D
droid
Guest
bit of both
So youve read books by Seymour, Klein and Chomsky? Which ones?
bit of both
droid is just trying to keep a space open for the possibility that Klein might be right. He doesn't want to actually defend her ideas. But I think we can say some things without reading it: for starters, populating a dataset with cases sampled on the dependent variable is methodologically suspect.
because it disagrees with his economic philosophy.
You havent made any kind of argument so I have absolutely no way to tell.
You have asserted this is a fact with absolutely no evidence to back it up and you are now asking for me to disprove your assertion, a pretty ridiculous position really...
So youve read books by Seymour, Klein and Chomsky? Which ones?
No, I've read comment pieces by Seymour (blog, in his case), Klein and Chomsky.
If i'm so grossly distorting Chomsky's views (but not the others?), can you give me an example of an area of US foreign policy in the last 30-odd years that he has supported?
I really don't see the relevance of this and I have no interest in hijacking this thread defending Chomsky against spurious criticisms.
The point is that your opinion of these writers is not based on their work, but on the word of their critics and on short commentaries . Esp in Chomsky's case - if you have not read his books you don't really have the grounds to make such a sweeping dismissal.
Again - its not such a radical position. Its a basic principle in fact... read the work before you criticise the author.
Fine, let's not sidetrack, but clearly it wasn't such a gross distortion that you can instantly come up with a rebuttal.
I have read the work. All these people publish short comment pieces (except Seymour, who writes a blog). I don't think it's too much of a stretch to decide on the basis of the dozen or so Stein articles I've read (alongside well-argued slatings of her work by writers I do respect, such as the Hutton piece posted above) that she's just another ideologue, wading into any scenario with her mind made up looking for ways to make the facts fit the theory.
If you have the time to follow up on such people's work regardless, I'm happy for you. Though I note that having done so, you've shown no interest in defending her, and rather more in attacking her critics.
Its not 'following up' on peoples work. It reading it in the first place. I have defended Klein from the only actual criticism in this thread. Yourself and Vim's blind denunciations of her aren't really worth it seeing as they are based on nothing but thin air.
You're getting a bit shirty aren't you?
Once again, you're missing the point. Surely you should be asking for my opinion of the work in question, not my 'impression' of Klein, which isn't really relevant.
And of course, I'm not the only person qualified to comment on this book. anyone who's actually read it can do so.
Unfortunately this doesn't seem to include you.