3 ms·

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 wor

by 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.

by aric 13y ago

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.