Item — HN Reader

The article mentions the first interview Sam Harris did with Jordan Peterson. It appeared frustrating for both parties because they got caught up in definitions of words, etc. Still, it was civil so they parted and agreed to talk again. Harris says, "I’d received more listener requests for him than for Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Edward Snowden—or, indeed, any other person on earth."[0]

Notably, but not in the article, Harris interviewed Peterson again, two months later.[1]

[0] https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b-peters...

[1] https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and-chaos/

1 comments

This is key: Continuing discussion is essential to scientific and social progress -- especially on topics in which you disagree or may even be offended (if emotions were allowed to dominate), not to the exclusion of such things.

This inversion from intellectuals welcoming disagreement to shunning it is a terrifying movement to those who value science and truth-seeking, because in a worst case scenario it could very realistically lower us into a new dark age. Just the necessity of an "intellectual dark web" is itself an extremely concerning reflection of today's intellectual climate, which is becoming hostile to tenets of rationality and civilized discourse.

When we subtract dialogue and reason from the picture, all we are left with is emotional conflict -- and rarely do two extremely conflicting emotional views of a topic resolve automatically without the intervention or guidance of rationality.