Sam Harris Responds to Allegations Against Lawrence Krauss

To me it sounds like spending 15 minutes responding by explaing why he is not going to respond.  He does say the default position is to always believe the woman, but then spends most of his time hinting that the Buzzfeed article is not reliable.  See for yourself:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheist activism, atheist wars, New Atheism, Sam Harris, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Sam Harris Responds to Allegations Against Lawrence Krauss

  1. Michael says:

    Digest: Basically accusation == guilt in the eyes of the same people who lecture us about evidence and skepticism. If Buzzfeed is the ‘skeptic’ community’s standard of evidence, God help them.

  2. Dhay says:

    Hemant Mehta has already commented on the reliability of BuzzFeed in his first post, and he has a position contrary to both Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss’ wife — see the linked twitter record in the previous thread; Mehta considers BuzzFeed as reliable as any:

    4) I’ve seen a lot of people dismiss the entire article because it was published on BuzzFeed, which they don’t think is credible, BuzzFeed may be known for frivolous quizzes and listicles, but they have an excellent staff of reporters who have published a lot of important pieces. Those articles are as thoroughly reported as anything you might find in other mainstream publications. It’s foolish to ignore what was published because of its source, certainly in this case.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/02/23/lawrence-krauss-wont-appear-at-tonights-celebration-of-science-reason-event/

    What does appear to be reliable is BuzzFeed’s report that:

    In response to complaints, two institutions — Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario — have quietly restricted him from their campuses. Our reporting is based on official university documents, emails, and interviews with more than 50 people.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/lawrence-krauss-sexual-harassment-allegations

    BuzzFeed stresses the diligence and depth of their research. It would be wrong to dismiss the article as mere insinuation, its evidence unsubstantiated and fabricated with malicious intent.

    *

    I read:

    The school told Nora that Krauss was prohibited from making contact with her as long as she remained a student, and that he had to get approval before setting foot on campus again. (Krauss was permitted to return for a colloquium in 2009.)

    But by the time these sanctions had been put in place, Krauss had moved to Arizona State to lead a new initiative to study the origins of the universe, life, and social systems. When he left, he wrote an email to his Case Western Reserve colleagues stating that, “The opportunities being offered at ASU are simply too great to turn down at this stage in my career.”

    Krauss “had to get approval before setting foot on campus”. Phew! I’d say that Krauss was put in a position where he was unable to perform his role as lecturer and tutor, so he was in effect sacked (allowed to move on as an alternative to dismissal?); he obviously moved pretty quickly to find a post elsewhere.

    And he resigned after investigated allegations when at another university, allegations similarly not dismissed:

    “The characterisation by Professor Krauss that The Australian National University (ANU) found the complaint to be ‘unsubstantiated and fabricated with malicious intent’ is false,” ANU said.

    On Nov. 3, after the ANU complaint was closed, Krauss resigned his position there, citing unrelated personal reasons.

    Because of the timing (again) this has ‘allowed to resign as an alternative to dismissal’ written all over it.

  3. Michael says:

    I still find it worrying that reputations and careers are being ruined on the basis of mere accusations, some of them regarding ‘transgressions’ that are trivial to any adult, and that nowhere in this #MeToo thing is there any attempt at due process. Where the hell are law enforcement and the justice system in all this?

  4. TFBW says:

    What “Social Justice” actually means is “mob rule”. They just mete out punishment using social penalties (like no-platforming and ostracism) rather than incarceration. Nobody is pressing any of the usual charges, because they are going through the Social Justice system.

  5. cameronwg says:

    After 3:30 Mark of the vid just couldn’t listen to that golem drone on anymore.

  6. raidingtexas says:

    “To me it sounds like”

    Exactly. You’re hearing what you want to hear.

    He asked Krauss not to appear with them that evening and spent 15 minutes of pragmatic explanation to the audience. This is his all-too-common speaking style. You should know this very well if you’re truly monitoring New Atheism as closely as you claim to be.

  7. Kevin says:

    I don’t know who’s right, since I can’t tolerate listening to him for more than about six seconds.

  8. The Blu One says:

    Claiming to take no stance on the truth of the allegations in the same breath as stating that the accused is “under assault,” effectively switching the role of victim and perpetrator. I wonder how many of his acolytes noticed that neat little rhetorical trick.

  9. Michael says:

    Claiming to take no stance on the truth of the allegations in the same breath as stating that the accused is “under assault,” effectively switching the role of victim and perpetrator.

    Nice catch. When Harris claims he isn’t taking a stance on the truth of the allegations, I think he is lying. Framing his friend and colleague as someone who is “under assault” tells us what position he has taken. 😉

  10. Michael says:

    He asked Krauss not to appear with them that evening and spent 15 minutes of pragmatic explanation to the audience.

    I think you have confused cowardly obfuscation for pragmatic explanation.

  11. Terry Bridges says:

    And Harris is one of the sycophants who are enabling Lawrence Krauss. And really, “a bad and awkward date”? Give me a break.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.