|
|
|
|
|
|
by quinthar
2887 days ago
|
|
|
Hmm how is this a good rebuttal? I haven't read the book, but the original article is based primarily on clear assertions of fact and statistics. A "good rebuttal" world presumably show that those stats are wrong, or at best misleading. But John's rebuttal is just a bunch of ponderous, abstract philosophy, with the most compelling part (and it's not very compelling) being: "Much of its more than 500 pages consists of figures aiming to show the progress that has been made under the aegis of Enlightenment ideals. Of course, these figures settle nothing. [Uh, of course?
Care to elaborate?] Like Pinker’s celebrated assertion that the world is becoming ever more peaceful – the statistical basis of which has been demolished by Nassim Nicholas Taleb [Oh snap! It was demolished by this dude I've never heard of, using reasoning that isn't provided? Dammnnnn, sick burn] everything depends on what is included in them and how they are interpreted. [Alright, I'm ready for you truth bomb] Are the millions incarcerated in the vast American prison system and the millions more who live under parole included in the calculus that says human freedom is increasing? [Um, are they not? Or are you asking me to do the homework to see if your point has merit?] If we are to congratulate ourselves on being less cruel to animals, how much weight should be given to the uncounted numbers that suffer in factory farming and hideous medical experiments – neither of which were practised on any comparable scale in the past? [Good question... that you decline to answer]" Basically: "X is misleading, because what about Y?" I don't know man, can you just tell me rather than leaving me guessing? It would be more compelling if he did his own homework rather than leaving his sucker punch as an exercise to the reader. I think the original article is far more compelling than this so called rebuttal. |
|
|