A Question for Sam Harris1

Ever since Sam Harris had Charles Murray on the podcast, Ive had this lingering
discomfort with the way Harris has been handling some of the push back and criticism. This
discomfort, to be sure, was always there, but recent events have made the pain more acute.
Apparently, other listeners of the podcast have had a similar bad taste, as Harris recently
alluded to when he mentioned there was a concern that Charles Murray kept sliding off the
why do this research at all or question. It is, indeed, the same question that kept popping
up in my head, and I too think Murray slid off the topic crudely, if somewhat dismissively.
Harriss own defense of Murray on this point seemed equally unreflective and dismissive;
being the cynic that I can sometimes be, I detected a condescending were scientists
attitude running a few layers beneath the surface of both Murray and Harriss defense.
The defense, as far as I can tell, amounted to: well, its science. As if anyone with a
white lab coat and a bit of funding had free-reign to study whatever piqued their interest and
for whatever reason. Of course, in the technical sense, anyone can do this, but the
questionthe question that Harris and Murray kept sliding off ofis whether they ought to
do it. A question equally valid in science, I think, as it is in any other area of human inquiry.
Are there any moral limitations or ought nots, one might ask, that can justifiably serve to
derail a particular area of research or stop it in its tracks? Anything off-limits? Ironically
enough, this, I think, was the point Peterson was trying to make in his epistemological
debate with Sam, albeit crudely and poorly.

In a preamble to a recent podcast with Siddhartha Mukherjee Harris try to smooth

out this tension. Speaking about the need to explore areas of scientific interest uninhibited
by worries about what someone might do with said science, Harris used the example of
recent research concerning the genetic lineage of Africans as compared to caucasians. The
research claimed, according to Harris, that everyone who was not African or of African
descent had some degree of neanderthal DNA in them. Only pure Africans were pure
homo sapiens according to this genetic research. Harris then wondered what it would be like
if the exact opposite were found to be true; that it was discovered that those of caucasian
descent were the only pure homo sapiens. He says about this counterfactual situation,

Imagine if it had been the other way, and you had white supremacist nitwits
like Richard Spencer talking about how now we know why black people are

1
Due to the heated nature of commentaries like this, I feel like a quick note is in order here: I do not think
Charles Murray is a racist, nor do I think Sam Harris is a racist, nor do I think it was a poor choice for Harris
to invite Murray on the podcast, etc., etc.
 inferior, they're part neanderthal. We cannot worry about that stuff. It could have
come out either way. Our obvious goal should be to maximize human
opportunity across the board, and the master algorithm here is to treat
people as individuals. Identity politics is going to be the end of us (emphasis
only partly mine).

Barring for a moment the several-issue gloss this short little paragraph offers, this
view of scientific exploration seems to me a bit untethered and unrestrained. But it also
shows why Harris couldnt really defend Murrays doing The Bell Curve research anymore than
Murray could. Theres plenty of space to fill between science and maximizing human
happiness that, to me at least, isnt self-evident. At the very least, the silent bridge between
the science and human well-being doesnt automatically bestow legitimacy upon everything
done in the name of the latter.
The example becomes even muddier when Harris says that the actual researchthe
research that Africans are the only pure homo sapienscuts across the white supremacist
narrative. On Harriss account, though, this shouldnt matter. Would this not be science
hijacked in service of a liberal view? Where did the we cannot worry about this stuff go if
stuff here means, as I think Harris means it, interpretations of scientific research put
crudely in service of a particular agenda? Is the choice thus between: science ought to be
done for its own sake and irrespective of the public interpretation of it, or science ought to
consider (or at least be mindful of) what effects particular scientific discoveries might have
socially speaking, all the way from egregious and willful misinterpretation to honest, but
nonetheless socially divisive interpretations. The hijacking of Murrays research (not
Murrays benign analysis of it) being somewhere in between these two poles.
To put the second point differently, we can substitute Murrays work for Harriss
own counterfactual: that it is found, instead, that caucasian people are in fact the purest form
of homo sapiens. Could you not then imagine a person with solid scientific evidence for a
socially harmful view such as white supremacy? Is this a poor interpretation, poor politics, or
both? The example doesnt even have to be a counterfactual. Couldnt one reasonably get
from people of African descent are purer homo sapiens than caucasian people a justification
for black supremacy, as some have argued in recent years? The point is, in both cases, the
science turns on either downplaying a particular interpretation (and emphasizing the is
part of science) or emphasizing a particular interpretation (and emphasizing the ought part
of science). It doesnt seem to turn on, at least for Harris, the science or the bare facts.
Harris seems to want to eat the cake of science that serves a political or social point and have
the science of objectively pursuing truth too.
Harriss position, in other words, hinges on everyone or at least most people coming
to be scientifically literate such that the views of someone like Richard Spencer fail to find
any reasonable public expression. Not only this but everyone must accept the most liberal
interpretation. This requires, on the one hand, incredible optimism with regard to our
scientific education, and one the otherpiggybacking on the first pointan extremely
nuanced view of how Harris thinks we ought to interpret scientific studies, research, and
data.
But Harris seems to have different moods for different research. Sometimes he
speaks as if scientists should have an near-total indifference to whether or not the public gets
it or, for lack of a better word, whether the public can handle it. I think its far from elitism to
say that, in many cases, he is probably justified in this feeling. It isnt just the overly cynical
who are left with their face in their hands over some peoples interpretations of relatively
straightforward science, a bare admission that the planets climate is indeed changing a good
example of such. Other times, though, he speaks as if he wants the public to be scientifically
literate, mindful, reflective, and nuanced enough to grasp the intricacies of science; to know
the web of factors that affect almost every shred of scientific data. But in both casesif
Harris is either optimistic about or indifferent toward the general publics interpretationsit
seems odd to be confused or outraged when they dont harbor the most charitable
interpretation possible. Indifference ditches delicacy, and optimism invites impatience.

Because Harris hasnt staked out his position on the is/ought question of scientific
truth, he has left us in a bit of a muddle. Harriss position can thus be interpreted:

Caucasians are purer homo sapiensDon't put too much weight into scientific research;
science doesnt tell us in any obvious manner what we ought to do or how we ought to act
individually, socially, or politically.

Africans are purer homo sapiensThis cuts white supremacy at the knees.

Without a liberal bent (i.e., something like a commitment to equality, justice, etc.),
there is no way Harris can prevent the latter from being a justification for black supremacy
rather than just a knock at white supremacy. As someone who leans pragmatist, this doesnt
bother me; consistency, we pragmatists believe, is indeed the hobgoblin of little minds. But
put another way, Africans are the only pure homo sapiens cuts across the white supremacist
narrative, but, the reverse, Caucasians are the only true homo sapiens doesnt cut across
anything; its just science, and we ought not draw too many hasty conclusions from itat
least socially and politically.
But that seems to be the crux of it. I see Murrays research in the Bell Curve as akin to
this latter type of research: research that has close to no social or political consequences
even for Murraybut is nonetheless paraded as necessary, and is then defended awkwardly
by people like Harris. Murrays position amounts to, essentially: Here are the striking
differences, but we cant and shouldnt build a society modeled on those differences. In fact
to do so would be nothing short of preposterous and evil.
So, one wants to ask, whats the point in pointing out these differences in the first
place, especially if your own views are some distance from the research. Couldnt Murray
have arrived at his own social and political views without the Bell Curve research? Is the
argument in his defense only that we cant know in advance of actually doing the research
what consequencesgood or badit will have? Is that enough justification? Does this then
lead to the conclusion that there are certain instances where research, upon being concluded,
must be kept from the publics view? Harris no doubt has answers to these questions, but his
recent attempts at addressing them seemed to me uncharacteristically lacking in substance
and clarity.

Postscript I
In another sense, Harris doesnt seem to see the truth (so to speak) in identity
politics. Hes right to point out that no one cares one whit about the disparity between the
IQ scores of Asians and whites, but theres a glaringly obvious reason for this carelessness,
and it is only when you ignore the entire social landscape that this apparent carelessness
looks like hypocrisy or inconsistency. Only a subtle sort of relativism would insist that,
because there are disparities in some well-off, upper strata, that these disparities must always
be mentioned in the same breath as those disparities at the lower, more socially pressing,
level. Again though, its obvious that Harris doesnt ignore the social landscape because he
argues that the socially helpful scienceAfricans are purer homo sapienshas the ability
(though it need not) to cut at the white supremacists narrative. And this is undoubtedly
good thing, because white-on-black racism is a bad thingIm just not sure Harris gets to
say this.
In the end, Harris hopes that we come to see that facts are not thing to be feared or
things that inspire witch hunts of the sort that have, with a frightening level of disproportion
and delusion, materialized as of late. I quite agree, but the questions I have sketched above
remain unaffected by my disdain for these uncharitable and malicious witch hunts. Its
unclear whether Harris would hesitate at a witch hunt potentially arising against white
supremacists (not white people in general) when it is found that Africans have a purer
lineage or whether he would find it agreeable and a step in the right direction. 2 I think it has
the potential to be positive, but on Harriss account, to do this would be dubious if largely
unhelpful. At worst, this views sees science only through a social and political lens. In any
case, he seems to want our politics to swing free from the factsto what degree he wants

2
Harris said, however, that he shared it on Twitter and had fun with it; essentially, he thought it was funny. I am
leaving room for the fact that I might be overinterpreting Harriss support on this.
this is unclear. Surely, he doesnt want us to swing totally free from them, as then his
admiration for science would be found wanting and unsubstantiated.

Postscript II
Theres another aspect to Harriss we cannot worry about that comment that I
dont find wrong but perhaps just a bit unhelpful. He seems to be caught between following
the science for sciences sake line of thought, but also saying things like looking for racial
differences in anything is a dubious thing to do. So Murrays work is both science and a
project Harris is largely not on board with but he is nonetheless interested in the way in
which its becoming impossible to talk about facts when they brush up against taboo rails
and the toxicity of this. But if youre dubious about the path in the first place, wouldnt that
legitimate at least some of the indignation slung at Murray? Of course, as Im sure Harris
would agree, this should be proportionate and reasonable criticism; not the type of Nazi-
racist-white supremacist accusations he usually gets. Pragmatically, we could just say that his
project was unwarranted and unnecessary. As to the charge of hindsight being 20/20, Im
fairly confident that with a few minutes of reflection we could have said a similar thing about
the work even before it was begun.
Theres a flavor of urgency and impatience in Harriss wavering here. On the one
hand, Harris is impatient with the fact that we have to constantly pander to the lowest
common denominatorsthe Richard Spencer interpretationsbut I dont believe he is so
naive to think that, to some extent, we should at least be mindful of these or at least get
ahead of these interpretations when we know theyre coming. We need not pander or halt
scientific research, but perhaps inject some delicacy into the whole processespecially when
dealing with inflammatory topics like racial differences. In that sense, Im not sure Im ready
to divorce funding from scientist from science from the publicwe cant just wash our
hands all the way down the line.
As much as one doesnt want it to be true that people will willfully and egregiously
misinterpret, they will; and to ignore this is to ignore something central to our human
condition. They must be constantly combated, which Harris does quite well most of the
time. I suppose one cannot fault him for becoming increasingly exhausted, though I think he
underestimates how much effect hes had on the public at large with his work. The fight
against error will always be an uphill battle Im afraid. For that, perhaps Harris is more
optimistic than I.