What part of this do you not understand? "All conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine." But you people never understand anything -- making it impossible to have this conversation anywhere. Now, mind your own business and don't waste my time again.
To the extent that I read the post you are questioning Thomas Sowell worshipers because Sowell was wrong about Iraq having WMD and has not apologized. I do not take Glenn Loury for a Thomas Sowell worshiper and have no idea if he was wrong about Iraq.
Thank you for that reply and for taking a look-see. Glenn Loury once called my writing "brilliant," was "honored by it," and "blown away" by my site and signed up. Alas, he wasn't too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task. So, you're wrong about Loury -- and everyone is wrong about Sowell (and that -- is an opportunity). What does it say to you for over 3 years -- I've been practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find Sowell didn't?
As stated on my site:
**********
I’m sure it’s intoxicating to amass a following and feel like you’re making a difference. But I’m gonna weigh your impact partly as a reflection of your community: How people behave, not what they believe. If you can’t get that right, I don’t care how big your following gets — you’re taking this nation nowhere.
**********
McWhorter's right -- anti-racism has become religion. But fighting that religion has become another religion.
What’s Wrong With This Picture? The Religion of Ripping on Race & Woke Religions
Not sure this is religious belief as much as people choosing the one designated Black person they are going to listen to and being entirely lost if that Black person is a flawed human being. Clearly Glenn Loury does not have this problem. If Loury says that he respects Sowell because of his books then Loury is saying that the books had arguments that were helpful to him not that Sowell is perfect.
I would add to that the it's not illogical nor hypocritical to agree with some things a person has said or written, without also endorsing everything they ever wrote to said in their lifetime. (Even leaving aside aspects of their personal lives, and focusing on just their intellectual output).
A common example today is when people cite MLK, Jr's "I have a dream" sentiment, and then others pick out something else that the MLK,Jr said and imply that the first group are hypocritical to cite MLK, Jr on anything unless they agree with everything he ever said. (In the latter case, it's common to cite something that MLK, Jr said about riots - failing to include the following paragraph, however).
That's more of a "gotcha" tactic, than an honest search for knowledge.
If I find something wise or insightful from some author of the past or present, I may highlight that specific thing - without implying that I thereby agree with everything that author has ever said or done. And in the other direction, if anything I've ever written resonates well with a group of people, I don't expect that means they thereby have to agree with everything I've ever said (or will say), nor with my life choices.
It's preposterous that you're talking about "an honest search for knowledge" without having done an inkling of anything of the kind into what the OP wrote (as in -- me). Just because you have a handle called "Passion guided by reason" doesn't make it so.
You've gotta do the work -- and none of you want anything to do with the time & effort it takes to solve problems. And about that work that apparently no one in America wants to do either:
***************************
Work is a journey on which you welcome challenge. Work does not instantly respond — work digs to discover and inquires to clarify. Work is difficult and demands discernment. Work wonders, pauses, listens, absorbs, and reflects. Work does not rest on who’s right and who’s wrong: Work wants to know if there’s something more to see, something to learn, something that sharpens the mind. Work never stops building on the foundation of your own work and what you learn from the work of others.
Work works its way through material that is not easy. Work recognizes complexity and the demands of in-depth explanation. Work will go on a trip to ideas that take time and effort to understand. Work knows that you can’t see your way through to a solution without understanding the different dimensions of a problem.
Work does not defend before you consider. Work does not race to conclusions — work arrives at them through careful consideration. Work is willing is rethink what you think you know. Work takes integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, and decency. Work comes with the willingness to be wrong. Work is not self-satisfied. Work does not sling snippets of certitude — work crafts argument on the merits. Work is an exchange where each party takes information into account. Work does not issue childish insults — work demands that you act your age.
You’ll find that work is far more fruitful and fulfilling than ease. Work rises & falls — as this is the prism through which we work (insert image of “Graham’s Hierarchy of Argument”): How we weigh what we see and measure our response. We’ll fall short from time to time — but those willing to work will keep each other in check.
Work respects your intelligence by using it — and shows respect to others as we work our way to mutual respect. Work won’t be pretty and might even get ugly — but work will do what it takes to work it out. And if you want to start solving problems — work is what it’s gonna take.
You are of course welcome to your opinion. The style and tone of your comments does not inspire in me, nor apparently in many others from your account, much interest in expending the time to read more in the same vein. In my world, there is far more of high interest than I will ever be able to absorb, so I have to pick and choose where to invest.
And that in turn makes me wonder if the actual fruit of your efforts to promote your own work, and to get more people to read it, are counterproductive to your own goals. I would loosely characterize it as a kind of smug haranguing tone, meant to attract attention to more of the same.
I do not see in your words in these comments any indication that you yourself have done the "work" of reflecting on why and how you may be repelling people's attention rather than intriguing them, ie: getting in your own way.
And that's your right; I'm not criticizing that right, only sharing an observation. If you feel satisfied that your style of commenting has attracted as much attention to your other writing as you think it deserves, then more power to you. If not, maybe do some more of the "work" you advocate to discover why.
This is not about "perfection" -- it's about Sowell having a history wildly out of sync with his sanctimonious claims (and not just on WMD). That puts his credibility in question on everything else. And as I told Loury 3 years ago: If you're not going to consider evidence that flies in the face of your beliefs, what business do you have expecting anyone else to?
From my site:
**************
Thomas Sowell’s disciples say he does one thing and I’m showing you that sometimes he does another (which brings his credibility into question on everything else). Does that mean he’s wrong on everything else? Did I say that? I’m not even implying it — I’m simply saying his credibility is in question.
And that anyone with a history wildly out of sync with their sanctimonious claims — should not be put a pedestal as a bastion of virtue.
But that story about blind belief — is a conduit for telling a larger story about blind belief. And I don’t care whether it’s about this guy or that guy: It’s dumb, dishonest, delusional, destructive, dangerous, and deadly.
. . .
Alas, we live in a world that would rather split hairs over semantics than consider the spirit of an argument. Whether or not it’s literally “religion” is not the point — it’s faith-based belief that has no bearing on reality:
A.K.A. Wishful Thinking
The same wishful thinking that’s utterly oblivious to the counterproductive nature of endlessly beating issues into the ground in entirely transactional tactics. Repeatedly rehashing issues is not the mark of problem solving: It’s the mark of a market. All these channels are blunt instruments (including those I agree with).
Like Black Lives Matter — you’re just pounding away at problems without any examination of the efficacy of your efforts.
**************
Lastly, you've been polite and I appreciate it. It speaks well of you that you followed up in such ways after our initial exchange. That's exceedingly rare these days. All that aside, as I told another person in here (so you'll know it's not personal toward you anyone else):
****************
Unless you're interested in hearing me out on that (by looking into what I have to say and furthering the discussion from there), we have nothing more to talk about. No offense meant -- it's just that I have a very specific purpose in being here (and that doesn't include transactional exchanges on the topic of the day).
You bring up the question of "credibility". I think that needs context.
Some arguments are based on presenting evidence and reasoning, and can be judged on their own merits, even if one has zero knowledge of the person's history or background.
Other arguments are based on having trust in the knowledge and integrity of the speaker - for example, on their professional judgment based on unrelayed personal experience.
Credibility matters particularly in the latter - when they are not relying on presented evidence and reasoning, but asking the reader to instead trust their authority and knowledge. In that case, knowing that their professional opinion has often been wrong in the past would indeed cast doubt on their current judgements, and knowing that it has generally been accurate in the past might give their current opinions more weight.
In many cases, an argument is somewhere between these poles, of course. The biggest factor is whether the information they present is comprehensive and includes the best evidence on both sides, or whether it has been selected to support a given conclusion. If one is not sufficiently familiar with a topic, it's hard to judge for oneself how much cherry picking an author has done, or what relevant studies or statistics they have strategically omitted.
In evaluating Sowell's works, as with anybody's, I try to distinguish between "just trust my professional opinion on this matter", and "here is why I believe this to be true".
If you don't wanna click on the link, that's your prerogative -- but if your next reply doesn't specifically address the merits of my arguments within that link, you will not hear from me again.
What part of this do you not understand? "All conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine." But you people never understand anything -- making it impossible to have this conversation anywhere. Now, mind your own business and don't waste my time again.
To the extent that I read the post you are questioning Thomas Sowell worshipers because Sowell was wrong about Iraq having WMD and has not apologized. I do not take Glenn Loury for a Thomas Sowell worshiper and have no idea if he was wrong about Iraq.
Thank you for that reply and for taking a look-see. Glenn Loury once called my writing "brilliant," was "honored by it," and "blown away" by my site and signed up. Alas, he wasn't too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task. So, you're wrong about Loury -- and everyone is wrong about Sowell (and that -- is an opportunity). What does it say to you for over 3 years -- I've been practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find Sowell didn't?
As stated on my site:
**********
I’m sure it’s intoxicating to amass a following and feel like you’re making a difference. But I’m gonna weigh your impact partly as a reflection of your community: How people behave, not what they believe. If you can’t get that right, I don’t care how big your following gets — you’re taking this nation nowhere.
**********
McWhorter's right -- anti-racism has become religion. But fighting that religion has become another religion.
What’s Wrong With This Picture? The Religion of Ripping on Race & Woke Religions
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/03/17/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-the-religion-of-ripping-on-race-woke-religions/
Not sure this is religious belief as much as people choosing the one designated Black person they are going to listen to and being entirely lost if that Black person is a flawed human being. Clearly Glenn Loury does not have this problem. If Loury says that he respects Sowell because of his books then Loury is saying that the books had arguments that were helpful to him not that Sowell is perfect.
I would add to that the it's not illogical nor hypocritical to agree with some things a person has said or written, without also endorsing everything they ever wrote to said in their lifetime. (Even leaving aside aspects of their personal lives, and focusing on just their intellectual output).
A common example today is when people cite MLK, Jr's "I have a dream" sentiment, and then others pick out something else that the MLK,Jr said and imply that the first group are hypocritical to cite MLK, Jr on anything unless they agree with everything he ever said. (In the latter case, it's common to cite something that MLK, Jr said about riots - failing to include the following paragraph, however).
That's more of a "gotcha" tactic, than an honest search for knowledge.
If I find something wise or insightful from some author of the past or present, I may highlight that specific thing - without implying that I thereby agree with everything that author has ever said or done. And in the other direction, if anything I've ever written resonates well with a group of people, I don't expect that means they thereby have to agree with everything I've ever said (or will say), nor with my life choices.
It's preposterous that you're talking about "an honest search for knowledge" without having done an inkling of anything of the kind into what the OP wrote (as in -- me). Just because you have a handle called "Passion guided by reason" doesn't make it so.
You've gotta do the work -- and none of you want anything to do with the time & effort it takes to solve problems. And about that work that apparently no one in America wants to do either:
***************************
Work is a journey on which you welcome challenge. Work does not instantly respond — work digs to discover and inquires to clarify. Work is difficult and demands discernment. Work wonders, pauses, listens, absorbs, and reflects. Work does not rest on who’s right and who’s wrong: Work wants to know if there’s something more to see, something to learn, something that sharpens the mind. Work never stops building on the foundation of your own work and what you learn from the work of others.
Work works its way through material that is not easy. Work recognizes complexity and the demands of in-depth explanation. Work will go on a trip to ideas that take time and effort to understand. Work knows that you can’t see your way through to a solution without understanding the different dimensions of a problem.
Work does not defend before you consider. Work does not race to conclusions — work arrives at them through careful consideration. Work is willing is rethink what you think you know. Work takes integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, and decency. Work comes with the willingness to be wrong. Work is not self-satisfied. Work does not sling snippets of certitude — work crafts argument on the merits. Work is an exchange where each party takes information into account. Work does not issue childish insults — work demands that you act your age.
You’ll find that work is far more fruitful and fulfilling than ease. Work rises & falls — as this is the prism through which we work (insert image of “Graham’s Hierarchy of Argument”): How we weigh what we see and measure our response. We’ll fall short from time to time — but those willing to work will keep each other in check.
Work respects your intelligence by using it — and shows respect to others as we work our way to mutual respect. Work won’t be pretty and might even get ugly — but work will do what it takes to work it out. And if you want to start solving problems — work is what it’s gonna take.
***************************
Behold the results of not doing the work:
From the Earth to the Moon to “WUT”: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/04/24/from-the-earth-to-the-moon-to-wut/
The Critical Thinking of Sowell’s Crowd: Where Even Math is a Matter of Opinion
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/05/12/the-critical-thinking-of-sowells-crowd-where-even-math-is-a-matter-of-opinion/
You are of course welcome to your opinion. The style and tone of your comments does not inspire in me, nor apparently in many others from your account, much interest in expending the time to read more in the same vein. In my world, there is far more of high interest than I will ever be able to absorb, so I have to pick and choose where to invest.
And that in turn makes me wonder if the actual fruit of your efforts to promote your own work, and to get more people to read it, are counterproductive to your own goals. I would loosely characterize it as a kind of smug haranguing tone, meant to attract attention to more of the same.
I do not see in your words in these comments any indication that you yourself have done the "work" of reflecting on why and how you may be repelling people's attention rather than intriguing them, ie: getting in your own way.
And that's your right; I'm not criticizing that right, only sharing an observation. If you feel satisfied that your style of commenting has attracted as much attention to your other writing as you think it deserves, then more power to you. If not, maybe do some more of the "work" you advocate to discover why.
This is not about "perfection" -- it's about Sowell having a history wildly out of sync with his sanctimonious claims (and not just on WMD). That puts his credibility in question on everything else. And as I told Loury 3 years ago: If you're not going to consider evidence that flies in the face of your beliefs, what business do you have expecting anyone else to?
From my site:
**************
Thomas Sowell’s disciples say he does one thing and I’m showing you that sometimes he does another (which brings his credibility into question on everything else). Does that mean he’s wrong on everything else? Did I say that? I’m not even implying it — I’m simply saying his credibility is in question.
And that anyone with a history wildly out of sync with their sanctimonious claims — should not be put a pedestal as a bastion of virtue.
But that story about blind belief — is a conduit for telling a larger story about blind belief. And I don’t care whether it’s about this guy or that guy: It’s dumb, dishonest, delusional, destructive, dangerous, and deadly.
. . .
Alas, we live in a world that would rather split hairs over semantics than consider the spirit of an argument. Whether or not it’s literally “religion” is not the point — it’s faith-based belief that has no bearing on reality:
A.K.A. Wishful Thinking
The same wishful thinking that’s utterly oblivious to the counterproductive nature of endlessly beating issues into the ground in entirely transactional tactics. Repeatedly rehashing issues is not the mark of problem solving: It’s the mark of a market. All these channels are blunt instruments (including those I agree with).
Like Black Lives Matter — you’re just pounding away at problems without any examination of the efficacy of your efforts.
**************
Lastly, you've been polite and I appreciate it. It speaks well of you that you followed up in such ways after our initial exchange. That's exceedingly rare these days. All that aside, as I told another person in here (so you'll know it's not personal toward you anyone else):
****************
Unless you're interested in hearing me out on that (by looking into what I have to say and furthering the discussion from there), we have nothing more to talk about. No offense meant -- it's just that I have a very specific purpose in being here (and that doesn't include transactional exchanges on the topic of the day).
THIS is my concern . . .
From the Earth to the Moon to “WUT”
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/04/24/from-the-earth-to-the-moon-to-wut/
****************
Thanks again!
You bring up the question of "credibility". I think that needs context.
Some arguments are based on presenting evidence and reasoning, and can be judged on their own merits, even if one has zero knowledge of the person's history or background.
Other arguments are based on having trust in the knowledge and integrity of the speaker - for example, on their professional judgment based on unrelayed personal experience.
Credibility matters particularly in the latter - when they are not relying on presented evidence and reasoning, but asking the reader to instead trust their authority and knowledge. In that case, knowing that their professional opinion has often been wrong in the past would indeed cast doubt on their current judgements, and knowing that it has generally been accurate in the past might give their current opinions more weight.
In many cases, an argument is somewhere between these poles, of course. The biggest factor is whether the information they present is comprehensive and includes the best evidence on both sides, or whether it has been selected to support a given conclusion. If one is not sufficiently familiar with a topic, it's hard to judge for oneself how much cherry picking an author has done, or what relevant studies or statistics they have strategically omitted.
In evaluating Sowell's works, as with anybody's, I try to distinguish between "just trust my professional opinion on this matter", and "here is why I believe this to be true".
"I think that needs context" -- you mean like my links you're ignoring that tell the whole story?
The Critical Thinking of Sowell’s Crowd: Where Even Math is a Matter of Opinion
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/05/12/the-critical-thinking-of-sowells-crowd-where-even-math-is-a-matter-of-opinion/
If you don't wanna click on the link, that's your prerogative -- but if your next reply doesn't specifically address the merits of my arguments within that link, you will not hear from me again.
Good day.