4 ms·

I second this. Whenever this book comes up there are comments about it being debunked and Pinker cherry-picking sources, but I have yet to find a serious schol

I second this. Whenever this book comes up there are comments about it being debunked and Pinker cherry-picking sources, but I have yet to find a serious scholarly critique. I would seriously love to read a view from, say, a professional historian as to pinker's methods. If anyone knows a good non-wingnut counterpoint please tell.

BasLeijdekkers 12y ago
The wikipedia article[1] of the book contains several quotes with references to negative criticism that look fairly credible to me. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Negative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature...
- wanderingstan 12y ago
  Thanks for this. The article has grown since I last checked dome years ago. The quote about non-combatant deaths struck me as particularly interesting. I look forward to reading further on the subject.
zamalek 12y ago
Edit: Disregard, it seems as though the book does take a scientific approach. From the comments I am reading here I am gathering that Pinker's work is exploratory and not scientific (keep in mind that I have not read it myself). If that is the case then there are no grounds for a counterpoint. Exploratory works can be used as a framework on which to build points and counterpoints, but attempting to disprove them is a fundamental error. All it comes down to is this default argumentative state that the internet seems to have.
- wanderingstan 12y ago
  I've read the book and would not call it exploratory at all--it is lengthy and exhaustive. I found myself skimming over additional supporting data in many cases. I'm most interested in accusations that he cherry-picked his sources or data, and I haven't seen any of these backed up. (Other than rambling rants like the above "criticism" which says that adjusting for world population is "massaging the numbers".) Edit: typos
foobarqux 12y ago
That article is a serious scholarly critique, did you read it?

BasLeijdekkers 12y ago

The wikipedia article[1] of the book contains several quotes with references to negative criticism that look fairly credible to me. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Negative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature...

wanderingstan 12y ago
Thanks for this. The article has grown since I last checked dome years ago. The quote about non-combatant deaths struck me as particularly interesting. I look forward to reading further on the subject.

zamalek 12y ago

Edit: Disregard, it seems as though the book does take a scientific approach. From the comments I am reading here I am gathering that Pinker's work is exploratory and not scientific (keep in mind that I have not read it myself). If that is the case then there are no grounds for a counterpoint. Exploratory works can be used as a framework on which to build points and counterpoints, but attempting to disprove them is a fundamental error. All it comes down to is this default argumentative state that the internet seems to have.

wanderingstan 12y ago
I've read the book and would not call it exploratory at all--it is lengthy and exhaustive. I found myself skimming over additional supporting data in many cases. I'm most interested in accusations that he cherry-picked his sources or data, and I haven't seen any of these backed up. (Other than rambling rants like the above "criticism" which says that adjusting for world population is "massaging the numbers".) Edit: typos

foobarqux 12y ago

That article is a serious scholarly critique, did you read it?