Stupid Is as Stupid Does

By -
Hans Hermann-Hoppe says the right way to debate Paul Krugman is to be an idiot and pretend you don't understand even the simplest arguments. Hermann-Hoppe has also defeated heliocentrists in debates the same way, by just continually asking them, "How can a big thing like the earth move? How? Nobody can explain that!"

Comments

  1. Unknown10:09 PM

    I don't like Krugman at all, but I acknowledge the fact that he's an economist who is entitled to his opinions, no matter how inane they may seem to certain people. I also acknowledge the amount of work he has done on trade, his contributions to macroeconomics, and his credentials.

    I haven't read much of Hoppe, but I'm amazed at how much attention he's been getting. Someone even wrote a song about him and Stephan Kinsella on YouTube, which you can see here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-33cuur-hTc

    What's your position or opinion on NGDP targeting by the way? I finally bought Market Monetarism: Roadmap to Economic Prosperity and I've been reading blogs like Scott Sumner's for a while and like a lot of what they've been saying, even though they get too obsessed with NGDP rather than thinking about other factors, including historical and social, that could have caused the financial crisis. I don't consider myself a Friedmanite or an Austrian, but maybe somewhere in between at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1:24 AM

    Actually,appealing to your audience's already existing prejudices or intuitions is a great way to get an argument across.

    1. It builds upon what the audience already 'knows', so it's easy to understand and remember.

    2. It flatters the audience that they already know all that is needed to comprehend the issue under discussion.

    3. It forces a debating opponent to give long, complicated answers to short, simple questions, perhaps challenging or reinterpreting 'known' facts in a counterintuitive way.

    4. Since by definition, you don't know what you don't know, it's quite difficult to realize when this technique is being used on you.

    On a related point, somebody should write a book about the whole John Birch/ Mises Institute/ Conspiracy Subculture/ Ron Paul/ Neo-Confederate complex.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Murphy11:42 PM

    "Actually,appealing to your audience's already existing prejudices or intuitions is a great way to get an argument across....On a related point, somebody should write a book about the whole John Birch/ Mises Institute/ Conspiracy Subculture/ Ron Paul/ Neo-Confederate complex."

    I agree, those points are related.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous2:06 AM

    Indeed. You should know better than most, Bob. They are related. This mode of argumentation is used extensively by members of every element of the complex as I listed them.

    1. JBS: Fluoride... "Why are we putting TOXIC WASTE in our WATER?!!!"

    2. Mises Institute: "Explain to me how ... increase in paper pieces can possibly make a society richer"

    3. Conspiracy Subculture: "Tell me please how a single bullet caused wounds in President Kennedy's neck, and Governor Conally's chest wrist and thigh. ABSURD".

    4. Neo Confederates: " Lincoln said ' If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it', so that PROVES THE NORTH DIDN'T FIGHT THE CIVIL WAR TO END SLAVERY"

    5. Ron Paul: A charming melange of 1 thru 4.

    Anyway, these interrellated and mutually influencing groups rely on the same set of techniques to influence public opinion.

    IMHO it is dishonorable to prey upon the ignorance of the general public.

    Maybe you should write the book, Bob; you're affiliated with the Mises Institute, love conspiracy theories, support Ron Paul and the confederate cause... All you need to do is infiltrate the John Birch society, and you could write the perfect tell-all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous2:31 AM

    I should have said "you support the southern states' right to secede" rather than "you support the confederate cause.

    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