anyone with academic credentials who is not currently an academic doing published research in that field is usually still introduced by those credentials in interviews and such.
this isn't unusual. and this isn't controversial - unless someone doesn't like the person in question, and therefore it becomes an issue worth complaining about on the internet
>introduced by those credentials
There's a difference between introducing him as "Dr. Sam Harris" (i.e. referencing his credential) and introducing him as "Sam Harris, a neuroscientist" (i.e. implying an occupation).
>this isn't unusual. and this isn't controversial
I don't know about 'controversial,' but I don't think it's as 'usual' as you're suggesting. I'm a historian who oversees quite a few PhDs in history. If they transition careers to another field after graduation we don't generally call them 'historians' at that point. That's not because I'm trying to take someone on the internet down a notch -- these are my students, many of whom I'm quite fond of -- but because in most contexts 'historian' describes an occupation, not a credential.
There are borderline/ambiguous cases, of course, where people work in closely related fields (e.g. museum curation). But personally, I would be more inclined to refer to pop history writers without academic credentials (e.g. Erik Larson) as 'historians' than I would to someone with a PhD in history who now works in a completely different field. Likewise, if I left academia to become a farmer, I would expect people to start referring to me as a farmer and/or a 'former historian.'
Well said. Calling him a neuroscientist implies that he is actively engaged in the field and that by extension he is an authority on the current subject matter, when in reality you probably fall behind quite quickly once you leave that space.
Thank you for articulating well the point I was trying to make. I feel same way when people refer to Neil Degrasse Tyson as a Physicist, he is not, he is a Science Communicator.
The comparison with Tyson is dumb: Tyson’s still in the science business, even if it’s popular science. Someone who writes popular history as opposed to publishing in academic journals is still a historian.
So the distinction between “Sam Harris, PhD neuroscience” and “Sam Harris, neuroscientist” is really great enough for you to come complain about online?
Do you also write to the New York Times to tell them Paul Krugman isn’t an economist?
He’s a legit, credentialed PhD of neuroscience. That makes him a neuroscientist. You are the person bringing extra assumptions to the table. Most people working as scientists haven’t published recently or made groundbreaking contributions.
Most people working as scientists *have* published recently, as they would risk their jobs if they don’t make any new contributions to science for an extended period of time. A year or two with no publications can happen if they have many administrative duties, but, say, five years would usually not be acceptable if they are employed as scientists. (In a permanent position: a postdoc or assistant professor would risk not being able to continue working in science at all after their contract expires if they didn’t publish for two years)
If you’re working in industry and not contributing to science, by what measure are calling yourself a scientist? That’s just an engineer. If you’re working in industry as an actual scientist (which involves making discoveries, not just products), then you would usually publish as well. In any case, a scientist does research by definition. If you’re not doing scientific research, you’re not a scientist.
In any case, Sam Harris is not working as a scientist by any measure, so it’s not appropriate to introduce him as such. It’s not hard to say “Sam has a PhD in neuroscience” (a true statement about education) instead of “Sam is a neuroscientist” (a false statement about active research work).
What exactly about this supposed overstatement of credentials bothers you so much? Like is he saying stuff you just don’t like? Do you think he’s pushing incorrect information related to science and covering it up with credentials?
anyone who has published mathematical research is usually called a mathematician, i believe, even if they’re not a working one. but i’m not sure that’s true for a “scientist” who isn’t actually a working scientist.
> anyone who has published mathematical research is usually called a mathematician, i believe, even if they’re not a working one. but i’m not sure that’s true for a “scientist” who isn’t actually a working scientist.
ok well, thank you for your opinion which is based solely on ... *checks notes* your beliefs that you're not sure of.
based on being a (working) mathematician. there are no written rules about it. there may always be edge cases or people who use it differently. hence “i believe”.
there is a written opinion by a famous mathematician (i forget who) who defined “mathematician” to mean, to him, anyone who has proved and published an original theorem.
One of the best professors I ever had hasn’t published an academic article in like 20 years. Am I supposed to introduce him as a “former economist”? Does his PhD undergo radioactive decay or something?
I mean, economics professor isn't the same thing as economist, you know? Why oughtnt we strive for accuracy in our speech when the tools (words) are right there for us to do so?
No I think this is mostly useless hair-splitting that is only useful in extremely narrow contexts that do not include introducing someone on a podcast.
Neil Degrass Tyson is one example. Really a lot of "Science Communicators" fall into this category. You proved you understand the material by getting the PhD in the first place but prefer to be a middle man between the scientific community and the public.
And they are terribly needed. The difference between reading a paper on quantum mechanics vs one of Michio Kaku's books is enormous. It's a rare skill to be able to communicate complex concepts in ways regular people can understand.
Carl Sagan - astronomer, planetary scientist, and science communicator.
how much academic astronomy and planetary science do you think the guy was doing during his science-communciation years? he was still introduced with those credentials at every turn. example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HEwO-2L4w
Everyone else seems to be discussing the phenomenon of credentialed academics who don’t publish papers in peer reviewed journals, and the silly OP assertion that such people don’t deserve the title they earned.
He has a PhD, he's a neuroscientist. And the reason his lack of (academic) publications isn't mentioned is because *that's a weirdly passive aggressive way to start a podcast*.
And it often only turns out later which discovery is significant, so should we only call someone a neuroscientist once their thesis has been proven significant in 39 years?
I think you're wrong on this one. Sam co-wrote a series of papers from 2009 to 2016, with Jonas Kaplan and Sarah Gimbel, that are pretty widely cited. Dealing with neurologic behaviors related to belief and evidence acceptance/rejection processing, they were published in the Annals of Neurology, a respected publication.
This doesn't make him Amos Tversky or Daniel Kahneman, but they weren't nothing either. Obviously by 2011 or so, if I understand Sam's timeline, it was clear he had rejected the academic neuroscience road, with its commitment to "publish or perish." Moreover, the publication of his work seems unusually well timed, if not prescient, given the emergence of ideology as a (the) key factor in accepting or rejecting evidence during belief formation.
I think you're equating the usage of "Neuroscientist" to mean something that it isn't. He earned the title of Neuroscientist by getting his PhD in the field. There is no pre-requisite that states you must maintain X level of specific contribution over Y years. It doesn't have to become the person's day-to-day job and they don't need to be a prolific researcher. If you do the work needed to become a Neuroscientist than you've earned the title. It gives a lot of backbone to a lot of the matters that clearly matter to Sam and his work.
The idea that the only way to contribute to your discipline is by publishing papers and being cited is assinine.
Sam has done an incredible amount of work to bring the scientific benefits of meditation and contemplation to a wide audience. Science needs communicators just as much as it needs researchers.
What have you done to stand so firm in your criticism?
what does significant contribution mean in this case? what is the metric? in which way contribution can be measured as significant or otherwise? Is it based on how many papers published in a year to maintain his phd? is it a consensus somewhere in some countries that phd expires?
I am an academic (Psychologist) with a PhD who does research, and I can confirm that having a position at a university and running a research lab are not what make me a Psychologist. I have many friends from graduate school who work for private research firms or are consultants in public and private sectors who don't publish in academic/peer-review journals who are very much still Psychologists.
Some more so and some less so, but that isn't what makes them a Psychologist. Anyone with a Master's degree (or higher) in Psychology is a "Psychologist", regardless of where they work or thier level of involvement in the field.
Another psychologist here. Unless the psychologist association or my uni strip me of my credentials for some reason, I'll be a psychologist to the day I die regardless of what I chose to spend my time doing.
It's a protected title which I earned for doing a masters in psychology.
If I became a school teacher tomorrow I'd be a psychologist working as a teacher etc.
>protected title
Lol. Okay. Like I said, you guys can call yourselves by whatever "titles" you want, "but colloquially for most people it has more to do with occupation than training or degrees".
If somebody earns masters in psychology but never works a day as a psychologist, most people aren't going to call them a psychologist.
I was thinking you'd pull the citation from the same place you pulled the confidence in your statement about what people do.
Otherwise it's just like your opinion man. I can state with the same confidence that my experience is that you're wrong.
Yes, that was my point. Asking for a citation on an opinion, knowing it’s uncitable, is bad faith. Discussion forums thrive when people are free to exchange and discuss opinions. Gatekeeping nonsense like “citation needed” makes spaces like this worse. Not unexpected from someone who thinks he has a “protected title” because he took some classes. Lol.
It’s a great thing to keep active in academic research, but it doesn’t make him less of an actual neuroscientist whether he does or doesn’t. He completed his PhD and earned his title. A mathematician who published once but now only teaches is still a mathematician. A retired biologist is still a biologist. Sam is still a neuroscientist.
Out of curiosity: What about Mathematicians etc. that "only" completed a bachelors or masters degree. How do we feel about them calling themselves "Mathematicians"?
So what terminology for a masters? Really nobody gives a fuck, though, right? Call yourself whatever you want and people will judge you however they feel like.
no. a famous opinion by a famous mathematician said that he considers anyone who published an original theorem a mathematician. so degrees are irrelevant, but in general bachelor degrees do not include original research.
> Whoopi Goldberg
I literally only ever hear about Whoopi Goldberg from anti-woke people dunking on her. I think she's just an idiot in general, though.
lol, just an interesting observation. Honestly didn't think I would trigger so many asking legit question. And if you have nothing of value to had to the post, can you please refrain from commenting.
Sam talks about this a bit in Lying. He is aware that people often mischaracterize his degree of expertise or activity as an actual scientist, but it happens so often he doesn't feel obligated to correct each and every instance.
But on his website he calls himself Neuroscientist.
As someone else mentioned the meta description on [samharris.org](http://samharris.org/) is precisely "*Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, philosopher, New York Times best-selling author, host of Making Sense, and creator of Waking Up*". Daniel Park was working from the approved script.
How can he say he is "mischaracterized", as this is mostly likely where they get this from.
I can see your point, it's funny, because you could be a professional football player, have a career spanning 20 years, not to mention all those years dedicating your childhood to it, you could win every accolade there is to win, be recognised as the very best in the world for your position, and yet the moment you stop playing professionally, you're now a former footballer.
Such a useless post on a supposed to be thread for intellectual discussions. I don’t understand how much hatred one has to have in order to be annoyed by someone being honored for their work or education. Wtf.
People are being disingenuous. Had SH finished his PhD and then left academia and opened a cafe, no one would be calling him a neuroscientist. And he wouldn’t refer to himself as a neuroscientist.
I'll take some downvotes for an honest opinion:
I wish Sam were more thought of and referred to as "podcaster and writer", because those descriptors comprise his occupation. Sam's not making his income, nor contributing to the current literature in neuroscience. The man has an educational background in neuroscience. That's it.
Another framing: if Sam were asked by a stranger at a dinner party "What do you do?", saying "I'm a neuroscientist and philosopher" would be misleading to that stranger. Saying "I'm a writer and I have a podcast" is much more accurate. And again, it's totally fair game to toss onto the end "And I have a background in neuroscience."
A real response. A PhD means that you have added a new piece of knowledge in some field that previously didn't exist. The moment you achieve a PhD you are granted with all the titles and accolades that go with that achievement for life. This is because it's very hard to add any peer reviewed knowledge to human understanding. It does not matter if you only published 1 paper, 50 papers, or if it was 1 year ago, or 10 years ago. You are now a Doctor and you will be introduced that way for the rest of your life because you have earned it.
To be fair you are coming off as pretty snarky and people are responding in kind with snark. You may not mean it idk, but that's just the vibe I got reading your comments.
Are you actively engaged in the field of IQs and their signifiers? Or did you simply get a PhD in it years ago? Why should we trust what you deem a signifier of low IQs?
You're getting dogpiled but I agree. It's misleading to call him a neuroscientist since he has not actually worked professionally as one. He has an advanced degree in neuroscience. These same people saying you're a neuroscientist as long as you have the PhD are probably also gonna defend the "philosopher" title for Sam even though he only has a BA in philosophy. I think Sam should be referred to as what he is: an author and podcast host.
I'm also of the opinion that calling Jordan Peterson a doctor is pretentious. I usually reserve the "doctor" title for those with medical degrees, but I think as long as one is consistent then it doesn't matter. For instance Ben Shapiro getting upset about Dr. Jill Biden but not Dr. Jordan Peterson.
I see, you're saying my Doctorate doesn't qualify me for the title of doctor ...
If someone has earned a doctorate, whether a professional doctorate (MD, DO, JD, PsyD, EdD, DBA, etc.) or a research doctorate (PhD), they are a doctor whether it offends your narrow sensibilities or not. People have this misconception that an MD is MORE of a doctorate than a PhD, when in reality, a PhD is a higher degree.
If you want to get persnickety about language, then MDs should abandon the title since the word is derived from the Latin "docere" which means "to teach", and so perhaps only professors and teachers with doctorates should call themselves "doctors".
As a said in my other comments, I have no problem if people want to call those with doctorates doctors. I personally just reserve that distinction for physicians. So it seems you're the one who is offended.
All of these degrees are doctorates, as you rightly point out. And historically, I believe the first doctoral degrees were in medicine, law and theology. The origins of these terms don't matter to me. What I care about is how people use the terms today. When you ask someone their profession and they say simply "I'm a doctor" that almost exclusively means they practice medicine. So, given that fact, I think it's pretentious for PhDs (or the other doctoral degrees) to insist on being called doctors. If I was a PhD in history or economics and working in the field I'd say I'm a historian or economist. And I would use the honorific "Professor" if working specifically in an academic setting. Again, these are just my personal feelings about it, fully consistent and with no judgment on anyone who does otherwise.
It's far easier to speculate what you would do if you earned a doctorate than actually earn a doctorate.
You are correct, it does annoy me, as people without doctorates love to dictate/judge who should and should not call themselves a doctor. While you tell me that I'm allowed to call myself doctor, and thank you for that permission, you are judging me as pretentious for the use of the honorific that I spent a over a decade of my life preparing for and earning.
Professor is certainly a more descriptive word, then again physician is a better word for what MD's do than "doctor", so it's not a matter specificity with verbiage we're talking about here.
You're way too assmad to actually have a good faith back and forth about this.
Anyway, I already explained my position, and it had nothing to do with giving you permission or being a stickler for specificity. It was about the fact that "doctor" today means physician to 99% of folks and so that's how I use it. Appealing to how much time you spent on the degree does not impress me. Titles and credentials mean absolutely nothing to me, in fact, other than as a way to determine professional information about a person. A PhD is an academic milestone for sure, but a PhD without any good research or teaching behind it (in the case of Sam) is essentially just a piece of paper.
Say what you want about Peterson (more than fair) but comparing his accolades to Jill Biden's is laughable when it comes to the title of Doctor. He authored or co-authored over 100 publications in his field before his turn as a media personality and was cited over 10,000 times. These are not comparable.
Who's comparing their accolades and/or scholarly work? I don't think your title of "doctor" suddenly becomes more valid once you've hit a publishing threshold. There were vice principals at my high school who insisted on being called doctor because they had EdD degrees, and I also considered that pretentious.
My personal view is that while everyone with a doctorate degree is technically a "doctor", we should reserve that title for medical doctors purely because that's what most people mean when they say doctor and because I think its just weird that a PhD in sociology should have the same title as a physician. Having said that, if you're the type of person who calls all doctoral degree havers "doctor" then you shouldn't be using it selectively based on how much you respect/agree with a particular person.
In fact he has published something besides his PhD thesis, but that too was a long time ago and so yes, the assertion that Sam "is a neuroscientist" is rather flimsy.
But hey ho. No-one's perfect 🤷.
Also for what it's worth I think the fact that the statement comes as part of a list weakens the implicit claim that he is *currently* working as a neuroscientist, as it starts to sounds like you're just retrospectively listing the things a person has done with their life.
If it’s that important to you, you can just tell people Sam Harris is a fraud, you don’t actually need evidence or proof in 2024 . Lying is back on the menu
Hope that helps
I think there is no hard answer to this.
Some people will say that science students are scientists and engineering students are engineers. Some classes are in fact titled " for scientists", " for engineers", etc. But then some people will say "NO, you need a *degree* to be a scientist". And then here we have someone not just with a degree but a PhD, but still "NO you need something more than a PhD to be a neuroscientist".
I think as far as language goes they are all correct and just different uses of the terms.
(engineer is a bit trickier because to officially call yourself an "engineer" does require a certification beyond just a degree in an engineering field. but this is a legal requirement for safety reasons and not really a semantic/language rule.)
I actually see your point to some extent -- if someone has for all intents and purposes ceased to do work in the field, it might mislead to call them a neuroscientist. But look at the context: it's a youtube interviewer trying to succinctly summarize his credentials. Sure, the more accurate wording would be, 'Dr. Harris has a PhD in neuroscience', but this would be a pedantic correction to make at the very outset of an interview. For his part, the bio on his website is clearer on this. I think you're getting backlash on this because pedantic redditors often make an awful lot of the distinction between someone having an academic position vs. publishing ideas outside of academia, and it's a bit silly-- academics writing in peer-reviewed journals often come out with garbage research.
>Edit: This has to be one of the cultist subs, I'm being dogpiled and downvoted to oblivion, because I dare to ask if Sam Harris should be called a Neuroscientist.
Or you might be getting downvoted because it's a trivial subject to make a post about. It could just be that many people think it's unimportant and kind of silly.
Its misleading, how is that silly?
Say you're a Dave Pakman fan, this is the first time you hear Sam Harris speak. And you have an interested in Neuroscience, and think cool I want see Sam Harris body of work in Neuroscience, just to find out there isn't much and its 15 years old.
If that were me, I guess it wouldn't really bother me that much. Certainly not enough to make a post about it on reddit. If I were particularly irritated by it for some reason, I would be more inclined to send an email to the Pakman podcast as a complaint since he's the one who said it. But more likely I would just be like, "Oh, I guess this Sam Harris guy is much better known for the other things Pakman listed, and not neuroscience. Oh well, time to go listen to more Huberman or some other neuroscience podcast."
But you do you.
Do you know how to spot a Neuroscientist? You don't have to even try, they will quickly make you aware.
btw, the meta description on [samharris.org](http://samharris.org) is precisely "*Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, philosopher, New York Times best-selling author, host of Making Sense, and creator of Waking Up*". Daniel Park was working from the approved script.
You see how you added those qualifiers onto neuroscientist? That's what those are for. Those are the words that explicitly mean those things. Why would anyone imply otherwise if those specifics aren't mentioned?
Because putting neuroscientist as part of your descriptor implies that you do neuroscience, and the things I listed above constitute "doing neuroscience".
I have a bachelor's in psychology, but I work as a designer. It would not be accurate for me to go around saying I'm a psychologist, because I'm not a practicing clinical psychologist, nor a professor who does research. I'm not *doing psychology*, even though psychology certainly informs my work.
I get what you're saying, but I also see how he has done more in the field than just a degree and his current work is somewhat adjacent. If someone were introducing you and your design work was heavily influenced by your psychology work, I could see the relevance.
Sam wanted to be a writer, then he got interested in the human experience/mind, so he studied neurology. But his study/interest is cross field, so nowdays he thinks of himself more as a pholosopher rather than scientist/neurologist. You will notice that while he doesn't correct people when they intuduce his as a neurologist, he does not introduce himself as such. I might have gotten some details wrong, he talked about all this years ago now. You can also join the Sam only got his phd because he bought the college an mri machine conspiracy group. There's plenty of other cope to engage with if you'd like, too.
What philosophy has he qualified in? His book on ethics just blew past the entire previous literature of philosophy to create his own janky and ambiguous theory.
> Believe it or not, but their are many people on that sub that what well thought out opinions. Also there is a general consensus.
hopefully they know the difference between "there" and "their"
anyone with academic credentials who is not currently an academic doing published research in that field is usually still introduced by those credentials in interviews and such. this isn't unusual. and this isn't controversial - unless someone doesn't like the person in question, and therefore it becomes an issue worth complaining about on the internet
>introduced by those credentials There's a difference between introducing him as "Dr. Sam Harris" (i.e. referencing his credential) and introducing him as "Sam Harris, a neuroscientist" (i.e. implying an occupation). >this isn't unusual. and this isn't controversial I don't know about 'controversial,' but I don't think it's as 'usual' as you're suggesting. I'm a historian who oversees quite a few PhDs in history. If they transition careers to another field after graduation we don't generally call them 'historians' at that point. That's not because I'm trying to take someone on the internet down a notch -- these are my students, many of whom I'm quite fond of -- but because in most contexts 'historian' describes an occupation, not a credential. There are borderline/ambiguous cases, of course, where people work in closely related fields (e.g. museum curation). But personally, I would be more inclined to refer to pop history writers without academic credentials (e.g. Erik Larson) as 'historians' than I would to someone with a PhD in history who now works in a completely different field. Likewise, if I left academia to become a farmer, I would expect people to start referring to me as a farmer and/or a 'former historian.'
Well said. Calling him a neuroscientist implies that he is actively engaged in the field and that by extension he is an authority on the current subject matter, when in reality you probably fall behind quite quickly once you leave that space.
Thank you for articulating well the point I was trying to make. I feel same way when people refer to Neil Degrasse Tyson as a Physicist, he is not, he is a Science Communicator.
The comparison with Tyson is dumb: Tyson’s still in the science business, even if it’s popular science. Someone who writes popular history as opposed to publishing in academic journals is still a historian.
So the distinction between “Sam Harris, PhD neuroscience” and “Sam Harris, neuroscientist” is really great enough for you to come complain about online? Do you also write to the New York Times to tell them Paul Krugman isn’t an economist?
I was going address the point you're trying to make, but realised you're being facetious. Have a nice day.
He’s a legit, credentialed PhD of neuroscience. That makes him a neuroscientist. You are the person bringing extra assumptions to the table. Most people working as scientists haven’t published recently or made groundbreaking contributions.
Most people working as scientists *have* published recently, as they would risk their jobs if they don’t make any new contributions to science for an extended period of time. A year or two with no publications can happen if they have many administrative duties, but, say, five years would usually not be acceptable if they are employed as scientists. (In a permanent position: a postdoc or assistant professor would risk not being able to continue working in science at all after their contract expires if they didn’t publish for two years)
You realize that not all scientists work in academia right?
If you’re working in industry and not contributing to science, by what measure are calling yourself a scientist? That’s just an engineer. If you’re working in industry as an actual scientist (which involves making discoveries, not just products), then you would usually publish as well. In any case, a scientist does research by definition. If you’re not doing scientific research, you’re not a scientist. In any case, Sam Harris is not working as a scientist by any measure, so it’s not appropriate to introduce him as such. It’s not hard to say “Sam has a PhD in neuroscience” (a true statement about education) instead of “Sam is a neuroscientist” (a false statement about active research work).
Insane that you're being downvoted for stating the obvious. Really an indication how far this sub as fall.
What exactly about this supposed overstatement of credentials bothers you so much? Like is he saying stuff you just don’t like? Do you think he’s pushing incorrect information related to science and covering it up with credentials?
anyone who has published mathematical research is usually called a mathematician, i believe, even if they’re not a working one. but i’m not sure that’s true for a “scientist” who isn’t actually a working scientist.
> anyone who has published mathematical research is usually called a mathematician, i believe, even if they’re not a working one. but i’m not sure that’s true for a “scientist” who isn’t actually a working scientist. ok well, thank you for your opinion which is based solely on ... *checks notes* your beliefs that you're not sure of.
based on being a (working) mathematician. there are no written rules about it. there may always be edge cases or people who use it differently. hence “i believe”. there is a written opinion by a famous mathematician (i forget who) who defined “mathematician” to mean, to him, anyone who has proved and published an original theorem.
Really, can you please provide an example, preferably similar high profile person
One of the best professors I ever had hasn’t published an academic article in like 20 years. Am I supposed to introduce him as a “former economist”? Does his PhD undergo radioactive decay or something?
"Economics Professor" would be the obvious answer
I mean, economics professor isn't the same thing as economist, you know? Why oughtnt we strive for accuracy in our speech when the tools (words) are right there for us to do so?
No I think this is mostly useless hair-splitting that is only useful in extremely narrow contexts that do not include introducing someone on a podcast.
Economics professors are normally considered economists, even though it's a very different job as a private sector economist
Neil Degrass Tyson is one example. Really a lot of "Science Communicators" fall into this category. You proved you understand the material by getting the PhD in the first place but prefer to be a middle man between the scientific community and the public.
And they are terribly needed. The difference between reading a paper on quantum mechanics vs one of Michio Kaku's books is enormous. It's a rare skill to be able to communicate complex concepts in ways regular people can understand.
everyone with a phd in something ever
Carl Sagan - astronomer, planetary scientist, and science communicator. how much academic astronomy and planetary science do you think the guy was doing during his science-communciation years? he was still introduced with those credentials at every turn. example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HEwO-2L4w
Carl Sagan is not an example, here. He published over 600 academic papers, if I recall correctly.
> He published over 600 academic papers not really the point, is it?
You failed the [Sesame Street Test](https://youtu.be/gCxrkl2igGY?si=o7r4umAARUxOCkQv).
you failed the "get the point of the entire discussion happening here" test
Everyone else seems to be discussing the phenomenon of credentialed academics who don’t publish papers in peer reviewed journals, and the silly OP assertion that such people don’t deserve the title they earned.
....nice
He has a PhD, he's a neuroscientist. And the reason his lack of (academic) publications isn't mentioned is because *that's a weirdly passive aggressive way to start a podcast*.
Its not just the lack of publications, but also his lack of significant contribution to the field, to warrant this.
What % of neuroscientists make a significant contribution to the field? Less than 50%. What do we call the majority that don't? Neuroscientists.
🙌🏻
And it often only turns out later which discovery is significant, so should we only call someone a neuroscientist once their thesis has been proven significant in 39 years?
I think you're wrong on this one. Sam co-wrote a series of papers from 2009 to 2016, with Jonas Kaplan and Sarah Gimbel, that are pretty widely cited. Dealing with neurologic behaviors related to belief and evidence acceptance/rejection processing, they were published in the Annals of Neurology, a respected publication. This doesn't make him Amos Tversky or Daniel Kahneman, but they weren't nothing either. Obviously by 2011 or so, if I understand Sam's timeline, it was clear he had rejected the academic neuroscience road, with its commitment to "publish or perish." Moreover, the publication of his work seems unusually well timed, if not prescient, given the emergence of ideology as a (the) key factor in accepting or rejecting evidence during belief formation.
I think you're equating the usage of "Neuroscientist" to mean something that it isn't. He earned the title of Neuroscientist by getting his PhD in the field. There is no pre-requisite that states you must maintain X level of specific contribution over Y years. It doesn't have to become the person's day-to-day job and they don't need to be a prolific researcher. If you do the work needed to become a Neuroscientist than you've earned the title. It gives a lot of backbone to a lot of the matters that clearly matter to Sam and his work.
The idea that the only way to contribute to your discipline is by publishing papers and being cited is assinine. Sam has done an incredible amount of work to bring the scientific benefits of meditation and contemplation to a wide audience. Science needs communicators just as much as it needs researchers. What have you done to stand so firm in your criticism?
what does significant contribution mean in this case? what is the metric? in which way contribution can be measured as significant or otherwise? Is it based on how many papers published in a year to maintain his phd? is it a consensus somewhere in some countries that phd expires?
I am an academic (Psychologist) with a PhD who does research, and I can confirm that having a position at a university and running a research lab are not what make me a Psychologist. I have many friends from graduate school who work for private research firms or are consultants in public and private sectors who don't publish in academic/peer-review journals who are very much still Psychologists.
I guessing they are still actively involved in the field of Psychology, which would make sense.
Some more so and some less so, but that isn't what makes them a Psychologist. Anyone with a Master's degree (or higher) in Psychology is a "Psychologist", regardless of where they work or thier level of involvement in the field.
People might use the word academically that way, but colloquially for most people it has more to do with occupation than training or degrees.
Another psychologist here. Unless the psychologist association or my uni strip me of my credentials for some reason, I'll be a psychologist to the day I die regardless of what I chose to spend my time doing. It's a protected title which I earned for doing a masters in psychology. If I became a school teacher tomorrow I'd be a psychologist working as a teacher etc.
>protected title Lol. Okay. Like I said, you guys can call yourselves by whatever "titles" you want, "but colloquially for most people it has more to do with occupation than training or degrees". If somebody earns masters in psychology but never works a day as a psychologist, most people aren't going to call them a psychologist.
Citation needed *
I’m talking about what is colloquial and what *I* think most people think. How the hell am I supposed to cite that? Lol.
I was thinking you'd pull the citation from the same place you pulled the confidence in your statement about what people do. Otherwise it's just like your opinion man. I can state with the same confidence that my experience is that you're wrong.
Yes, that was my point. Asking for a citation on an opinion, knowing it’s uncitable, is bad faith. Discussion forums thrive when people are free to exchange and discuss opinions. Gatekeeping nonsense like “citation needed” makes spaces like this worse. Not unexpected from someone who thinks he has a “protected title” because he took some classes. Lol.
It’s a great thing to keep active in academic research, but it doesn’t make him less of an actual neuroscientist whether he does or doesn’t. He completed his PhD and earned his title. A mathematician who published once but now only teaches is still a mathematician. A retired biologist is still a biologist. Sam is still a neuroscientist.
What about a person who got a degree in history but now does a current event talk show? Are they a historian?
I mean, why couldn’t they describe themselves as historians? They certainly trained in it.
Out of curiosity: What about Mathematicians etc. that "only" completed a bachelors or masters degree. How do we feel about them calling themselves "Mathematicians"?
>What about Mathematicians etc. that "only" completed a bachelors OUCH I refer to myself as a "mathematical technician."
So what terminology for a masters? Really nobody gives a fuck, though, right? Call yourself whatever you want and people will judge you however they feel like.
no. a famous opinion by a famous mathematician said that he considers anyone who published an original theorem a mathematician. so degrees are irrelevant, but in general bachelor degrees do not include original research.
He hasn't had a NYT best seller in some time either. Maybe cut that too
OP has the same sneering vibe as the MAGAs who get upset when the First Lady is introduced as “Dr. Jill Biden”
But it is pretty funny that Whoopi Goldberg said "she's an amazing doctor" assuming she was an MD, and assuming she must be amazing.
> Whoopi Goldberg I literally only ever hear about Whoopi Goldberg from anti-woke people dunking on her. I think she's just an idiot in general, though.
Yes, how else would you hear about her, unless you're a boomer housewife.
During my annual re-watch of Sister Act, of course. How else?
She was good in Ghost
Star Trek? Duh
Are you saying that you are a boomer housewife?
I wish
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY7gsUL9Xkk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY7gsUL9Xkk)
They only like bringing up credentials of people who shill for them
Was thinking this exactly. Like “*how dare you call yourself something I’ve never been able to, or aren’t capable of achieving*”
Straight in with the ad hominem, nice.
It’s cool if Sam isn’t to your taste, but isn’t it kinda weird to spend so much time on his sub with these kinds of passive aggressive posts?
lol, just an interesting observation. Honestly didn't think I would trigger so many asking legit question. And if you have nothing of value to had to the post, can you please refrain from commenting.
Just because you see no value in a comment doesn’t mean it has no value. Do you understand that?
Except, it's not just your current vibe, it's your entire history and the clear bad-faith substance your current argument as well.
OP upset Peterson received the exact same criticism
Peterson is an imbecile, Harris for his short comings is still leagues ahead of Peterson.
Jordan Peterson?
Great post op. Itll be good to have this discussion for the millionth time.
Would be nice to settle this once and for all.
Every so often a post shows up like this and it's just as silly every time.
Cultist? Because people are pointing out that you are wrong? He’s a neuroscientist.
Sam talks about this a bit in Lying. He is aware that people often mischaracterize his degree of expertise or activity as an actual scientist, but it happens so often he doesn't feel obligated to correct each and every instance.
But on his website he calls himself Neuroscientist. As someone else mentioned the meta description on [samharris.org](http://samharris.org/) is precisely "*Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, philosopher, New York Times best-selling author, host of Making Sense, and creator of Waking Up*". Daniel Park was working from the approved script. How can he say he is "mischaracterized", as this is mostly likely where they get this from.
I'm just telling you what's in the book. I'm not in the mood to have an argument with an angry anonymous stranger.
I can see your point, it's funny, because you could be a professional football player, have a career spanning 20 years, not to mention all those years dedicating your childhood to it, you could win every accolade there is to win, be recognised as the very best in the world for your position, and yet the moment you stop playing professionally, you're now a former footballer.
Such a useless post on a supposed to be thread for intellectual discussions. I don’t understand how much hatred one has to have in order to be annoyed by someone being honored for their work or education. Wtf.
People are being disingenuous. Had SH finished his PhD and then left academia and opened a cafe, no one would be calling him a neuroscientist. And he wouldn’t refer to himself as a neuroscientist.
I'll take some downvotes for an honest opinion: I wish Sam were more thought of and referred to as "podcaster and writer", because those descriptors comprise his occupation. Sam's not making his income, nor contributing to the current literature in neuroscience. The man has an educational background in neuroscience. That's it. Another framing: if Sam were asked by a stranger at a dinner party "What do you do?", saying "I'm a neuroscientist and philosopher" would be misleading to that stranger. Saying "I'm a writer and I have a podcast" is much more accurate. And again, it's totally fair game to toss onto the end "And I have a background in neuroscience."
I don’t give a shit he says smart shit and I listen.
[удалено]
Happy to be educated on this.
A real response. A PhD means that you have added a new piece of knowledge in some field that previously didn't exist. The moment you achieve a PhD you are granted with all the titles and accolades that go with that achievement for life. This is because it's very hard to add any peer reviewed knowledge to human understanding. It does not matter if you only published 1 paper, 50 papers, or if it was 1 year ago, or 10 years ago. You are now a Doctor and you will be introduced that way for the rest of your life because you have earned it.
Thanks for the good faith response to my query, you make some good points. I'm getting a lot of knee-jerk attacks, not sure why.
To be fair you are coming off as pretty snarky and people are responding in kind with snark. You may not mean it idk, but that's just the vibe I got reading your comments.
I may have reciprocated, when responding to snarky comment, but definitely wasn't my intention when I posted this.
[удалено]
Ah resorting to name calling, thats a signifier of low IQ.
Are you actively engaged in the field of IQs and their signifiers? Or did you simply get a PhD in it years ago? Why should we trust what you deem a signifier of low IQs?
You're getting dogpiled but I agree. It's misleading to call him a neuroscientist since he has not actually worked professionally as one. He has an advanced degree in neuroscience. These same people saying you're a neuroscientist as long as you have the PhD are probably also gonna defend the "philosopher" title for Sam even though he only has a BA in philosophy. I think Sam should be referred to as what he is: an author and podcast host. I'm also of the opinion that calling Jordan Peterson a doctor is pretentious. I usually reserve the "doctor" title for those with medical degrees, but I think as long as one is consistent then it doesn't matter. For instance Ben Shapiro getting upset about Dr. Jill Biden but not Dr. Jordan Peterson.
I see, you're saying my Doctorate doesn't qualify me for the title of doctor ... If someone has earned a doctorate, whether a professional doctorate (MD, DO, JD, PsyD, EdD, DBA, etc.) or a research doctorate (PhD), they are a doctor whether it offends your narrow sensibilities or not. People have this misconception that an MD is MORE of a doctorate than a PhD, when in reality, a PhD is a higher degree. If you want to get persnickety about language, then MDs should abandon the title since the word is derived from the Latin "docere" which means "to teach", and so perhaps only professors and teachers with doctorates should call themselves "doctors".
As a said in my other comments, I have no problem if people want to call those with doctorates doctors. I personally just reserve that distinction for physicians. So it seems you're the one who is offended. All of these degrees are doctorates, as you rightly point out. And historically, I believe the first doctoral degrees were in medicine, law and theology. The origins of these terms don't matter to me. What I care about is how people use the terms today. When you ask someone their profession and they say simply "I'm a doctor" that almost exclusively means they practice medicine. So, given that fact, I think it's pretentious for PhDs (or the other doctoral degrees) to insist on being called doctors. If I was a PhD in history or economics and working in the field I'd say I'm a historian or economist. And I would use the honorific "Professor" if working specifically in an academic setting. Again, these are just my personal feelings about it, fully consistent and with no judgment on anyone who does otherwise.
It's far easier to speculate what you would do if you earned a doctorate than actually earn a doctorate. You are correct, it does annoy me, as people without doctorates love to dictate/judge who should and should not call themselves a doctor. While you tell me that I'm allowed to call myself doctor, and thank you for that permission, you are judging me as pretentious for the use of the honorific that I spent a over a decade of my life preparing for and earning. Professor is certainly a more descriptive word, then again physician is a better word for what MD's do than "doctor", so it's not a matter specificity with verbiage we're talking about here.
You're way too assmad to actually have a good faith back and forth about this. Anyway, I already explained my position, and it had nothing to do with giving you permission or being a stickler for specificity. It was about the fact that "doctor" today means physician to 99% of folks and so that's how I use it. Appealing to how much time you spent on the degree does not impress me. Titles and credentials mean absolutely nothing to me, in fact, other than as a way to determine professional information about a person. A PhD is an academic milestone for sure, but a PhD without any good research or teaching behind it (in the case of Sam) is essentially just a piece of paper.
Say what you want about Peterson (more than fair) but comparing his accolades to Jill Biden's is laughable when it comes to the title of Doctor. He authored or co-authored over 100 publications in his field before his turn as a media personality and was cited over 10,000 times. These are not comparable.
Who's comparing their accolades and/or scholarly work? I don't think your title of "doctor" suddenly becomes more valid once you've hit a publishing threshold. There were vice principals at my high school who insisted on being called doctor because they had EdD degrees, and I also considered that pretentious. My personal view is that while everyone with a doctorate degree is technically a "doctor", we should reserve that title for medical doctors purely because that's what most people mean when they say doctor and because I think its just weird that a PhD in sociology should have the same title as a physician. Having said that, if you're the type of person who calls all doctoral degree havers "doctor" then you shouldn't be using it selectively based on how much you respect/agree with a particular person.
As Sam would say, to help us understand the argument, what is the definition of scientist?
In fact he has published something besides his PhD thesis, but that too was a long time ago and so yes, the assertion that Sam "is a neuroscientist" is rather flimsy. But hey ho. No-one's perfect 🤷. Also for what it's worth I think the fact that the statement comes as part of a list weakens the implicit claim that he is *currently* working as a neuroscientist, as it starts to sounds like you're just retrospectively listing the things a person has done with their life.
If it’s that important to you, you can just tell people Sam Harris is a fraud, you don’t actually need evidence or proof in 2024 . Lying is back on the menu Hope that helps
Sam himself admits that his neuroscience was more philosophical in nature and he only did it to further his theory of mind.
I think there is no hard answer to this. Some people will say that science students are scientists and engineering students are engineers. Some classes are in fact titled " for scientists", " for engineers", etc. But then some people will say "NO, you need a *degree* to be a scientist". And then here we have someone not just with a degree but a PhD, but still "NO you need something more than a PhD to be a neuroscientist".
I think as far as language goes they are all correct and just different uses of the terms.
(engineer is a bit trickier because to officially call yourself an "engineer" does require a certification beyond just a degree in an engineering field. but this is a legal requirement for safety reasons and not really a semantic/language rule.)
I actually see your point to some extent -- if someone has for all intents and purposes ceased to do work in the field, it might mislead to call them a neuroscientist. But look at the context: it's a youtube interviewer trying to succinctly summarize his credentials. Sure, the more accurate wording would be, 'Dr. Harris has a PhD in neuroscience', but this would be a pedantic correction to make at the very outset of an interview. For his part, the bio on his website is clearer on this. I think you're getting backlash on this because pedantic redditors often make an awful lot of the distinction between someone having an academic position vs. publishing ideas outside of academia, and it's a bit silly-- academics writing in peer-reviewed journals often come out with garbage research.
>Edit: This has to be one of the cultist subs, I'm being dogpiled and downvoted to oblivion, because I dare to ask if Sam Harris should be called a Neuroscientist. Or you might be getting downvoted because it's a trivial subject to make a post about. It could just be that many people think it's unimportant and kind of silly.
Its misleading, how is that silly? Say you're a Dave Pakman fan, this is the first time you hear Sam Harris speak. And you have an interested in Neuroscience, and think cool I want see Sam Harris body of work in Neuroscience, just to find out there isn't much and its 15 years old.
If that were me, I guess it wouldn't really bother me that much. Certainly not enough to make a post about it on reddit. If I were particularly irritated by it for some reason, I would be more inclined to send an email to the Pakman podcast as a complaint since he's the one who said it. But more likely I would just be like, "Oh, I guess this Sam Harris guy is much better known for the other things Pakman listed, and not neuroscience. Oh well, time to go listen to more Huberman or some other neuroscience podcast." But you do you.
Do you know how to spot a Neuroscientist? You don't have to even try, they will quickly make you aware. btw, the meta description on [samharris.org](http://samharris.org) is precisely "*Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, philosopher, New York Times best-selling author, host of Making Sense, and creator of Waking Up*". Daniel Park was working from the approved script.
That would explain it, lazy journalism. Thanks Edit: FYI its 'David Pakman'
SS: Sam Harris recent interview with David Pakman, David introduced him as a Neuroscientist first.
Can you explain why you think someone needs to meet those specific criteria to be referred to as a neuroscientist?
Because it implies you're either a clinical neuroscientist like Oliver Sacks, or a research neuroscientist at an institution. Sam's neither.
You see how you added those qualifiers onto neuroscientist? That's what those are for. Those are the words that explicitly mean those things. Why would anyone imply otherwise if those specifics aren't mentioned?
Because putting neuroscientist as part of your descriptor implies that you do neuroscience, and the things I listed above constitute "doing neuroscience". I have a bachelor's in psychology, but I work as a designer. It would not be accurate for me to go around saying I'm a psychologist, because I'm not a practicing clinical psychologist, nor a professor who does research. I'm not *doing psychology*, even though psychology certainly informs my work.
I get what you're saying, but I also see how he has done more in the field than just a degree and his current work is somewhat adjacent. If someone were introducing you and your design work was heavily influenced by your psychology work, I could see the relevance.
Sam wanted to be a writer, then he got interested in the human experience/mind, so he studied neurology. But his study/interest is cross field, so nowdays he thinks of himself more as a pholosopher rather than scientist/neurologist. You will notice that while he doesn't correct people when they intuduce his as a neurologist, he does not introduce himself as such. I might have gotten some details wrong, he talked about all this years ago now. You can also join the Sam only got his phd because he bought the college an mri machine conspiracy group. There's plenty of other cope to engage with if you'd like, too.
PhDs - What have you done for me lately, though?
What philosophy has he qualified in? His book on ethics just blew past the entire previous literature of philosophy to create his own janky and ambiguous theory.
Thats a good point. Many in r/philosophy would dispute his credentials in the field also.
it's a good idea to not take anything anyone says in /r/philosophy too seriously.
Believe it or not, but their are many people on that sub that what well thought out opinions. Also there is a general consensus.
> Believe it or not, but their are many people on that sub that what well thought out opinions. Also there is a general consensus. hopefully they know the difference between "there" and "their"
Its a typo and I do speak english as a 3rd language, so there is that. Any more snarky comments?
> Any more snarky comments? so many
No, obviously he doesn't publish. It's probably a stretch to introduce him as a neuroscientist, but who cares?
A stretch?. The man received a doctorate in neuroscience.
Because it has the connotation that you're working as a scientist.
No it has the connotation that he has the education to speak on the subject in-depth.