3 ms·

Why are you dismissing Pinker simply because he is "a popular science writer", and "not a primary source"? If you're going to refute Pinker, show your work. Oth

by beat 7y ago

Why are you dismissing Pinker simply because he is "a popular science writer", and "not a primary source"? If you're going to refute Pinker, show your work. Otherwise, it's just borderline ad hominem.

throwaway5752 7y ago
It's definitely not ad hominem, nor am I dismissing him. He is absolutely and indisputably a cognitive psychologist. And I would say that Enlightenment Now is clearly a popular science piece. Nothing is wrong with that. But he is just not a primary source on this data. So there is no refutation to be made in this context. Go to the bibliography, find the citation for the statistics that he used, and those can be discussed. I don't have the book and can't quickly obtain it, so I cannot provide that information.
- beat 7y ago
  This is social media, not a peer-reviewed journal. I don't think primary sources are necessary to justify basic numbers. Pointing out that Pinker isn't a primary source isn't ad hominem. Bringing up that he's a psychologist and popular writer, repeatedly, is very much ad hominem. It's trying to discredit the messenger in order to dismiss the message. Don't do that, it's bad rhetoric. Popular science writers serve an important role in disseminating ideas. As long as they're not misquoting sources, making up facts, or applying radical interpretations, there's nothing wrong with them. I don't see Pinker doing any of those things (if you disagree, be sure to source that!). And although Pinker may not be a climate scientist, he is a scientist of considerable credentials. He has taught at MIT, Stanford, and is a full professor at Harvard. In my mind, that brings a great deal of credibility to what he has to say on other scientific subjects, at least when quoting numbers. So your arguments, as presented, provide approximately zero reason to doubt the numbers presented by the OP.
  - throwaway5752 7y ago
    You say that, but witness Roger Penrose and James Watson speaking and writing outside of their areas of specialty. I think it's completely reasonable to ask for primary sources in any informed discussion, regardless of forum. It's just as easy as citing the secondary source in any book worth citing. I think your concerns over my rhetoric have some merit, but ultimate editing my comments at this point would just create confusion.
    - beat 7y ago
      I think looking for primary sources is only necessary at this level when there is good reason to question the credibility of the secondary source. "Not their specific field of expertise" isn't sufficient, especially when they're just citing facts and not interpreting them. I think there's a substantial difference in value between citing primary sources to refute a secondary source, versus dismissing a secondary source out of hand because it's not a primary source. (This is actually familiar ground to me; my spouse has been teaching popularized dance history lately, and I've been encouraging her to write a book on the subject, because her interpretation challenges some conventional wisdom. She doesn't want to write a book because she's too reliant on secondary sources and too lazy to go read through more of the primary source material.)
      - throwaway5752 7y ago
        I hope she writes the book. It doesn't have to be scholarly, it can just scratch an itch - but I am sure it will be a great contribution to the body of knowledge in that area. Createspace, Lulu, Gumroad are all pretty good resources for taking a single piece from a single print of "vanity" project to something with an isbn and distribution channels, possibly over multiple editions. Some have editing, cover design, and "typesetting" services available for reasonable prices. I hope nothing I've said would give the impression that I would hold this in anything but the highest regard. Best of luck to her.

by beat 7y ago

throwaway5752 7y ago

It's definitely not ad hominem, nor am I dismissing him. He is absolutely and indisputably a cognitive psychologist. And I would say that Enlightenment Now is clearly a popular science piece. Nothing is wrong with that. But he is just not a primary source on this data. So there is no refutation to be made in this context. Go to the bibliography, find the citation for the statistics that he used, and those can be discussed. I don't have the book and can't quickly obtain it, so I cannot provide that information.

beat 7y ago
This is social media, not a peer-reviewed journal. I don't think primary sources are necessary to justify basic numbers. Pointing out that Pinker isn't a primary source isn't ad hominem. Bringing up that he's a psychologist and popular writer, repeatedly, is very much ad hominem. It's trying to discredit the messenger in order to dismiss the message. Don't do that, it's bad rhetoric. Popular science writers serve an important role in disseminating ideas. As long as they're not misquoting sources, making up facts, or applying radical interpretations, there's nothing wrong with them. I don't see Pinker doing any of those things (if you disagree, be sure to source that!). And although Pinker may not be a climate scientist, he is a scientist of considerable credentials. He has taught at MIT, Stanford, and is a full professor at Harvard. In my mind, that brings a great deal of credibility to what he has to say on other scientific subjects, at least when quoting numbers. So your arguments, as presented, provide approximately zero reason to doubt the numbers presented by the OP.
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  You say that, but witness Roger Penrose and James Watson speaking and writing outside of their areas of specialty. I think it's completely reasonable to ask for primary sources in any informed discussion, regardless of forum. It's just as easy as citing the secondary source in any book worth citing. I think your concerns over my rhetoric have some merit, but ultimate editing my comments at this point would just create confusion.
  - beat 7y ago
    I think looking for primary sources is only necessary at this level when there is good reason to question the credibility of the secondary source. "Not their specific field of expertise" isn't sufficient, especially when they're just citing facts and not interpreting them. I think there's a substantial difference in value between citing primary sources to refute a secondary source, versus dismissing a secondary source out of hand because it's not a primary source. (This is actually familiar ground to me; my spouse has been teaching popularized dance history lately, and I've been encouraging her to write a book on the subject, because her interpretation challenges some conventional wisdom. She doesn't want to write a book because she's too reliant on secondary sources and too lazy to go read through more of the primary source material.)
    - throwaway5752 7y ago
      I hope she writes the book. It doesn't have to be scholarly, it can just scratch an itch - but I am sure it will be a great contribution to the body of knowledge in that area. Createspace, Lulu, Gumroad are all pretty good resources for taking a single piece from a single print of "vanity" project to something with an isbn and distribution channels, possibly over multiple editions. Some have editing, cover design, and "typesetting" services available for reasonable prices. I hope nothing I've said would give the impression that I would hold this in anything but the highest regard. Best of luck to her.