How Cults Self-Perpetuate

By -
Check out this thread. When a Mises Institute initiate has the temerity to ask what non-Austrian economic books he should read, some posters mock him for thinking of doing anything so pointless. He defends himself by saying he only reads them to be able to refute them.

No sense whatsoever that there is the least possibility he might discover some of his earlier views are wrong. In order to remain a member in good standing, you must swear that you are not reading books from outside the cult-approved list to learn anything new, but only to know how to attack them.

Comments

  1. Josh Hanson2:27 PM

    "Some" people will always mock others for being different. After reading through the posts, it looks like the majority of commenters make some good suggestions and are not at all discouraging him from wanting to learn other perspectives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah2:40 PM

      So long as he is just learning them to refute them!

      Delete
    2. gcallah2:44 PM

      E.g.:

      "The light must know the dark to establish itself."

      "Simply because other schools of economic thought are 'incorrect' does not mean we should shy away from them. If anything, we should and must read up on non-Austrian economic schools, if only to improve our ability to counter their assertions."

      "Do you merely want an alternate perspective... or do you want something to apply Austrian methodology (praxeology) to, and read the works to then come up with your own refutations of them?"

      And yes, there are one or two exceptions.

      Delete
  2. Bob Murphy1:21 PM

    Gene, you are nuts. ONE GUY said a wise-ass remark; he was the first out of the chute. Other people jumped on *him*, not the original poster. The "light must know the dark" was arguably a response to that wiseass.

    Every single other poster, besides the one wiseass, was trying to help the first guy's question.

    You really have no idea how much you magnify things when you now look at the Mises Institute. I am not saying there's no such as, say, a tendency to defend Rothbard aggressively or to go nuts if a media person criticizes Ron Paul. Rather, I am saying you "see" things from them that just aren't there. This post is a great example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:44 PM

      It's funny Bob, but *lots* of other people are having the same hallucinations I am.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2:14 PM

      At least you admit it. I wonder, did you hallucinate those "other people", too? Or are they all in your head?

      Delete

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