[kirklove]

One of the points that always seems to be lost in these criticisms and rebuttals and debates is that Gladwell spawns conversion. And that's a very good thing. Nothing should be taken as sacrosanct on either side. It's good to prod and examine these issues and bring more views to the table. Hopefully that leads to more questions... not dogma.

[jljljl]

Spawning conversations on the basis of poor or misleading evidence is not a worthwhile endeavor. While nothing should be taken as sacrosanct, one needs to have solid evidence or a reasonable argument before they start prodding and examining issues.

Just saying "Hey, what if?" is not an incredible benefit to society if the claims are not properly testable.

[kirklove]

I respectfully disagree. Dialog is a good thing. He may very well be wrong at times though I don't believe he's attempting to mislead people.

Personally, I never want to stop saying, "What if". That question has led to amazing things.

[sjg007]

Politicians do this all the time. Fox News and the mainstream media make their careers out of it. I think we as a society have forgotten how to deconstruct an argument and fact check the specifics.

[jljljl]

Deconstructing arguments is difficult, and fact-checking is incredibly time consuming with often little immediately benefit (besides the smug sensation of knowing more that it often provides).

This is why popularizers and journalists have an incredible responsibility to provide this deconstruction and fact checking on behalf of the public, and it's why there is so much outrage, particularly from the scientific community, when they fail.

[sjg007]

I totally agree..

[jljljl]

I know, i was just building on what you said :)

[snowwrestler]

It's not hard to start a conversation. Doing so by using selective data and unsupported conclusions is not a good thing.