4 ms·

I think it is pretty silly to call skepticism and empiricism anti-intellectual. Those, rather, define intellectualism. I would describe my post as anti-pseudo-i

I think it is pretty silly to call skepticism and empiricism anti-intellectual. Those, rather, define intellectualism. I would describe my post as anti-pseudo-intellectualism. Whatever the author of this post meant, it reads like a classic appeal to authority (this, the late Carl Sagan taught us, is a dangerous form of anti-intellectualism). I wrote primarily to defend those laymen that spend a little time thinking and writing and talking about macroeconomics or psychology or any other soft science. Why let everyone have their say? Because, the standards in the soft sciences are materially hardly different than in a reddit-flame war anyway. It is intellectually dishonest to hold soft scientists to no standards at all and, in the next breath, bemoan laymen for doing the save very things. Last semester, I read through the entire literature on interest rates in England in the industrial revolution. I found it could very well have been a reddit thread (although with much more fetching typography); it was uncivil and lacked any hope of scientific resolution. As far as I have read, most other macroeconomics literature is no better. (Check out the Journal of Economic History and the Economic History Review if you can.) I think that partitioners in those fields forfeit the right to be snooty about lay opinion when their opinions are no more scientifically substantiated. Let me be clear. My standards for the hard sciences are different. When there is hope of empirical resolution one must work very carefully in that framework. For instance, I feel pretty comfortable saying young-earth creationists are loony. But maybe because I spend most of my day working on actual science, I am being too snooty myself.

lbrandy 18y ago
I think you'd be hard pressed to actually make the case that my post represents an appeal to authority. I've read it again and again and the only way I can see that interpretation is if someone didn't actually bother to read it fully. Either literally, in the sense that they skipped parts, or figuratively, in that they already heard what they wanted to hear and the words weren't actually being processed in the brain. And considering all of this high-minded intellectualism, maybe we need to go back to step one: hearing what the other person is saying so we don't argue with phantoms. So while I appreciate the impassioned defense of the laymen, I could do without both the strawmen and the rampant ad hominem. Normally, I wouldn't get so formal, but it seems to be your thing.
- falsestprophet 18y ago
  Firstly, forgive me for being a little antsy after you called me a nutjob. Perhaps if you take a step back, you will be able to imagine how your initial abrasive approach may invite uneasiness. You seem to have decided, seemingly in retrospect, that the article was satire in its entirety. But, in the end I still walk away with the idea that you think people who disagree with mainstream ideas in economics are nutjobs. And, importantly, are in no way qualified to talk about them or think about them. "I think you'd be hard pressed to actually make the case that my post represents an appeal to authority." Well, lets see if I'm up for the challenge. "Fiat currency is superior to the gold standard. Bankers are not evil. The Federal Reserve does a half decent job. Money is not debt. Debt isn’t even bad — the vast majority of it can be healthy. If you disagree with me, you are wrong, and a nutjob." Is this an ironic punch-line? Or part of a pattern of defending the status quo established earlier? "All you have to do is bring up topics like fiat currency, the gold standard, money creation, the Federal Reserve and inflation. It’s like walking into a southern church and bringing up evolution. (It’s not often I get to compare you guys to creationists.)" See, earlier, you cited the same series of questions and compared those who disagree with the mainstream to creationists. (I think this is an unfair comparison, but that is another question entirely.) So, I think it that it is reasonable to interpret that as a component of your thesis. Sandwiched in between these ideological statements are a few paragraphs about how the layman is not equipped to understand or discuss the ideas. This is what I read in telegraph form: positions on economic theory STOP, you are not equipped to disagree STOP, therefore: positions of economic STOP. Maybe you didn't mean to communicate this. But whatever your intention, I think you did end up saying it. But, now, I realize I really have no idea what you actually meant. Maybe I am too foolish to understand; maybe your writing is imperfect. Oh well, I think we are all likely to survive to see tomorrow. * I feel pretty silly writing all of this nonsense without even mentioning economics. Is it reasonable to question whether mainstream economic hypotheses are valid? I think so. Firstly, professional economists disagree about everything you mentioned (especially the role of the Federal reserve and the wisdom of a fiat currency). Secondly, consider the practitioners, who are under much more pressure to get it right than academics because the practitioners are subjected to real feedback. The practitioners are forced to discard poor ideas and routinely reject many mainstream academic hypotheses (like the efficient market hypothesis and the sanity of the Fed's inflationary bender). Finally, these practitioners are frequently laymen. So, maybe there is hope for us. Maybe we can learn something by talking. I think we can all learn a lot by talking more: nutjobs and all.

lbrandy 18y ago

I think you'd be hard pressed to actually make the case that my post represents an appeal to authority. I've read it again and again and the only way I can see that interpretation is if someone didn't actually bother to read it fully. Either literally, in the sense that they skipped parts, or figuratively, in that they already heard what they wanted to hear and the words weren't actually being processed in the brain. And considering all of this high-minded intellectualism, maybe we need to go back to step one: hearing what the other person is saying so we don't argue with phantoms. So while I appreciate the impassioned defense of the laymen, I could do without both the strawmen and the rampant ad hominem. Normally, I wouldn't get so formal, but it seems to be your thing.

falsestprophet 18y ago
Firstly, forgive me for being a little antsy after you called me a nutjob. Perhaps if you take a step back, you will be able to imagine how your initial abrasive approach may invite uneasiness. You seem to have decided, seemingly in retrospect, that the article was satire in its entirety. But, in the end I still walk away with the idea that you think people who disagree with mainstream ideas in economics are nutjobs. And, importantly, are in no way qualified to talk about them or think about them. "I think you'd be hard pressed to actually make the case that my post represents an appeal to authority." Well, lets see if I'm up for the challenge. "Fiat currency is superior to the gold standard. Bankers are not evil. The Federal Reserve does a half decent job. Money is not debt. Debt isn’t even bad — the vast majority of it can be healthy. If you disagree with me, you are wrong, and a nutjob." Is this an ironic punch-line? Or part of a pattern of defending the status quo established earlier? "All you have to do is bring up topics like fiat currency, the gold standard, money creation, the Federal Reserve and inflation. It’s like walking into a southern church and bringing up evolution. (It’s not often I get to compare you guys to creationists.)" See, earlier, you cited the same series of questions and compared those who disagree with the mainstream to creationists. (I think this is an unfair comparison, but that is another question entirely.) So, I think it that it is reasonable to interpret that as a component of your thesis. Sandwiched in between these ideological statements are a few paragraphs about how the layman is not equipped to understand or discuss the ideas. This is what I read in telegraph form: positions on economic theory STOP, you are not equipped to disagree STOP, therefore: positions of economic STOP. Maybe you didn't mean to communicate this. But whatever your intention, I think you did end up saying it. But, now, I realize I really have no idea what you actually meant. Maybe I am too foolish to understand; maybe your writing is imperfect. Oh well, I think we are all likely to survive to see tomorrow. * I feel pretty silly writing all of this nonsense without even mentioning economics. Is it reasonable to question whether mainstream economic hypotheses are valid? I think so. Firstly, professional economists disagree about everything you mentioned (especially the role of the Federal reserve and the wisdom of a fiat currency). Secondly, consider the practitioners, who are under much more pressure to get it right than academics because the practitioners are subjected to real feedback. The practitioners are forced to discard poor ideas and routinely reject many mainstream academic hypotheses (like the efficient market hypothesis and the sanity of the Fed's inflationary bender). Finally, these practitioners are frequently laymen. So, maybe there is hope for us. Maybe we can learn something by talking. I think we can all learn a lot by talking more: nutjobs and all.