[dcow]

I'm not sure how you assumed that one. I mean the currently bestselling: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N39W2DI

[pizza]

You think Dinesh D'Souza is reliable? This guy?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/dinesh-dsouza/statem...

[dcow]

He's a researcher at the Hoover Institute at Stanford.

[dragonwriter]

Being a scholar at an ideological think tank is a good indicator of having a particular ideology.

Which might add credibility to statements contrary to that bias, but not so much otherwise.

[dcow]

I actually had a discussion about this last night. We came to the conclusion that you can't invalidate an argument solely because it might be biased. Otherwise you'd probably invalidate all arguments due to some bias found somewhere. We agreed you must take biased arguments with a grain of salt, recognize and assess bias, etc. but the presence of bias does not alone invalidate an argument. Even "scientific research" is biased, ask Kuhn.

[dragonwriter]

> I actually had a discussion about this last night. We came to the conclusion that you can't invalidate an argument solely because it might be biased.

Clearly. That's well-known. I'm just saying that the argument from authority being made actually was supported by evidence of ideology, not authority.

[dcow]

I might have lost you. You're saying you read the book and are issuing that assessment or just speculating based on the identity of the author?

[jacquesm]

> I'm not sure how you assumed that one.

Because you just mentioned the title and that's what popped up.

> I mean the currently bestselling:

That it is bestselling does not make it true and that particular author has a stench around him you can smell from a mile away. The last thing I'll do is send the cretin my $.

Ironically, and I'm saying this without having read the book as you already know, but I would not be surprised if for once the title actually accurately conveyed the contents of the book.