Lizard said:
And I’m getting more cynical every minute, too.
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.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zoff *
**
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
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.
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…?
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.
>>>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
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!
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.
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.
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.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zoff *
**
** 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.
My comment was in response to your comment that readers should know whether somebody has “some experience interpreting the data”. My point was that he does have some experience interpreting the data by virtue of writing the education books. However, his diploma would not indicate this experience. The point was that education and experience are not necessarily the same. As to whether he has credibility in the area – that’s an open question that his diploma doesn’t resolve.
I don’t disagree with you that information is good. I just don’t think listing degrees provides enough valid information to be of use.
*Originally posted by Zoff *
**
yes, I know. My point is that as far as I can tell, Mr. Sowell’s ‘experience’ in the education field came from writing that book.
He cited data, research, yes. But, and here’s where my concerns come in, we don’t know that he had the background and expertise in order to select, review and extrapolate information from that data.
Degrees and experience, are of themselves only another piece of information. They can give us some understanding of the person’s ability to understand the data and the issue at hand.
Especially in the social sciences, there’s tons of studies, tons of pieces of information that can be interpreted in many ways. I believe I already cited a thread on crime data and racial data - right? In that thread, another cite was provided that listed data on crime, victimization etc. However, the way the data was manipulated, it was racist and inflammatory and, wrong. But it used data from the FBI. The people who put it together had another agenda, and took from the available data bits and pieces that ‘made their case’. When we were able to see the original source data and the people behind the flawed data, we could see what happened.
And this is why I don’t think your plan will work. If you only post Sowell’s degree you are leaving out important information. His experience in education can be debated, but the fact that he researched and wrote a book is clearly relevant. But your system wouldn’t list this information.
As it currently stands, no information is uniformly given about a columnist. This is because they are opinion writers who lay no claim to expertise in all areas. Posting partial credentials runs the inherent risk of misleading by omission. The degree a person got 30 years ago is simply not enough information to be helpful. It can, however, be misleading.
If a columnist uses bad reasoning, arguments or statistics, those conclusions will eventually be challenged. Throwing in incomplete information doesn’t help.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zoff *
**
As far as I’m concerned, Zoff here just distilled and articulated the entire core point beautifully. YES, Op-Ed writers are given great latitude as far as their columns. They’re not just held to education, they’re held up as people employed by a newspaper or t.v. network whose THOUGHTS and OPINIONS are considered noteworthy, or at least listenworthy.
Mentioning what degree some famous personality earned a long time ago is irrelevant, IMHO. In fact…in a way, the very idea of the phrase IMHO sums it up too.
**Wring says
**
Really? No qualifiers?? I’d rather take focused vital information contained on a single sheet of paper, over a 1,200 page report filled with references to out-dated and badly skewed data. It’s quality, not quantity- usually. Yes, if you are doing an exhaustive analysis of immigration and population flow into the states existant at the time of the great influx ( roughly 1897-1924 ), you’d have reams of data. But overall, I tend to look for a small bit of really concise data.
Going back to the greater debate happening here, sorry but I’m with Zoff. You are either a clinical analyst, or you are an Op-Ed writer. You are not both, NOT in the same book, or column.
Cartooniverse
Ok, I was gonna let Zoff have the last word, 'cause we simply disagree, however, you’ve taken a different step. No ‘qualifiers’? where do you get that?
I spent quite a bit of time explaining exactly the point - that merely submitting ‘data’ often isn’t sufficient, unless you also are able to submit the source data, and are able to establish that the source data is recognized in that field. Remember the big debate about the recent ‘study’ on homosexuality’? in that case, the study itself had some significant flaws, but it was touted roundly by certain columnists as if it had been flawless. and the persons who touted it was IIRC Cal Thomas ‘graduate of American University’, now, don’t you think that if we knew his degree was in, say, underwater basket weaving, it would help us understand why we should maybe take his opinion on this topic with a grain of salt?
I ask that someone’s educational background be listed as a simple piece of additional information. As I recall, one of the big complaints about Dr. Laura, was that as a “doctor” dispensing her brand of ‘commentary’, folks were (IMHO legitimately) concerned that her title of “doctor” coupled with her stance as a columnist would lend her more stature, making her comments to be taken more seriously, and many kept on repeating ‘but her doctorate is in Physiology’.
This does not mean that one should take as gospel stuff that the columnist spouts off that is connected to their education and training. It should, however, serve as a guide, an assistance, a help, to see if we should do rigorous search or not.
Ok - for example, on the OP ed page, you’ll see folks writing in letters to the editor. Sometimes, they’ll include their work title - and they do this generally, to give their word a bit more weight. So, when you see the letter saying ‘development of the wetlands in this area will not have significant negative impact on the watertable’ and it’s signed by the head of the land developing company, well, we’d have some important understanding about their viewpoint, n’est-ce-pas?
wring said:
Right. At the very least, it’s more warranted than your label of my post as a “nice attempted defense.”
(I’m still waiting for enlightenment on what it was a “nice attempted defense” of.)
Really? odd. Ok, I’ll help you, then. here’s what I posted on page one to that effect:
originally posted by you:
and my answer:
The OP most certainly was about the column as a whole (as a call for a particular position on enviornmental policy), and pointing out the error and ending with
So, your statement linked above, if it isn’t an attempted defense of Sowell (and a weak one at that) is, then what is it?
If I undestand the rules here, it’s appropriate to insult other posters. Here goes:
I presume that foolsguinea is correct about frogs not being a species.
There’s no support for the accusation that Sowell’s frog ignorance was willful.
Dr. Sowell is probably smarter and wiser than every poster on this thread. His accomplishments speak for themselves.
It’s demeaning to call him a “GOP propagandist.” He has been a top Consevative philospher and pundit for many, many years.
Dr. Sowell is immensely prolific. He has written thousands of newspaper columns. Amazon.com lists 57 books that he has written. To want him banned because of a single mistake seems, uh, what’s the word? superficial? idiotic? narrow-minded? mean-spirited? hate-filled? bigoted? racist?
Foolsguinea, you’re entitled to some input. Which of these labels fits best?
One question for the outraged brethren:
Doens’t this focus on semantic nit-picking betray a deficiency in the strength of your underlying arguments about the issues? (Or at least in your ability to express them). Replace “species” with “type of animal”, and move on.
IzzyR: It isn’t just a nitpick. He was using it as part of his argument that we don’t need to save every “variant” of frog because they are all one species. The implication is that if we wipe out a “variant” of frog it isn’t a big deal because we can just replace it with another type of frog. In reality, it doesn’t work that way. They are seperate species. Once a species is gone, it is gone for good. You can’t replace it with another species.