3 ms·

It's like saying that Nature(magazine) doesn't represent a diversity of opinions on evolution.

• jacobolus 6y ago
  What are you talking about? These two publications are not remotely comparable. Nature is a prestigious academic journal full of peer-reviewed science papers written by scientists (in various fields, including evolutionary biology). The Economist is a weekly news magazine written by young journalists with no special expertise. It is not an academic publication and its authors are not economists.
  • JAlexoid 6y ago
    > The Economist is a weekly news magazine Exactly. They report news and what reputable economists have to say. With sources and quotes. A lot of their articles would be considered a review article in Nature magazine. > young journalists with no special expertise That's literally a logical fallacy. Instead of reading about the sources for the particular article, you're dismissing The Economist like it's a tabloid. Tells me more about your integrity, more than you wish to expose.
    • jacobolus 6y ago
      The Economist is a step up from The Daily Mail or The Washington Times. But that’s not a high bar. Despite the name, it has almost nothing to do with academic economics. Short Economist articles are not remotely comparable to literature reviews in top peer-reviewed journals. Such an absurd comparison demonstrates a lack of basic familiarity with either The Economist or Nature. This particular article consists of a few paragraphs of unsubstantiated dogmatic whining, centered on a facile, grossly misleading comparison of San Francisco to Cambridge MA. It cites zero economists. No reputable scholar would be willing to attach their name to such drivel. > That's literally a logical fallacy You don’t seem to understand the meaning of “literally” or “logical fallacy”.