In reply to Jon Stewart:
> I am completely unconvinced by your half-baked/unformed critique of Pinker. He's a respected academic who has made a big contribution to linguistics. Your claim that he writes vacuous arguments for money doesn't ring true at all - he writes in great detail on topics that cannot seriously be claimed to be money spinners.
Really ? Interesting isn’t it that most of the topics he writes on for perfectly with the current political mood in the Anglosphere...
> You don't have to agree with him. In Better Angels he's making an argument and presenting evidence for it, and as a work of social science it's never going to be "right" or "wrong". The argument is either well supported and compelling, or it is weak.
The argument is not well supported by the evidence in my view. And the evidence is weak anyway.
> Your view is that it is weak, and that's fine, but haven't presented any good reasons. The stuff you say about cherry picked data points with a regression line is just fatuous garbage. That is not how he makes the argument.
It pretty much is, unfortunately. He takes a bunch of datasets, says this has gone up, this has gone down, and draws conclusions from it that are far larger than what you can assert from the data.
I am not denying that this is all well written and well packaged. Which is why it works.
> Rather than being "widely debunked" the statistical analysis underpinning Better Angels was challenged and there was a very detailed public spat which went way above my head.
It was formally, mathematically, demonstrated to be statistically irrelevant. Which is kind of embarassing when it’s the central piece of evidence underpinning your theory.
> If you have compelling critique of Better Angels (or The Blank Slate, or How The Mind Works) or can direct me to one, then that's really interesting. But nothing you've said makes me think you've got a critique at all, more that you just disagree with something you think he believes on some emotional or political level, and so you dismiss the man with empty ad hom attacks without actually knowing anything about what your talking about.
You don’t get it. I’m not saying he is wrong. I am saying he can’t make the argument he makes based on the data he has.
That’s the problem I have with these social “scientists”, who are basically not scientists at all, and are systematically proven to be wrong...
To be clear I have no issues with people making assumptions and theories about the world, I have a problem when they try to sell it a some sort of scientific truth.