate advantage in life.

The point is that perhaps Harris needs to re-evaluate his views - for this is decided doublethink going on here. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Truth stands upon it's own merits and evidence, and does not hinge upon a 'popular' public figure. It's safe to say any/all individuals possess some 'true' ideas and some 'false' ideas respectively. The fact some overtly ridicule certain public figures, may seem to suggest that such an individual may feel some sort or 'threat' towards such stated individual - (that maybe that individual possesses some good points, and the person presenting the 'bad' point in opposition is looking for ways to discredit them entirely, by finding 'some dirt on them'). But regardless... Like I stated prior, I doubt many true intellectuals actually heed every word the rubber stamped 'goliaths' of 'atheism' have to say I take points from all sides ('good' and 'bad' and weigh them against my avl intellect accordingly).

It seems more so applicable to judge such stated language based upon the evidentiary account, rather than the person whom says it. (i.e.) I doubt the OP would have been presented if such a 'slip', (if it was a slip), was some random person on 'youtube' with seven followers

You are entitled to your views on Sam Harris. But what does this have to do with anything that is actually true?

Okay, there was a 'slip', that means his opponent, or opposing viewpoint is right?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Truth stands upon it's own merits and evidence, and does not hinge upon a 'popular' public figure. It's safe to say any/all individuals possess some 'true' ideas and some 'false' ideas respectively. The fact some overtly ridicule certain public figures, may seem to suggest that such an individual may feel some sort or 'threat' towards such stated individual - (that maybe that individual possesses some good points, and the person presenting the 'bad' point in opposition is looking for ways to discredit them entirely, by finding 'some dirt on them'). But regardless... Like I stated prior, I doubt many true intellectuals actually heed every word the rubber stamped 'goliaths' of 'atheism' have to say I take points from all sides ('good' and 'bad' and weigh them against my avl intellect accordingly).

It seems more so applicable to judge such stated language based upon the evidentiary account, rather than the person whom says it. (i.e.) I doubt the OP would have been presented if such a 'slip', (if it was a slip), was some random person on 'youtube' with seven followers

Rejecting something on the grounds of who said it, or his background, is the fallacy of Bulverism. It is an idiotic thing to do. Ideas should be evaluated on their own merits. We seem to concur on that point.

Okay, there was a 'slip', that means his opponent, or opposing viewpoint is right?

I don't think there is any implication that therefore the opposing viewpoint is 'right', no. That would be equally fallacious. The logical consistency of Harris' own views are called into question though.

I mostly took it as funny. That such an avowed atheist is pontificating essentially a well-known Theistic argument. For Reason in determinism is merely what is decided by blind iterations of matter, not conscious arbitration of value. Generally an Atheistic, materialistic viewpoint has to fall back on a pragmatic, subjective or solipsistic view of Reason to be consistent - the claim of Intersubjectivity has marked metaphysical implications.

But what does this have to do with anything that is actually true?

I think it relevant as often people don't hunt out the internal inconsistencies in what views they hold, but it really does not prove or show any idea more 'true' than any other. It is instructive or cautionary, therefore.

 

[cvanwey]

Rejecting something on the grounds of who said it, or his background, is the fallacy of Bulverism. It is an idiotic thing to do. Ideas should be evaluated on their own merits. We seem to concur on that point.

I don't think there is any implication that therefore the opposing viewpoint is 'right', no. That would be equally fallacious. The logical consistency of Harris' own views are called into question though.

I mostly took it as funny. That such an avowed atheist is pontificating essentially a well-known Theistic argument. For Reason in determinism is merely what is decided by blind iterations of matter, not conscious arbitration of value. Generally an Atheistic, materialistic viewpoint has to fall back on a pragmatic, subjective or solipsistic view of Reason to be consistent - the claim of Intersubjectivity has marked metaphysical implications.


I think it relevant as often people don't hunt out the internal inconsistencies in what views they hold, but it really does not prove or show any idea more 'true' than any other. It is instructive or cautionary, therefore.

Kool... I get what you are saying. I just find it irrelevant really.

I can certainly post 'absurdities' from William Lang Craig, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, etc... None of them are 'all' right (I 'think'). In fact, many on the same side of the fence disagree on many of things.

As I'm sure you know, there exists many differing and conflicting doctrines when reading the Bible, (hence the reason it's not advisable to speak of religion and politics at the dinner table).

 

[Chesterton]

Actually, I have to disagree just a little on this. There is such a principle in communication theory (and in hermenuetics) as speaking/writing to "your audience," which really requires a person to take into consideration just who the receiving parties will be at the receiving end of one's speech act.

So, if there was an idea from Harris' book (e.g. Letters....) that was misconstrued among the public, he probably should have taken into consideration that the average educational attainment (and thereby analytical/cognitive level) of those reading the book would be somewhere approximating that of the average secondary school student, not the Master's or PhD level in which he is "thinking" when writing in the more exacting terms of the Analytic Philosopher.

I'm not saying this to "dis" you, Chesterton. I do get what you're saying, but at the same I'm going to elucidate what I find to be the [hermeneutical] strength of Tyson's comments over those of Harris in the video I chose.

Anyway, your video in the OP is interesting, too, and as soon as I can finish watching the contents I'll comment.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Tyson admits this is language redundancy, which is stupid and unnecessary. Using the phrase "most but not all" is like you asking me what color my new car is, and I respond "It's blue, and by blue I mean it's not green, not red, not yellow," etc. so as to eliminate every word that doesn't mean blue. Words such as "in general" and "most" and "some" don't require a PhD to understand.

Tyson understands that language has become a weapon for dirty politics. At 4:48 Tyson says "If I'm anti-Sam Harris, I'm going right to the statement [about torture]" You see, he's saying that if a person already wants to attack Sam Harris, the person will deliberately pretend to misunderstand and misconstrue what Sam Harris has said, in order to attack him for something he didn't say. That's bizarro world. Unfortunately this happens, but it's not right. Philo, do you want to kowtow to these kinds of immoral people? Is this the kind of world you want to live in when it comes to public discourse?

Sometimes a meme is worth a thousand words:

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Tyson admits this is language redundancy, which is stupid and unnecessary. Using the phrase "most but not all" is like you asking me what color my new car is, and I respond "It's blue, and by blue I mean it's not green, not red, not yellow," etc. so as to eliminate every word that doesn't mean blue. Words such as "in general" and "most" and "some" don't require a PhD to understand.

Tyson understands that language has become a weapon for dirty politics. At 4:48 Tyson says "If I'm anti-Sam Harris, I'm going right to the statement [about torture]" You see, he's saying that if a person already wants to attack Sam Harris, the person will deliberately pretend to misunderstand and misconstrue what Sam Harris has said, in order to attack him for something he didn't say. That's bizarro world. Unfortunately this happens, but it's not right. Philo, do you want to kowtow to these kinds of immoral people? Is this the kind of world you want to live in when it comes to public discourse?

Sometimes a meme is worth a thousand words:

I think the distinctive point made by Tyson in that video I posted above was that some people (even Christians) can essentially hear the term "all" or "nearly all" when the world "most" is actually applied to some socially charged statistical evaluation that is couched in a criticism of religious faith, especially when used by someone like Harris.

Anyway, it's probably not a real big point for us to focus on, and I'd agree with some here who might think that. However, the overall point to keep in mind is that I don't think we need to take Harris all that seriously anyway other than as an interesting philosophical critic of Christianity and of other religions (like Islam). In fact, I don't think it wouldn't be too much of a project to deconstruct either his of his books that have been bothersome to hour faith, such as The End of Faith, or Letter to a Christian Nation. So, if it just so happens that you don't like both Harris and Tyson, then that is what it is. But, I'm personally not going to knock Tyson's good sense for social edicate and communication. It's not the likes of Tyson who is really a threat to the Christian faith, but rather those skeptics and atheists who angrily carry around a vendetta poised and targeted at the Church.

 

[Chesterton]

This might even slightly or even remotely matter if skeptics and non-believers adhered to every word Sam Harris happened to state (which I doubt practically anyone actually does). It's fair to say that most/all Christians do not take every statement and phrase presented by 'their favorite apologist' to 'heart' either.

Fellow Christians disagree about certain aspects and perspectives
Fellow republicans disagree about certain aspects and perspectives
Fellow atheists disagree about certain aspects and perspectives

I disagree. For the purpose of the OP, it doesn't matter whether anyone listens to Harris or believes anything he's said. It just has to do with consistency within his thinking. If he were just a friend of mine who didn't write books and lecture and all that, I would still find it interesting enough to ask him to explain himself if he had made a comment like this. Although it's true I probably wouldn't make a thread about a friend of mine whom nobody's heard of.

So what is the point of this 'observation'?

Well, I considered giving the thread a different title, one where I asked atheists to help me interpret what Sam meant. So as I said, I just think it's interesting. But if there's a point to be made, since I've seen this kind of slip-up before, I think it's difficult if not impossible for materialists/determinists to stick to their guns.

So, I'd answered the question already, but thank you for giving me the chance to offer some elaboration which I hope doesn't ramble too much:

I've heard Richard Dawkins make the same kind of "slip-up". (You can trust me on that or not. It was in a video I saw years ago, I'd have no idea how to find it.) In the same book I mentioned, Miracles, C. S. Lewis also notes something similar in regard to morality, which I'll post:

The Naturalist can, if he chooses, brazen it out. He can say, ‘Yes. I quite agree that there is no such thing as wrong and right. I admit that no moral judgment can be “true” or “correct” and, consequently, that no one system of morality can be better or worse than another. All ideas of good and evil are hallucinations—shadows cast on the outer world by the impulses which we have been conditioned to feel.’ Indeed many Naturalists are delighted to say this.

But then they must stick to it; and fortunately (though inconsistently) most real Naturalists do not. A moment after they have admitted that good and evil are illusions, you will find them exhorting us to work for posterity, to educate, revolutionise, liquidate, live and die for the good of the human race. A Naturalist like Mr. H. G. Wells has spent a long life doing so with passionate eloquence and zeal. But surely this is very odd? Just as all the books about spiral nebulae, atoms and cave men would really have led you to suppose that the Naturalists claimed to be able to know something, so all the books in which Naturalists tell us what we ought to do would really make you believe that they thought some ideas of good (their own, for example) to be somehow preferable to others. For they write with indignation like men proclaiming what is good in itself and denouncing what is evil in itself, and not at all like men recording that they personally like mild beer but some people prefer bitter. Yet if the ‘oughts’ of Mr. Wells and, say, Franco are both equally the impulses which Nature has conditioned each to have and both tell us nothing about any objective right or wrong, whence is all the fervour? Do they remember while they are writing thus that when they tell us we ‘ought to make a better world’ the words ‘ought’ and ‘better’ must, on their own showing, refer to an irrationally conditioned impulse which cannot be true or false any more than a vomit or a yawn?

My idea is that sometimes they do forget. That is their glory. Holding a philosophy which excludes humanity, they yet remain human. At the sight of injustice they throw all their Naturalism to the winds and speak like men and like men of genius. They know far better than they think they know. But at other times, I suspect, they are trusting in a supposed way of escape from their difficulty.​

We also find the same "slip-up" in all of the many awkward metaphors we use for evolution. We have the phrase "natural selection", which is an oxymoron. "Selecting" is something done by a conscious mind. If I rolled a rock down a hill, it would be ridiculous to say that it selected that other rock to hit, then selected that one clump of grass to roll over, then selected that tree to bump into, then selected a resting place. And when we wonder why we humans have strong feelings about morality, some will say we've been "programmed" over millenia. Obviously, mindless nature doesn't "program" anything. There are many other examples, and I think these metaphors could be seen as a kind of slip-up, and likely an inevitable one, because as I say, it isn't easy being a materialist.

 

[Chesterton]

I think the distinctive point made by Tyson in that video I posted above was that some people (even Christians) can essentially hear the term "all" or "nearly all" when the world "most" is actually applied to some socially charged statistical evaluation that is couched in a criticism of religious faith, especially when used by someone like Harris.

Anyway, it's probably not a real big point for us to focus on, and I'd agree with some here who might think that. However, the overall point to keep in mind is that I don't think we need to take Harris all that seriously anyway other than as an interesting philosophical critic of Christianity and of other religions (like Islam). In fact, I don't think it wouldn't be too much of a project to deconstruct either his of his books that have been bothersome to hour faith, such as The End of Faith, or Letter to a Christian Nation. So, if it just so happens that you don't like both Harris and Tyson, then that is what it is. But, I'm personally not going to knock Tyson's good sense for social edicate and communication. It's not the likes of Tyson who is really a threat to the Christian faith, but rather those skeptics and atheists who angrily carry around a vendetta poised and targeted at the Church.

Tyson in that video reminds me a bit of my older brother. He was a lot more diplomatic. He'd say things in a nice way that the person had no chance of misunderstanding. I've always preferred being more blunt and accurate, lol.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Tyson in that video reminds me a bit of my older brother. He was a lot more diplomatic. He'd say things in a nice way that the person had no chance of misunderstanding. I've always preferred being more blunt and accurate, lol.

Yes, I can see that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting. Listen to what Sam says beginning at about 103:27. Sounds like he's making the C. S. Lewis argument from "Miracles".

For me, reason is the only thing...that takes us out of who we are and scales to some universal point of view.... If you're actually reasoning, what you're arriving at is not just true for you, it's true for anyone who could be in...it's true from essentially above, on any given topic. You know, it does offer the view from above, or a view from any possible perspective,...[then a bit more]​

As I listened in on Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro during the first several minutes of the OP video, I found that I can actually commend Sam Harris on something for once, that something being that he seems to be taking a more moderate turn of direction in how he chooses to engage those who are in an opposing camp of thought.

I also like how Harris self-reflects upon his own identification with the Left and is willing to say that some political expressions [of late] that seem to characterize the Left's more extreme members may very well contribute to the demise of constructive conversations that could take place between the Left and the over-reactive Right. I agree with this. Maybe Harris has finally taken a few bits of advice from Tyson on how to better handle discussions with his opponents....................................well then, onward with the next 10 minutes of the video.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting. Listen to what Sam says beginning at about 103:27. Sounds like he's making the C. S. Lewis argument from "Miracles".

For me, reason is the only thing...that takes us out of who we are and scales to some universal point of view.... If you're actually reasoning, what you're arriving at is not just true for you, it's true for anyone who could be in...it's true from essentially above, on any given topic. You know, it does offer the view from above, or a view from any possible perspective,...[then a bit more]​

Ok, up and center on Harris: I'm thinking about and analyzing a few of the choice comments which Harris made to Shapiro between minutes 10:00-31:00.

1) @~11:30 Harris says something to the effect that, when considering facts or statements regarding the past, "Either X happened or it did not; either we get access to data or we don't." .............well, that is a gross oversimplification of what really goes on in the process of analyzing what we may deem to be possible information regarding constructed truth statements about the past. [I'm not going to get into it here, but I merely want to point it out.] So, Harris drops the ball here.

2) @~21:40 Harris says he's not convinced by the 'historical' argument of Judeo-Christian influences upon the West's developing sensibilities about ethics/morality, mainly due to his own seeming application of the Genetic Fallacy. Ok. I can partially go with Harris in agreeing with him that human morality doesn't necessarily ONLY come from the Judeo-Christian tradition as it has been cued by the Biblical writers. (But I say this mainly because Biblical epistemology would preclude the kind of epistemological exclusivity that says that only Christians can have ANY kind of morality whatsoever, and this should be noticed by us particularly since there is a implication within the overall Biblical complex that moral sensibilities should generally be found among human beings everywhere since they are all made in the image of God).

Harris also missteps in saying that Christianity made a moral boo-boo (and disservice to humanity) by undermining the Roman Empire and ushering in the Dark Ages. What? Did it indeed to all of that? [This is another point I'm not getting into, but I will say that I think it's yet another half truth that is promulgated by critics of Christianity who like to promote the idea of the War between the Bible and Science, one that has been continually spun and respun through the act of re-labeling the Middle Ages as: the Dark Ages.]

3) @~ 28:20 Harris says WHY he thinks the Bible can't be a moral repository for humanity:
** Harris says it 'requires' cherry-picking by today's Christians in order to make it conform to today's democratic sensibilities [.......this is a complex issue surrounding another half truth, but an inverted half-truth.]

** Harris says SLAVERY is in the Bible and even Jesus didn't repudiate this sad institution. [Oh, here we go again with the slavery "hot potato" issue! ....well, how about this, there are a few other social issues that Jesus didn't repudiate, either [like mass poverty] or at least He didn't do so in a way that conforms with our modern day assumptions which undergird the 'truth' of democracy. Oh surprise!!!!]

4) @~ 29:55 Harris oversimplifies the essence of Jainism to make a point about how the Bible was supposedly deficient "even for it's own era," and he slips-up here since it ISN'T perfectly clear that Jainism's philosophy has been caste-free, with the idea that the notion of the caste system is a form of social violence not too different from the idea that slavery is a form of social violence. So, Harris fudges there, too...........

Anyway, @Chesterton, these are just a few additional points at which Harris faltered (or "slipped-up"), along with the one that you point out toward the end of the video.......

....onward to the final 30 minutes. [See? I do care! ]

2PhiloVoid

 

[Chesterton]

As I listened in on Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro during the first several minutes of the OP video, I found that I can actually commend Sam Harris on something for once, that something being that he seems to be taking a more moderate turn of direction in how he chooses to engage those who are in an opposing camp of thought.

I also like how Harris self-reflects upon his own identification with the Left and is willing to say that some political expressions [of late] that seem to characterize the Left's more extreme members may very well contribute to the demise of constructive conversations that could take place between the Left and the over-reactive Right. I agree with this. Maybe Harris has finally taken a few bits of advice from Tyson on how to better handle discussions with his opponents....................................well then, onward with the next 10 minutes of the video.

Well this is off-topic but it's interesting and important. In regard to the Tyson-Harris video you posted, I still say Tyson is wrong. (He's completely correct in the first minutes about height and water bottles, but then he contradicts himself in criticizing Harris.) In order to understand, may I ask you to tell me specifically why or how Harris was wrong in how he communicated his thoughts about radical Islam and about torture?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well this is off-topic but it's interesting and important. In regard to the Tyson-Harris video you posted, I still say Tyson is wrong. (He's completely correct in the first minutes about height and water bottles, but then he contradicts himself in criticizing Harris.) In order to understand, may I ask you to tell me specifically why or how Harris was wrong in how he communicated his thoughts about radical Islam and about torture?

As far as I can tell, all that Tyson was saying [or implying] to Harris (@ 1:50 - 2:30) was that during one of Harris' podcasts, Harris "failed" to use both his sense of reasonable judgement and his emotional intelligence to properly connect with the Muslim lady with whom he was speaking during the podcast.

So, as Tyson insists----and I agree with him-----that Harris failed to clearly communicate his "meaning," despite breaking things down statistically, by couching the problem under discussion in language that the woman on the phone line only seemed to understand as having a very negative implication about most Muslims.

In other words, despite all of his mental acumen, and despite all of his prodigious philosophical work, Harris does not always communicate his views, and this comes out when the rest of us consider overall 'how' his content is in turn understood by rest of who are in "the masses" .....

And I would say this shortcoming Harris has seems to line up with the other shortcomings in Harris' thought which are exhibited in your OP video with Ben Shapiro.

 

[Chesterton]

dp

 

[Chesterton]

As far as I can tell, all that Tyson was saying [or implying] to Harris (@ 1:50 - 2:30) was that during one of Harris' podcasts, Harris "failed" to use both his sense of reasonable judgement and his emotional intelligence to properly connect with the Muslim lady with whom he was speaking during the podcast.

So, as Tyson insists----and I agree with him-----that Harris failed to clearly communicate his "meaning," despite breaking things down statistically, by couching the problem under discussion in language that the woman on the phone line only seemed to understand as having a very negative implication about most Muslims.

In other words, despite all of his mental acumen, and despite all of his prodigious philosophical work, Harris does not always communicate his views, and this comes out when the rest of us consider overall 'how' his content is in turn understood by rest of who are in "the masses" .....

And I would say this shortcoming Harris has seems to line up with the other shortcomings in Harris' thought which are exhibited in your OP video with Ben Shapiro.

I asked you for specifics. Listen at 2:03 - 2:40. Basically, Sam says "some Muslims are radical". The lady says "You can't paint all Muslims that way". Wut?

Sam states a fact which is common knowledge, and the lady's response makes no sense mathematically or grammatically. What exactly did Sam do wrong?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I asked you for specifics. Listen at 2:03 - 2:40. Basically, Sam says "some Muslims are radical". The lady says "You can't paint all Muslims that way". Wut?

Sam states a fact which is common knowledge, and the lady's response makes no sense mathematically or grammatically. What exactly did Sam do wrong?

Sam did what he does most often -- he tries to assume that everyone will understand his use of logic, and he also obfuscates and hedges out the considerations of various other contexts. One would think that for someone like who who is a neurobiologist, he'd try to have a bit more in depth understanding about human psychology as it is formed, shaped, and acculturated by .... cultures.

 

[Chesterton]

Sam did what he does most often...

You're wrong. Sam does not always do that.