3 ms·

It wouldn't be the first time Krugman's been wrong about a transformative technology. http://imgur.com/B9oMzZd http://imgur.com/B9oMzZd

thomasz 13y ago
Does this fallacy has a name?
- aric 13y ago
  Considering a person's history of astounding lack of understanding isn't a fallacy. It's telling. It's far more telling than any award given to a person for work that circularly adheres to the vision and acceptance of those who bestow the award. The only fallacy is when people grant that person's thoughts higher or lesser value while the words don't stand by their own merit and explanation. That fallacy is what happens. Shocking degrees of ineptitude are given enormous weight in society, often through glamor alone.
  - sentenza 13y ago
    Ahem. What on earth are you talking about? Krugman explicitly talks about things that he as gotten wrong over the years, the internet thing being one of them and some of his predictions regarding Japan being another. Compare that to almost all other punditconomist, who refuse they admit error. (Btw, one should never rely too much on advice from anybody who has never admitted being wrong. Those people are either liars or deluded.) In addition to that, he _ALL THE FUCKING TIME_ writes about how recent years have shown that you cannot argue from position (in doing so often joking about "the award") but that your arguments must carry themselves no matter who you are. So essentially, the Krugman whose blog I read, again and again states the exact opposite of the things that you accuse him and his "adherents" of.
    - aric 13y ago
      > Ahem. What on earth are you talking about? Nothing I've written says that there aren't people who shun such fallacy and always think critically. However, there are a great deal of people who use Krugman as a crutch in thought and in citations, especially due to the prize. If you're not one of them, good for you. My underlying point is pretty simple. Here's a parallel so we're not focused on Krugman. End-of-the-world predictors, and the like, sometimes recant about being wrong too and may joke about it. What do we take from this? Being wrong about matters that are painfully obvious is of valid consideration, especially when judging future patterns of unsubstantiated claims in the same domains. We mustn't forget the grains of salt.
- goldenkey 13y ago
  It's called a genetic logical fallacy. http://i.imgur.com/OOA8QzF.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OOA8QzF.jpg
aric 13y ago
It's important to note that he wasn't merely wrong about technology. He was more so breathtakingly wrong about understanding the economics of societies in which freer-flowing information and pervasive connection between people exists. In my view, it's the equivalent of looking at the combustion engine or fire and not being able to project a utility or economy of scale surrounding it beyond drying clothes.
- goldenkey 13y ago
  Perhaps it's more telling about how enigmatic the technology is, rather than the person making the awfully inaccurate prediction? Just some food for thought.
jljljl 13y ago
Context: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-internet-quote-2013-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-inte...

thomasz 13y ago

Does this fallacy has a name?

aric 13y ago
Considering a person's history of astounding lack of understanding isn't a fallacy. It's telling. It's far more telling than any award given to a person for work that circularly adheres to the vision and acceptance of those who bestow the award. The only fallacy is when people grant that person's thoughts higher or lesser value while the words don't stand by their own merit and explanation. That fallacy is what happens. Shocking degrees of ineptitude are given enormous weight in society, often through glamor alone.
- sentenza 13y ago
  Ahem. What on earth are you talking about? Krugman explicitly talks about things that he as gotten wrong over the years, the internet thing being one of them and some of his predictions regarding Japan being another. Compare that to almost all other punditconomist, who refuse they admit error. (Btw, one should never rely too much on advice from anybody who has never admitted being wrong. Those people are either liars or deluded.) In addition to that, he _ALL THE FUCKING TIME_ writes about how recent years have shown that you cannot argue from position (in doing so often joking about "the award") but that your arguments must carry themselves no matter who you are. So essentially, the Krugman whose blog I read, again and again states the exact opposite of the things that you accuse him and his "adherents" of.
  - aric 13y ago
    > Ahem. What on earth are you talking about? Nothing I've written says that there aren't people who shun such fallacy and always think critically. However, there are a great deal of people who use Krugman as a crutch in thought and in citations, especially due to the prize. If you're not one of them, good for you. My underlying point is pretty simple. Here's a parallel so we're not focused on Krugman. End-of-the-world predictors, and the like, sometimes recant about being wrong too and may joke about it. What do we take from this? Being wrong about matters that are painfully obvious is of valid consideration, especially when judging future patterns of unsubstantiated claims in the same domains. We mustn't forget the grains of salt.
goldenkey 13y ago
It's called a genetic logical fallacy. http://i.imgur.com/OOA8QzF.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OOA8QzF.jpg

aric 13y ago

It's important to note that he wasn't merely wrong about technology. He was more so breathtakingly wrong about understanding the economics of societies in which freer-flowing information and pervasive connection between people exists. In my view, it's the equivalent of looking at the combustion engine or fire and not being able to project a utility or economy of scale surrounding it beyond drying clothes.

goldenkey 13y ago
Perhaps it's more telling about how enigmatic the technology is, rather than the person making the awfully inaccurate prediction? Just some food for thought.

jljljl 13y ago

Context: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-internet-quote-2013-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-inte...