Thomas Sowell should be banned!

[foolsguinea]

I just read part of a column by Thomas Sowell, GOP propagandist. He was waxing dismissive about the rights of endangered species, and said something to this effect: "Frogs are a species; a given variety of frog is not a species." I just had to scream! Frogs are--off top my head--more like a sub-order! That is, "Frogs" refers to a group of species similar to each other but as distinct from each other as, for example:
a. the set of non-lemur primates: great apes, lesser apes, monkeys, and mankind (really a great ape with pretensions)
b. cloven-hooved animals: antelope, goats, buffalo, deer... would you consider all those a "species", too, Mr Sowell??

People who are this willfully ignorant about biology shouldn't set environmental policy, obviously. I submit that they shouldn't be syndicated either. Thomas Sowell should be banned from the newspapers. "Freedom of the press" is no excuse for damned lies!

[Giraffe]

Shit, if you were going to make ignorance of science a criteria for forbidding someone from the media, you'd have to fire hundreds of people...

Wait, that's not a bad thing...

[MysterEcks]

Exactly who are you suggesting "ban" the guy from the newspapers? The government? Nice to know you support the Constitution and all that.

Incidentally, do you have a citation to this article you read "part of?" I'd like to read the actual words, rather than your version of "something to this effect."

[Arnold Winkelried]

Perhaps "fired" would be a better word.

Thomas Sowell - May 24, 2001 - Green Bigots Versus Human Beings

Frogs are a species, but every conceivable variant of a frog is not a species.

[paperbackwriter]

As Sowell has so effectively shown, the rule in Washington is:
"Never let the facts get in the way of a good sound bite."
Its gotten almost depressing to see any news coverage about public policy issues that touches on scientific issues. The general level of scientific understanding in the USA is abysmal, and political hacks are among the worst offenders. For most of them their last contact with any scientific training was a Bio 110 class taken in their freshman year as a requirement.

[ITR champion]

Exactly who are you suggesting "ban" the guy from the newspapers? The government? Nice to know you support the Constitution and all that.

Uh, foolsguinea did not say that the government should ban the guy, he just said that newspapers shouldn't print this nonsense. As I understand it, fools was complaining about the right-wing nut jobs who insist that their "Constitustional rights" are being violated when privately-owned publications decide not to publish their lies (remember David Horowitz). The frist amendment doesn't require private publications to support freedom of anything.

[City Gent]

Although I generally disagree with Sowell, up to now I considered him intellectually a cut above Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy other such professional fudge-pipes.

Get a load of this, from Sowell's article:

What could be more exalting than to take on the God-like role of adjudicating between animals and people? You cannot be a judge handing down edicts for others unless you are placing yourself above those others.

Let me get this straight: when environmentalists oppose development, they're "adjudicating", but when some idiot builds an airport on top of the only remaining habitat of a species, it's...what? The natural order of things? Seems like knowingly wiping out a species (which is what Sowell defends) implies a hell of a lot more "God-like" judgment than opposing development.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by ITR champion
As I understand it, fools was complaining about the right-wing nut jobs who insist that their "Constitustional rights" are being violated when privately-owned publications decide not to publish their lies (remember David Horowitz). The frist amendment doesn't require private publications to support freedom of anything.

As a MEMBER of the media, even if not national, I feel compelled to respond to this thread. No, private publications are not "required" to support freedom of anything. But it IS in our best interests to allow a variety of views to be freely expressed, even those of "right-wing nut jobs." Otherwise, what is our freedom worth? Groups like the Sierra Club are considered LEFT-wing "nut jobs" in some parts of the state in which I live. Should they therefore be barred from the pages of the publication I work for? I think not.
The right to freely speak or be published is not subject to a popular vote, no matter how much some people on both sides of the cultural divide may wish it were. Suffice it to say there are extremists on both the Right and the Left who publish lies. It would be nice if this were not so, but we don't live in that perfect world.

I, for one, support the right of Mr. Sowell to say what he pleases, and the right of the Sierra Club to say what IT pleases, even though I agree with neither of them. I support that right because it is the same right that allows me, and all of you, incidentally, to post whatever we want to say to this Board. Make it more difficult for an unpopular view to be heard, and you have just driven the first nail into the coffin of your own freedom.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by foolsguinea
Thomas Sowell should be banned from the newspapers. "Freedom of the press" is no excuse for damned lies!

But if it weren't for the freedom of the press, we wouldn't know how much an idiot this guy is.

[UncleBeer]

... Thomas Sowell, GOP propagandist ...

What do frogs have to do with the Republican Party?

[Ukulele Ike]

Originally posted by UncleBeer
What do frogs have to do with the Republican Party?

....nah. Too easy.

[wring]

Originally posted by MysterEcks
Incidentally, do you have a citation to this article you read "part of?" I'd like to read the actual words, rather than your version of "something to this effect."

now that Arnold was kind enough to provide it, along with the direct quote, which showed that the OP was spot on in their recollection (but it is a valid thing to ask for), can we hear a 'thanks for the link' and perhaps your thought on the OP now that it's been established to be pretty accurate assesment of the article involved?

I don't believe that Mr. Sowell is an official 'GOP propagandist', but I am grateful for this article and quote, since he's been cited as 'evidence' of certain positions in GD lately. He's an economist by trade -IIRC- but as a columnist offers up his opinion on everything from environmental issues to education. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion of course, and I agree that the press has an obligation to provide some space to both ends (the point about the Sierra Club is a good one).

I think the next time I see him linked as 'support' for a position, I'll just link this thread.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Lizard - censoring someone's point of view is obviously undesirable. On the other hand, disseminating the writings of a person who discusses an issue while demonstrating in his prose an obvious lack of knowledge of the facts behind the issue does not serve freedom of the press as much as help foster contempt for the media. I personally look to my news outlets to provide me, on the editorial page, with intelligent commentary and thought-provoking viewpoints, not mindless vituperation (notice the title of the article) based on ignorance.

[wring]

Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried
Lizard - censoring someone's point of view is obviously undesirable. On the other hand, disseminating the writings of a person who discusses an issue while demonstrating in his prose an obvious lack of knowledge of the facts behind the issue does not serve freedom of the press as much as help foster contempt for the media.

obviously you never read the 'letters to the editor' section, eh? (acknowledged to be different from columnists) From my perspective, Mr. Sowell is a columnist with opinions. He's entitled to those opinions, and has managed to get himself a gig where he's convinced some folks to pay for the right to publish said opinions (nice job if you can get it).

What the publishers should do is print above each column in his case "Mr. Sowell has degrees as an economist" or something like that, (and yes, same for all the liberal ones, too). So, for example, in addition to Dr. Laura's column on moral rightness, we'd see that her Doctorate was in (what the hell was it again? phys ed? - seriously, I don't remember), which would allow us to judge for ourselves how large a grain of salt to use (in Mr. Sowells' case, I think there's one large enough under the city of Detroit )

[Arnold Winkelried]

wring, it's also the responsibility of the editors of a media outlet to refuse to publish columns that add nothing of value, and to stop employing columnists whose opinions are based on incorrect facts. Even if they have degrees from a prestigious school.

[Ukulele Ike]

Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried
columns that add nothing of value...columnists whose opinions are based on incorrect facts.

That reminds me of someone. Is Cal Thomas's column still being syndicated anywhere, or did he have to get gainful employment?

[manhattan]

[quote]Originally posted by wring

What the publishers should do is print above each column in his case "Mr. Sowell has degrees as an economist" or something like that, (and yes, same for all the liberal ones, too). So, for example, in addition to Dr. Laura's column on moral rightness, we'd see that her Doctorate was in (what the hell was it again? phys ed? - seriously, I don't remember), which would allow us to judge for ourselves how large a grain of salt to use (in Mr. Sowells' case, I think there's one large enough under the city of Detroit )

Eh. I don't even think they should do that. But when a columnist gets a material fact wrong, publishers should treat it the same as if a reporter had done it.

I think each and every media outlet that carries his column should print a correction making it clear that there are, in fact, distinct species of what we call "frogs."

Too many columnists on both (all) sides get factually lazy once they realize that editors cut them more slack than the reporters. It hurts journalism.

[wring]

Manny, Arnold point well taken, if there is (as in this case) a material and factual falsehood. where I see the damage that these sorts (both sides, really) do, though is not in the area of factual thing like this, but in an area where they'll reinterpret data outside their field of expertise and offer up their 'opinion'. For example, my field is criminal justice. I often see pundits comment on data from that field, and since they don't understand the source data their conclusions are suspect. (not that I'm incapable of being wrong, mind you, but at least, dammit, I know where the data comes from and how it's accumulated).

and, here we had Mr. Sowell, an economist, offering up his opinion on biological/environmental data. Or in another thread, his book on the educational system in the US. He's entitled to his opinion, he may even have some understanding of the issues, but he certainly shouldn't be seen as an 'expert' opinion in those areas, so merely reporting a 'factual' wrong isn't sufficient in my book.

[Guinastasia]

Originally posted by Ukulele Ike

....nah. Too easy.

Hey! That's uncalled for! I mean, this is the Pit and all, but that was just WAY out of line.















What did those poor little frogs ever do to deserve being lumped in as Republicans?

[Zoff]

Originally posted by wring
He's entitled to his opinion, he may even have some understanding of the issues, but he certainly shouldn't be seen as an 'expert' opinion in those areas

I have to disagree on this. He's not claiming to be an expert. He's a "pundit" (or whatever you want to call it) and they all have opinions on a wide variety of issues. As long as he, or George Will or Molly Ivins or whoever, don't claim in their piece to be an expert I don't see the need for listing their academic field. These columns are clearly opinion and are not news sources. The nature of opinion columnists is known widely enough that I don't believe many people assume the writer has academic expertise in the area.

The legitimacy of a columnists opinions depend on how cogent there argument is, not their degree.

[wring]

[quote]Originally posted by Zoff

I have to disagree on this. He's not claiming to be an expert. He's a "pundit" (or whatever you want to call it) and they all have opinions on a wide variety of issues. As long as he, or George Will or Molly Ivins or whoever, don't claim in their piece to be an expert I don't see the need for listing their academic field. These columns are clearly opinion and are not news sources. The nature of opinion columnists is known widely enough that I don't believe many people assume the writer has academic expertise in the area.

The legitimacy of a columnists opinions depend on how cogent there argument is, not their degree.

Well, we'll disagree then. If you believe that people don't 'assume that the writer has academic expertise in the area', I submit: this His book on education. Remember, he's an economist by trade. And yet some of the 'reviewers' talk glowingly 'discusses American Education from pre-K's to graduate schools; 9snip) politics and self-serving policies thereof. In 51 pages of notes, he supplies 1050 individual citations supporting his views and conclusions. "or suggest that every parent read it 'even if you plan on sending your child to private school', but another reviewer says

The provocative chapters on pre-college education are by comparison thin, focused exclusively on sometimes nasty attacks on the competence of teachers, the so-called "brainwashing" Sowell sees as the sole purpose of many educational programs, and the "dogmas" he believes determine the content of pre-college education.

The research supporting his theses is shoddy, to say the least. Given the book's title it is ironic that Sowell gives not the slightest indication that he has ever spent so much as a second actually inside a classroom

, so it would seem that certainly at least one person understands that his expertise has boundaries.

Even when something is on the Op/Ed page, many folks will read as if it's gospel. As Arnold & Manny seem to have suggested since they both want specific declarations of misrepresentation of fact to be noted. If folks actually read these pieces with a critical eye, notations such as that wouldn't be necessary either.

[foolsguinea]

Hey. It's the Pit. I was raving mad, and not patient enough to find a link. (Thank you, Arnold Winkelreid!)

Anyway, my thinking is this: Opinion is one thing. Gross factual error is another. Maybe the best solution is to let Sowell keep his job, but dock him a full column's pay for each GROSS FACTUAL ERROR.

Also, the man should be forced to apologize to the public, in a column, for his GROSS FACTUAL ERROR.

I mean, this isn't something like saying light takes 8 hours (it's really 8 minutes) to reach us from the sun, or getting the numbers wrong on Bush's tax plan. This is a major mistake, and I think on some level intentional. Sowell occasionally says some stuff I respect, but his hatred of environmentalism is profound. If he didn't mean to blatantly lie to his readers, he certainly didn't try to find the truth, because he genuinely thinks, "those damn frogs ain't worth shit".

And yeah, Cal Thomas. What a joke. Still syndicated here in GOP-land, still claiming the 1950's were a golden era & Ronnie Reagan was a saint. He's a twit.

[MysterEcks]

Arnold Winkelried said:

Perhaps "fired" would be a better word.

A much better word. "Banned" implies an action by someone who can dictate policy. I would and did presume it to be the government in this case--perfectly reasonable given the OP's mention of "[f]reedom of the press," I think--and I assume it's clear why that would be a bad thing. Whereas the syndication company getting fed up and firing the guy is pretty much irrelevant as a policy matter.

Thanks for the link, Noodles.

wring said:

now that Arnold was kind enough to provide it, along with the direct quote, which showed that the OP was spot on in their recollection (but it is a valid thing to ask for), can we hear a 'thanks for the link' and perhaps your thought on the OP now that it's been established to be pretty accurate assesment of the article involved?

Way to be snotty about something you admit was a valid request.

Actually, the OP had nothing to do with the column as a whole--it had to do with one statement within that column. The statement seems to be as advertised--factually incorrect. Whether Sowell did this intentionally to support his own argument, is ignorant, or was trying to say something else and is a piss-poor writer, I don't know.

I'll agree that he--and any columnist who puts out horseshit presented as fact (as opposed to opinion, which is another matter)--should be called on it. As for whether he and they should be blacklisted from the press forever, it seems to me that exposing them as wrong does them sufficient damage--either they will refrain from presenting "facts" that aren't, or they will lose all their credibility. (Whatever credibility they have, that is--taking anycolumnist's matterial at face value strikes me as pretty silly.)

foolsguinea said:

Maybe the best solution is to let Sowell keep his job, but dock him a full column's pay for each GROSS FACTUAL ERROR.

I'd like to see this with policticians--fine 'em every time they lie or distort something. We could do away with taxes entirely...and with Bill Clinton's share we could terraform Mars.

[ITR champion]

The point is this. Why should we even bother to have opinion columnists if we can't expect them to at least attempt to be truthful in their writings? We don't expect them to be sacked if they make a mistake regarding a minor detail, but repeated, intentional lying should be grounds for the columnist in question to be fired.

Why do we even have pundits? Why are we willing to pay them to give us their opinions? After all, people can do their own research and create their own political views, right? We have pundits because we trust them to present and interpret the facts in an honest manner, so that the audience can get a better understanding of the issues involved. If we just say that it's ok for them to lie their asses off, then what's the point?

[Lizard]

Originally posted by manhattan

Too many columnists on both (all) sides get factually lazy once they realize that editors cut them more slack than the reporters. It hurts journalism.

Actually, columnists have significantly more legal protection for what they write than reporters do. A columnist could say things that I could never get away with in a news story, and it would withstand a legal challenge, because it's his opinion, and is recognized (or should be; sometimes I have my doubts) by the public as such.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by ITR champion
The point is this. Why should we even bother to have opinion columnists if we can't expect them to at least attempt to be truthful in their writings? We don't expect them to be sacked if they make a mistake regarding a minor detail, but repeated, intentional lying should be grounds for the columnist in question to be fired.

Why do we even have pundits? Why are we willing to pay them to give us their opinions? After all, people can do their own research and create their own political views, right? We have pundits because we trust them to present and interpret the facts in an honest manner, so that the audience can get a better understanding of the issues involved. If we just say that it's ok for them to lie their asses off, then what's the point?

You raise an interesting point, but I believe you are confusing "pundits" with "journalists." They are not the same. Think of it this way: Christiane Amanpour goes to see what's happening, then reports to the public what she saw and heard, supposedly with no bias. George Will sees her report, maybe talks to some people in Washington about the situation, then says "heres what I think it mean." He is not under any obligation to be onest in the conventional sense, since it is taken as a given that he is putting his own slant on things.
The confidence with which some pundits announce their opinions leads a lot of people to think the pundits must have a much deeper grasp of events and reality than anyone else. But that is a carefully cultivated illusion.
Furthermore, "lies" "facts" and "honesty" are things that can change depending on your point of view. Journalists and pundits make judgement calls everyday about what gets mentioned and what doesn't, and their version becomes the "reality" that the public percieves. I personally read both the (conservative) Wall Street Journal and the (liberal) New York Times every day if possible. When those two publications agree on something, only then am I sure of it.

I agree with you that people could form their own political opinions. I think it's a great idea. But it doesn't happen much, in my experience. (i should add that I work as a reporter.)

[wring]

Originally posted by MysterEcks
wring said:

Way to be snotty about something you admit was a valid request.

merely keeping the tone you'd personally set with your "Incidentally, do you have a citation to this article you read "part of?" I'd like to read the actual words, rather than your version of 'something to this effect.' "
A polite request would have been "link please".
You took the time to make it an issue, I returned the favor, so feel free to apply the to yourself personally first.

Actually, the OP had nothing to do with the column as a whole--it had to do with one statement within that column. The statement seems to be as advertised--factually incorrect. Whether Sowell did this intentionally to support his own argument, is ignorant, or was trying to say something else and is a piss-poor writer, I don't know.

nice attempted defense. The linked statement was the basis of Sowell's primary point about the environmentalist's concerns. As such, and since it was a materially wrong basis, it's a fine start.

[Zoff]

Originally posted by wring
I submit: this His book on education. Remember, he's an economist by trade. And yet some of the 'reviewers' talk glowingly 'discusses American Education from pre-K's to graduate schools; 9snip) politics and self-serving policies thereof. In 51 pages of notes, he supplies 1050 individual citations supporting his views and conclusions. "

Well, I'd first say that reviews on Amazon.com tend more towards subtly propping up or bashing the ideas of political writers. Choose any political book written by any author of any political stripe and you'll see similar reviews. These reviewers are trying to add legitimacy to ideas they like or destroy ideas they don't.

I also don't see how Sowell being "an economist by trade" really matters in your book cite. I haven't read the book, but the fact that he's an economist isn't an argument against the book. It's heavily cited. The book could be complete BS for all I know, but it will be BS because it's poorly thought out, not because he's an economist and therefore shouldn't write a book about education.

The book angle brings up another point. As I understand it, you want the person's degree listed so readers can weigh the columnist's credibility. Say Sowell writes a column about education. Given that he's written several books on education, you could argue that listing his degree in economics would actully be misleading, since it implies no special knowledge of the educational system. To achieve your goal of fair disclosure, each columnist should reallly print a full CV with every column.

[wring]

Originally posted by Zoff
Well, I'd first say that reviews on Amazon.com tend more towards subtly propping up or bashing the ideas of political writers.

the point was that the reviewers (not professionals) took him as an expert and didn't question his data, which was my point.

See, if I know that you're a geneticist by trade, and you present a thesis and support it with data, I'll be more inclined to think you may have a clue what you're talking about. If you're an economist (just to pick one out of thin air), you may be able to read and understand data on the economy etc, but I'll not necessarily take your word on genetics.

The point is, that without at least a small hint about their qualifications, we need to be our own detective/expert in that field. The listed example for instance - my last exposure to biology was in college many years ago and the only thing I remember from the experience is studying for the final I looked at the book and thought to myself "sub phylum of the class amphibia, well, hell, that can't be important" , and it of course was question 7, page two. So, what to a lot of folks here was a glaring error would have passed right on by me - except that in this case I knew the guy was an economist, so would have looked for info about his data.

The fact that some one references 'data' doesn't mean squat. To whit: this thread , handy posted 'data' about crime stats. Now, because I knew where the data came from, I was able to say that the data had been extrapolated out from a legitimate site and manipulated. But that's cause it's my field. See???

[Zoff]

Originally posted by wring
the point was that the reviewers (not professionals) took him as an expert and didn't question his data, which was my point.

I guess this depends on how you define "expert". None of the reviews said "this is a good book because it was written by an expert who has a degree in education." Some of the reviews cited his research which some found good and some found lacking. How does this relate to his degree in economics? Or, more specifically, how does his non-education degree have any relation to the conclusions of his book? These reviews of his book back up what I said in my first post: the quality of a person's ideas depend on the strength of their arguments, not their degree.

Again, I think it would actually be misleading to merely list his degree, given that he has written several books on education. We can argue over whether that makes him an "expert", but it certainly shows he has more knowledge of the issue than a listing of his academic accomplishments would indicate. So a column by Sowell with a "Thomas Sowell has a Ph.D. in economics" doesn't really help a reader at all.

But the real point is that columnists are paid for their opinions, not their expertise. Readers know this. And when columnists step over the line, they tend to get exposed either through letters to the editor or opposing Op/Eds. Listing a columnist's degree causes as many problems as it solves.

[wring]

well Zoff we disagree.

[Zoff]

well Zoff we disagree.

Well, I guess there's only a couple of ways to settle this, and I'll let you choose ('cause I'm a good sport): it's either paper/scissors/rock or we post our degrees and let the people decide.

[wring]

Originally posted by Zoff
Well, I guess there's only a couple of ways to settle this, and I'll let you choose ('cause I'm a good sport): it's either paper/scissors/rock or we post our degrees and let the people decide.

Hmm, Rock paper scissors. You first.

(kidding we can agree to disagree politely here)

[capacitor]

Geez, not even Rush is as lockstep to the right wing as Thomas Sowell is. This person is as sockpuppet as one can get.

[kaylasdad99]

Lizard said:

I personally read both the (conservative) Wall Street Journal and the (liberal) New York Times every day if possible. When those two publications agree on something, only then am I sure of it.

You realize, of course that you just now said you're sure that the funny pages don't matter.

And you call yourself a journalist?

[yosemite]

wring, I have to say I'm confused. Are you saying that only people who have degrees in a specific field are qualified to write about it, or to be taken seriously about it? I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with Zoff about.

[MysterEcks]

I tried clicking on the link to check something, and I see that as of right now I get a " the page cannot be found" notice. Maybe they took Sowell out and shot him.

ITR champion said:

The point is this. Why should we even bother to have opinion columnists if we can't expect them to at least attempt to be truthful in their writings?

What is this "we" stuff? Newspapershave opinion columnists because they increase (or at least maintain) circulation, which thus leads to increased (or at least maintained) advertising and ad rates. Sowell will remain syndicated, and papers will carry his column, as long as they make money from it. If they stop making money with his column--or if they lose money because of it--they'll cease carrying it.

So all you have to do is start a campaign to boycott newspapers that carry offending columnists. If enough people do it, the papers will drop them. Hell, I'll even help you if we can go after L. Brent Bozell--the only use I've ever discovered for his columns is to use them to pick up dog turds.)

Lizard said:

When those two publications agree on something, only then am I sure of it.

Liberals are frequently full of shit. Conservatives are also frequently full of shit. There is no reason to think that when they agree on something they aren't managing to be full of shit together, you know.

wring said:

[M]erely keeping the tone you'd personally set[...]. A polite request would have been "link please".

And here I didn't realize you fancied yourself the Miss Manners of the board.

[N]ice attempted defense. The linked statement was the basis of Sowell's primary point about the environmentalist's concerns. As such, and since it was a materially wrong basis, it's a fine start.

Attempted defense of what, Miss Manners? Of Sowell? In what way? Of myself? Again, in what way? Of the column in general? The OP had nothing to do with the column in general--as should be obvious, since there was no link--nor does this thread have anything in particular to do with Sowell's opinions on environmentalists. Of the statement we were actually dealing with? Maybe you should try reading my previous post--I lable the statement directly as "factually incorrect," and indirectly as "horseshit presented as fact" and ""facts" that aren't." Boy, I'd hate to see what I'd write if I wasn't "defen[ding]" it.

And perhaps you should reread the column, too, assuming you can find a copy--it should be obvious that Sowell's opinions have nothing to do with the statement. It was a throw-away line designed to bolster the argument, but certainly the argument didn't depend on it.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by kaylasdad99
Lizard said:

You realize, of course that you just now said you're sure that the funny pages don't matter.

And you call yourself a journalist?

Well, kaylasdad99, way to read too much into my post. You get the "Jump to Conclusions Award" for 2001! back at you, "pal."

Originally posted by MysterEcks
Liberals are frequently full of shit. Conservatives are also frequently full of shit. There is no reason to think that when they agree on something they aren't managing to be full of shit together, you know.

My, aren't we cynical. Since this thread is about "opinion," I suppose you could find reasons to believe or NOT believe anything you wish, and it would be legitimate (if not necessarily fair.)

[jab1]

An opinion based on facts is worth paying for. An opinion based on incorrect information is not worth paying for. Sowell's column was not worth paying for. Dock him whatever he was paid for that column and warn him to be careful next time.

Has anyone emailed him or his syndicate about his mistake?

[kaylasdad99]

Recognizing that the "I was only joking" defense is regarded (rightly) as poor form around here, I herewith offer my apology to you, Lizard, for my remarks that may have been construed as impugning your professionalism. I failed to make my humorous intent clear, and I regret the hurt you may have felt as a result of my failure.

(the following is not to be considered a retraction of the preceding apology, but is an offering about what I sometimes find to be an amusing method of goofing around) I hold some strong opinions about my personal preferences, and I sometimes amuse myself by taking opportunities to declaim my preferences as though they are Absolute Truth (TM), and that to disagree with them is to contradict the fiats of the Lord Most High. Thus, in the past, this Board has seen me to declare local television news to be useless drivel, the Dodgers to be the only authentic baseball team such that God only counts their wins as valid contests (although not so much since they were bought by The Prince of Darkness ), and that a newspaper is merely a life support system for a set of comic strips. In the future, I may be saying that oysters are not food, and that to decaffeinate coffee is to perpetrate an abomination in the sight of the Lord. Please don't interpret any of these as meaning that I actually believe that, say, the political title of "Lord" has any actual validity when applied to the concept of the Divine. In return, I will make efforts to make my humorous intent clear, when it is there.

[MysterEcks]

Lizard said:

My, aren't we cynical.

And I'm getting more cynical every minute, too.

Since this thread is about "opinion,"[...].

I swear, it's enough to make me tear out my hair if I had enough left to afford it. This thread is notabout opinion--it is about fact, or lack thereof. I realize that a lot of people don't make a clear distinction between fact and opinion--and I suspect that some of the individuals here hammering Sowell for his factual lapse only do so because of his right-wing opinions--but they are still different things.

[Cartooniverse]

[quote]Originally posted by Zoff

Well, I guess there's only a couple of ways to settle this, and I'll let you choose ('cause I'm a good sport): it's either paper/scissors/rock or we post our degrees and let the people decide.

Oh, stop already. As you might glean from This delectable thread, some of us really don't give one fat flying fuck what degree you've got.

THE ONLY measure used for many of us are the words you employ when you post here. Soooo.....you wanna be the rock, the paper or the scissors?

Cartooniverse

[Zoff]

Originally posted by Cartooniverse
Oh, stop already. As you might glean from This delectable thread, some of us really don't give one fat flying fuck what degree you've got.

I've been out in the sun all day, so maybe I'm slow on the uptake. I can't quite tell what you're saying in your post.
I mentioned posting degrees to make the point that degrees are irrelevant in a debate. Either paper/scissors/rock or posting degrees would be equally ridiculous ways to settle a debate. It was sort of a joke ending to the debate that had centered on whether columnists should be required to list their academic credentials.

If you were actually making a joke on my joke, and out-ironied me, I apologize for the post. Like I said, I've been out in the sun.

[yosemite]

Zoff, I was tempted to quote the same thread that Cartooniverse did. But from my understanding of the goings-on of this thread, you were the one that was suggesting that anyone with some intelligent research should have their work still considered worth something, whether or not they actually had a degree in the particular area. And it was (if I am not misunderstanding) wring who was disagreeing with that. So, if I have understood this all correctly (and I may not have) then the thread that Cartoon gave should be directed towards wring, and not you.

I haven't been out in the sun today, but I'm still not sure that makes sense...?

[Zoff]

Yeah, the gist of my argument was that a columnist's opinions stand or fall on the quality of the reasoning and argument so listing academic achievements is irrelevant or even misleading.

That's why Cartooniverse's post confuses me. The post pretty much repeats what I've been saying, but I can't really detect any irony in the first paragraph, so I'm not sure if I'm just missing something.

[Cartooniverse]

>>>Gulp<<< You're both right, I was crediting the wrong person. Sorry, Zoff. I happen to actually KNOW a Zoff in my life. You by any chance an audio engineer????

Yosemitebabe, thank you. It's the Pit, one gets to be snippy- but it helps if the waterhose is directed at the right person.

I feel like a true blue :wally

Cartooniverse

[Zoff]

No problem. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing your point.

I'm not an audio engineer like your friend Zoff. But if your friend is of Italian ancestry he/she might be related to the greatest goalkeeper to ever live!

[wring]

MysterEcks Ms. Manners reporting back.

A. this is the pit.
B. You posted in this pit thread, something less than cordial.
C. I pointed it out, in a gruff manner.
D. You point a finger at me for being snotty.
E. I pointed out that you'd set the tone.

And this gets me the title? Riiiiiight.

my position: Anyone is entitled to their opinions. People who get paid to write opinion pieces in the print media are getting paid to do exactly that. People who read such stuff need to use large grains of salt when doing so. IMHO, it would be helpful for folks to have their academic background listed at the head of the piece. Does this mean that an economist can only write on that subject? no, absolutely not. But, it does mean, for example, when "Dr. Laura" writes about the moral decline of our society due to our lack of religious values etc, that we see that the doctorate that she has is in phsysiology, which again, does not presume that she knows nothing in another subject.

In the listed case, Mr. Sowell's degree gives him no credibility in the area of biology. Had that fact been in place, it would have given the readers an additional piece of info "this isn't his area of expertise". Why not do this?
Zoff claims "Yeah, the gist of my argument was that a columnist's opinions stand or fall on the quality of the reasoning and argument" and data, too, I would think you meant to add.

My point is that in many ways data selection and interpretation can be a tricky thing, especially when dealing with the social sciences. and while the argument and reasoning may be sound, if it's based on faulty data or data that is selected because of a particular bias, then the conclusions can be faulty as well. And, the reader has a right to know if the opinion writer has some experience interpreting the data in the field that they are currently discussing.

[Zoff]

Originally posted by wring
And, the reader has a right to know if the opinion writer has some experience interpreting the data in the field that they are currently discussing.

And my point is that listing a degree is often not very informative and may be misleading. Again, to use the Sowell example, he does have some experience interpreting educational data by virtue of having written on the subject. Now, listing Sowell's degree might actually boost his credibility since a reader might realize that an economist has to deal with interpreting data. But what if he was an English major? Listing a degree he got 20 years ago says nothing of his "experience interpreting the data". It would be misleading because it leaves out his "experience" and only lists education -- two different issues.

Mr. Sowell's degree gives him no credibility in the area of biology.

It certainly doesn't give him the credibility to teach biology. But he is an opinion writer. If his conclusions, or data, are wrong it will be pointed out by other writers or people writing letters to the editor. That's the ultimate check, not a listing of diplomas.

[wring]

[quote]Originally posted by Zoff

And my point is that listing a degree is often not very informative and may be misleading. Again, to use the Sowell example, he does have some experience interpreting educational data by virtue of having written on the subject.

Umm, that's kinda backwards, isn't it? My point about his book on education was that he didn't have the background in education. Now, since he's written said book, he obtains credibility in that area?

I understand your concern about the degree being misleading. I still would rather err on the side of more information vs. less.