Since Dan McCarthy left…

By -

Things have been going downhill at <i>The American Conservative</i>.

Today, I found someone vomiting out this on their website:

“Which is to say that replacing quantitative test data with teacher recommendations, grade point averages, and personal narratives is opting for an approach that is necessarily less scientific, as the information involved is not referenced against a uniform (i.e. standard) set of metrics.”

I don’t know anything about this author, but, he assumes that:

  1. College admissions should be “scientific.”
  2. Absolutely any “uniform metric” is preferable to any alternative. So I guess this clown would be happy if students were admitted to universities based on weight, since that would be a “uniform metric.”


Comments

  1. BZ8:09 PM

    What are your thoughts on David D Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:36 AM

      As bad as all other ideology?

      Delete
    2. BZ2:00 AM

      I remember you said that you read The Machinery of Freedom in another blog post. I was just curious what you thought about the book after you first read it and what made you eventually relized it was just a giant pile of balony.

      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