3 ms·
Sorry, but comparing Piketty to Pruitt is laughable. One is a distinguished professor of economics. The other is a businessman and lawyer who apparently knows n
by enraged_camel 10y ago
Sorry, but comparing Piketty to Pruitt is laughable. One is a distinguished professor of economics. The other is a businessman and lawyer who apparently knows nothing about science.
- omginternets 10y ago>One is a distinguished professor of economics. ... with a Nobel prize, to boot.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- notahacker 10y agoPiketty likely will get a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences awarded one day, but he doesn't have one at the moment
- omginternets 10y agoAh, I thought he already had it. Duly noted, thanks for the correction.
- valuearb 10y agoThat's an appeal to authority. Pruitt's background is no more a measure of his qualifications to be a scientist than Michael Faraday's were. We judge science based on testable theories and results, and the quality of the work done to make those results trustworthy. Pruitt may heavily flunk that part, but any intelligent person who doesn't can contribute to science, regardless of their background.
- enraged_camel 10y ago>>That's an appeal to authority. Argument from authority is not always fallacious. Please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Struct... I posit that the argument I made uses the valid form: people who are established authorities on a given topic are more trustworthy when making claims about that topic, because they are more likely to be correct. Pruitt himself has proven the opposite to be true as well by being repeatedly wrong about science and rejecting scientifically established facts.