3 ms·
I think this line is about repeating the narrative about the trade debate during the last US election. The author follows by explaining why it was wrong, showin
by ebalit 8y ago
I think this line is about repeating the narrative about the trade debate during the last US election. The author follows by explaining why it was wrong, showing why data is not always reliable and in a sense rehabilitating the value of gut feeling.
- dalbasal 8y agoThat is fine. It is a perfectly reasonable argument. She should make it, and make a case. But, she started with "the data/science is in" as if she's reporting on an indisputable truth, rather than a plausible narrative. This puts anyone who disagrees with her in an irrational truth denier category, as if her position was an authority on par with newton's laws. This is scientism, and it's harmful when public debate (especially around politically charged questions) picks up this style of writing/speaking.