Scientific papers by Sam Harris

 
Romero
 
Avatar
 
 
Romero
Total Posts:  1
Joined  25-02-2018
 
 
 
26 February 2018 01:36
 

Hi everyone,

I’m doing research for a scientific application about subjects that the public cares about. Coming across Mr. Harris’s name and wide variety of subjects discussed I’ve tried to find papers authored by him but the only one I’ve been able to find is the MRI, one in 2008 from Wikipedia page. Are there any other ones? And if then could someone pls refer me to the location.
And which one would be considered his biggest scientific contribution by this community?

Thank you very much!

 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3483
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
28 February 2018 09:28
 

Hello Romero,

I think that you probably found the only such paper there is. There are also some articles that are highly critical of this work for it’s pre-concieved conclusions and lack of scientific rigor. Harris is the neuroscientist that doesn’t practice neuroscience. Mostly it just serves as a schtick to lend scientific credibility to his Buddhist beliefs.

Romero - 26 February 2018 01:36 AM

Hi everyone,

I’m doing research for a scientific application about subjects that the public cares about. Coming across Mr. Harris’s name and wide variety of subjects discussed I’ve tried to find papers authored by him but the only one I’ve been able to find is the MRI, one in 2008 from Wikipedia page. Are there any other ones? And if then could someone pls refer me to the location.
And which one would be considered his biggest scientific contribution by this community?

Thank you very much!

 
 
Mr Wayne
 
Avatar
 
 
Mr Wayne
Total Posts:  751
Joined  01-10-2014
 
 
 
05 March 2018 06:25
 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007272
The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief

other:  https://samharris.org/publications-and-lectures/

quotes:

Our study compares religious thinking with ordinary cognition and, as such, constitutes a step toward developing a neuropsychology of religion. However, these findings may also further our understanding of how the brain accepts statements of all kinds to be valid descriptions of the world.
Our lab published the first neuroimaging study of belief as a general mode of cognition [1], and another group has looked specifically at religious conviction [2]. However, no research has compared these two states of mind directly. Here we show that while religious and nonreligious thinking differentially engage broad regions of the frontal, parietal, and medial temporal lobes—and, hence, appear quite distinct as modes of thought—the difference between belief and disbelief appears to be content-independent.
Our study was designed to produce high concordance on nonreligious stimuli (e.g., “Eagles really exist”) and high discordance on religious stimuli (e.g., “Angels really exist”). The fact that we found essentially the same signal maps for belief minus disbelief in both groups, on both categories of content, argues strongly for the content-independence of belief and disbelief as cognitive processes. Despite the fact that religious believers and nonbelievers accepted and rejected diametrically opposite statements in half of our experimental trials, the same neural systems were engaged in both groups throughout. This would seem to rule out the possibility that these results could be explained by any property of the stimuli apart from their being deemed “true” or “false” by the subjects in our study. The involvement of the VMPFC for belief is consistent with our earlier findings [1].
These results may have many areas of application—ranging from the neuropsychology of religion, to the use of “belief-detection” as a surrogate for “lie-detection,” to understanding how the practice of science itself, and truth-claims generally, emerge from the biology of the human brain.

 

 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3483
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
05 March 2018 13:21
 

Can fMRI predict who believes in god

During the course of my investigation of scientism and bad science, I have read a great many bad, poorly reasoned papers. This one might not be the worst, but it deserves a prize for mangling the largest number of things simultaneously. What is fascinating, and what I do not here explore, is why this paper was not only published but why it is believed by others. It is sure evidence, I think, that scientists are no different than anybody else in wanting their cherished beliefs upheld such that they are willing to grasp at any confirmatory evidence, no matter how slight, blemished, or suspect that evidence might be.

I do not claim, and I do not believe, that Harris and his team cheated, lied, or willfully misled. I have given sufficient argument to show the authors wore such opaque blinders that they could not see what they were doing and so choose to write down that which they imagined they saw, which was a preconceived, incoherent concoction about how “Christians” would differ from “rational” thinkers.