[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?

[dragonwriter]

I'm saying the premise “the author is a Hoover Institution fellow” offered to support the intermediate conclusion “the author is a credible authority that it is worth spending time listening to” does not support that conclusion, and therefore the further conclusion “one should read this book”.

I’m not speculating on the quality of the work, based on the identity of the author or any other information, only stating that (aside from a clue as to it's likely ideological bias, which might be relevant to some) no reason has been presented to overcome pre-existing skepticism about the value of the book noted upthread by a different commenter.

[dcow]

So every time someone recommends a book I must find some 3rd party out of band means of validating an author's credibility? Authors' credentials are often listed right on the work. If you don't respect them then unfortunately it will be impossible to validate a work in your eyes (in isolation). But that's where the whole human to human social thing comes in: I'm recommending the book because I think it's relevant to the thread. If the posted credentials and my recommendation are still not enough you might ask why I know of the book in the first place, and as I indicated it's bestselling on amazon right now. There are at least other people who are interested in it. Anyway that doesn't really matter someone who don't respect my recommendation or the Author's creds will be unlikely to ever entertain the work. I can't fix closed minds, sorry.