3 ms·

Posting things for other people to read, is not the same as having a substantive discussion. In fact, criticizing Cowen's credibility rather than his arguments

Posting things for other people to read, is not the same as having a substantive discussion. In fact, criticizing Cowen's credibility rather than his arguments is not a product way to argue in the first place.

praxeologist 13y ago
The paper is a resounding refutation of Cowen's other work. Given how terrible he has proven himself in the past, I am happy to reject this new work out of hand. From what little I read, I again suggest people to read Mises' Anti-Capitalistic Mentality regarding the ludicrous notion that machines are a bad thing.
- PeterWhittaker 13y ago
  But the fact remains that your argument against Cowen is merely and simply an appeal to authority. The intellectually honest comment to have made in the first place would have been "Certain economic theorists assert that Cowen [has no credibility|is an idiot|whatever they assert]". That might have been a useful start to a discussion. Or not. Who knows. YMMV. As it is, the comment is nothing more than gainsaying based on information you are either unwilling or incapable of summarizing and sharing. It's really not much better than "Cowen's an idiot, neeyah". In the interests of full disclosure, I know next to nothing about the OP and the topics discussed between the OP and this comment. Sadly, I don't need to in order to comment usefully on your comments, so empty of content they were. Nothing personal, eh?
  - praxeologist 13y ago
    I did not make an appeal to authority. That would be if I said Cowen is wrong merely because Block and Barnett said so. I am saying that Cowen is a joke for the reasons spelled out in Block and Barnett's paper. Those reasons are not merely "neeyah" and the arguments therein are not somehow invalid or cease to exist because I don't care to regurgitate them for you.

3 ms·

Posting things for other people to read, is not the same as having a substantive discussion. In fact, criticizing Cowen's credibility rather than his arguments

by yetanotherphd 13y ago

praxeologist 13y ago
The paper is a resounding refutation of Cowen's other work. Given how terrible he has proven himself in the past, I am happy to reject this new work out of hand. From what little I read, I again suggest people to read Mises' Anti-Capitalistic Mentality regarding the ludicrous notion that machines are a bad thing.
- PeterWhittaker 13y ago
  But the fact remains that your argument against Cowen is merely and simply an appeal to authority. The intellectually honest comment to have made in the first place would have been "Certain economic theorists assert that Cowen [has no credibility|is an idiot|whatever they assert]". That might have been a useful start to a discussion. Or not. Who knows. YMMV. As it is, the comment is nothing more than gainsaying based on information you are either unwilling or incapable of summarizing and sharing. It's really not much better than "Cowen's an idiot, neeyah". In the interests of full disclosure, I know next to nothing about the OP and the topics discussed between the OP and this comment. Sadly, I don't need to in order to comment usefully on your comments, so empty of content they were. Nothing personal, eh?
  - praxeologist 13y ago
    I did not make an appeal to authority. That would be if I said Cowen is wrong merely because Block and Barnett said so. I am saying that Cowen is a joke for the reasons spelled out in Block and Barnett's paper. Those reasons are not merely "neeyah" and the arguments therein are not somehow invalid or cease to exist because I don't care to regurgitate them for you.