Truth in Chains

By -
I am not a libertarian. And I am not particularly a fan of Tyler Cowen.

I point these things out so that perhaps my condemnation of this sort of egregious dishonesty will seem a little stronger. Nancy McLean is a liar who is willing to double down on her lies once she is caught. This sort of thing can't be condemned in enough places.

Comments

  1. Ken B2:22 PM

    Indeed. Her use of those snippets from Cowan is misleading. I suspect it was dishonest from the start, but of course cannot prove that. Her defense of them when corrected though is clear proof of dishonesty and mendacity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Josiah Neeley9:33 AM

      Agreed. MacLean's response to Russ Roberts removed all doubt that it was an innocent mistake.

      Delete
  2. Ken B12:43 AM

    Wow. I read a bit more. Lance Armstrong levels of dishonesty. The central thesis is that a guy who publicly advocated a 100 per cent inheritance tax was trying to turn the US into a hereditary plutocratic oligarchy!

    'Fess up Gene. You are the leader of a plot to having thinking machines run the country as a godless warrior state perpetually invading middle eastern countries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:39 AM

      Yup! As I am not a libertarian, and not a Tyler Cowen fan, I think I'm in a pretty good, neutral position to say this woman's standard's of intellectual honesty are non-existent! Everyone who respects any standards of intellectual discourse, whether or not they are a libertarian, whether or not they like Buchanan or Cowen, should be calling her out on this, in fact, *especially* those of us who are not on "their side."

      If you are reading this thread, please post somewhere how dishonest McLean is!

      Delete
    2. Ken B9:01 AM

      Done.
      Not that I get a lot of traffic. I think I have a couple regular hate-readers :)

      Delete
    3. Unknown1:06 AM

      @Ken B, your blog is on my rss feed and well no hate. It's also the only place I've heard about this from.

      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