tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8237846547805652402.post7621198183584111567..comments2014-02-03T14:46:43.219-05:00Comments on EP-ology by Carl V. Phillips: Unhealthful News 164 - Taking scientific advice requires some scientific skillCarl V Phillipshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01919902852457771666noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8237846547805652402.post-23537801059951519912011-06-14T11:19:26.411-04:002011-06-14T11:19:26.411-04:00E, Might I suggest you take a closer look at what...E, Might I suggest you take a closer look at what Krugman himself writes -- an impressive quantity of useful analysis every week. I obviously risk being wrong about this since I have no idea who is behind your single letter, but I am pretty confident I have read more Krugman than you and I strongly suspect I have probably read more from the critics of Krugman also. I have the advantage of having independent expertise in the subject matter of much of what he rights about, but I think I can see past that to make this observation:<br /><br />Krugman is a near-perfect example of what I write about in this blog, about how you can recognize who is telling the truth even if you cannot judge the subject matter. To a degree that is quite amazing (though I suppose it is motivating to know that millions of people including some of those in charge pay attention to what you say), he identifies the critiques of / attack on his arguments and responds to them. He points out their internal inconsistencies in ways that, I think, people who are interested enough to be reading the material can understand, even without further knowledge. He shows the data that points out that they are wrong. He identifies the analytic mistakes they are making and explains why they are mistakes. On the few occasions that they come back with a "yes, but..." or a rebuttal, he responds to that too. <br /><br />Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, almost all of his detractors simply ignore his replies to their points. They just repeat the same claims that he has already debunked. Sure, they can come up with a few minor points that he has never had time to respond to, but for the most part they are trafficking in points that he has answered, counting on the reader to be unaware of that fact. <br /><br />If you are familiar with my writing, you will recognize this as the tactic used by anti-tobacco extremists in response to harm reduction: They make attacks which are debunked, but they never try to defend them or respond to the pro-HR arguments. Instead, they just keep repeating the same claims, counting on no one to be reading critically enough to realize that those points have already been debunked.<br /><br />I know that this post's topic focused on knowing enough to know who to believe. I am convinced that this does not require knowing all of the subject matter -- thus my own efforts. But it is definitely necessary to be able to see the difference between someone who offering a scientific argument and responding to critiques of the theory, and someone who is simply making statements that sound good on their face without acknowledging what others have said. I am convinced that anyone who is educated and engaged enough to be reading serious punditry can learn that about THR or about tax/monetary/budget policy.Carl V Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01919902852457771666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8237846547805652402.post-811027506102634782011-06-14T08:26:28.208-04:002011-06-14T08:26:28.208-04:00In light of this post, I find it ironic that you l...In light of this post, I find it ironic that you link to Paul Krugman as "critical analysis". Google "Krugman in Wonderland" to understand why I say this.Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06506153133307206867noreply@blogger.com