Why I Blog

By -
This blog is an intellectual diary for me. I use it (mostly) to jot down ideas I have that I might use later. (Sometimes I just blog something that amuses or annoys me, but that happens just because I have the blog for the first purpose, so I can then use it for the other two.) Why a blog, rather than a notebook or private file? Well, it encourages me to write down my thoughts if I think others might read them. And, many times, the comments help me become clearer about what I am thinking.

As such, I welcome two sorts of commentators:

1) Those who can help me advance my own thinking; and
2) Those who don't understand what I'm saying and sincerely want me to explain it better.

Neither category includes people who write things like, "You idiot, you totally ignored the Blenkenschnapp study of 1958 which decisively shows that Bach was not a great musical composer!"

I'm sorry, but you are lecturing me, not engaging in discussion with me. And I regularly attend lectures by people much, much smarter than you. So don't bother.

Now that I've turned on comment moderation, I will be ruthless about culling the netwits from the comment pool. If I've misunderstood you and you really want to discuss something, drop me an e-mail and let me know.

Comments

  1. John Goes8:17 PM

    You should blog more, Gene.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah11:09 PM

    Thanks, John!

    ReplyDelete
  3. PH11:18 AM

    Interesting. I mostly use a private journal for that purpose. Any time I write out my thoughts in a public setting, I feel that they must be reasonably well-developed; there is no recalling them. But on private paper, meant for my eyes only, I feel freer to sketch out tentative ideas.

    My blog I use principally for posting interesting excerpts from works I'm reading.

    ReplyDelete
  4. gcallah1:39 PM

    "I mostly use a private journal for that purpose. Any time I write out my thoughts in a public setting, I feel that they must be reasonably well-developed; there is no recalling them."

    But when you die famous, they will publish your private journal anyway!

    I'm just beating them to the punch.

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah5:14 PM

    "Any time I write out my thoughts in a public setting, I feel that they must be reasonably well-developed; there is no recalling them."

    By the way, if I only published those thoughts I was sure I would never wish to recall, I would never publish a thing. Making big, bold mistakes in public can be more valuable than making tiny, safe advances.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous8:07 AM

    Gene, I saw your name listed on wikipedia under "List of Austrian School economists" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Austrian_School_economists) and I was curious whether you still consider yourself such. If you're not, I can go ahead and update your wikipedia page accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. gcallah5:58 PM

    IKilled007, I did not put my name on that list, and I am not going to tell anyone whether or not I should be there. I am interested in Austrian economics and have learned many important things from it. Whether I "am" an Austrian economist based on that is not for me to say.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more