26 Sep 10
1 edit
Kafka -- The Castle (just 'finished' it)
Kierkegaard -- Repetition / Philosophical Crumbs
Mandarin For Dummies
Wilfrid Hodges -- Logic (restarting)
Steven Johnson -- Everything Bad is Good For You
Italo Calvino -- Numbers in the Dark / Cosmicomics / Difficult Loves (pick 'n mix)
Toying with: Gérard de Nerval -- Voyage En Orient
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by DrKF'Pixy wants to be buggered.'
I loved the oblique glimpse (maybe) at Ballard's life and the events that fed in to his fiction, but - more than that - I liked the subversion of autobiography (like the details that differed so much from Empire and the bits, like how his wife died, that I knew to be 'untrue'😉.
Well, neither Empire nor Kindness are reliable autobiography -- the subversion is open-ended. Only Miracles of Life is said to be reliable -- but I haven't been able to bring myself to read it yet.
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHow did you like 'The Castle'? I've always liked that one.
Kafka -- The Castle (just 'finished' it)
Kierkegaard -- Repetition / Philosophical Crumbs
Mandarin For Dummies
Wilfrid Hodges -- Logic (restarting)
Steven Johnson -- Everything Bad is Good For You
Italo Calvino -- Numbers in the Dark / Cosmicomics / Difficult Loves (pick 'n mix)
Toying with: Gérard de Nerval -- Voyage En Orient
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by rwingettWhen you've finished The Spirit Level, you might be interested in the resultant brouhaha in the form of (negative) pamphlet responses by policy exchange and the taxpayers alliance:
Up next:
[b]The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger
by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett[/b]
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/assets/Beware_False_Prophets_Jul_10.pdf
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/spiritillusion.pdf
And then perhaps the responses by Wilkinson and Pickett, one for the Policy Trust, the other as a Guardian article:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/saunders-response
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/09/spirit-level-policy-exchange
26 Sep 10
Originally posted by DrKFThanks, I'll keep those in mind.
When you've finished The Spirit Level, you might be interested in the resultant brouhaha in the form of (negative) pamphlet responses by policy exchange and the taxpayers alliance:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/assets/Beware_False_Prophets_Jul_10.pdf
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/spiritillusion.pdf
And then perhaps the responses by Wilkins ...[text shortened]... rs-response
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/09/spirit-level-policy-exchange
27 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by DrKFI took a quick look at their paper "Income inequality and population health: A review and explanation of the evidence" and their conclusions seems pretty hasty to say the least.
When you've finished The Spirit Level, you might be interested in the resultant brouhaha in the form of (negative) pamphlet responses by policy exchange and the taxpayers alliance:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/assets/Beware_False_Prophets_Jul_10.pdf
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/spiritillusion.pdf
And then perhaps the responses by Wilkins ...[text shortened]... rs-response
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/09/spirit-level-policy-exchange
They brush aside significant potential issues (like the fact that the evidence in favour seems to disappear when looking at the scale of counties, tracts and parishes) with not very convincing arguments. Sure, everyone has a bias, but that is a reason for being careful with one's conclusions, not for brushing potential issues aside with little more than a shrug of the shoulders.
I would find it very surprising if there was no relationship (especially in the sense that high inequality might lead to pricing the poor out of the health care market), but the paper seems very unconvincing to me at a first glance.
28 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFI have not read the provided articles yet, but I am aware of the heavy ideological bias for the two dissenting groups. It is highly unlikely that I'll be persuaded by anything a conservative think tank and a Conservative Party "front" have to say. Their observations are likely to be about as useful to me as anything the Pope would have to say about any of Richard Dawkins' books (for example). It goes without saying that he'll disagree strenuously with them.
When you've finished The Spirit Level, you might be interested in the resultant brouhaha in the form of (negative) pamphlet responses by policy exchange and the taxpayers alliance:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/assets/Beware_False_Prophets_Jul_10.pdf
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/spiritillusion.pdf
And then perhaps the responses by Wilkins ...[text shortened]... rs-response
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/09/spirit-level-policy-exchange
If, however, you were able to find a left leaning group that found fault with Wilkinson and Pickett's book, then that would be a much more persuasive critique.
28 Sep 10
Originally posted by rwingettWhat an odd thing to say! If there are flaws in W&P's methodology, for example, it really shouldn't matter who draws your attention to it. If the 'observations' of the two groups who published criticisms of The Spirit Level have merit in basis of fact, they have merit in basis of fact. That may be unpalatable, but to prejudge potentially valid criticism simply because of its source is strangely blinkered. (Announcing that you will not give 'fair hearing' even stranger!) I have always thought one should read, not only to bolster one's prejudices, but equally to have them challenged.
I have not read the provided articles yet, but I am aware of the heavy ideological bias for the two dissenting groups. It is highly unlikely that I'll be persuaded by anything a conservative think tank and a Conservative Party "front" have to say. Their observations are likely to be about as useful to me as anything the Pope would have to say about any of R ...[text shortened]... ult with Wilkinson and Pickett's book, then that would be a much more persuasive critique.
28 Sep 10
Originally posted by DrKFIf thirty right wing sites all condemn the book and thirty left wing sites all praise it, you can rest assured that you are not being given an objective, impartial analysis of the facts (if such a thing is even possible). You are being fed their inherent ideological biases disguised as fact. So you look for the anomalies. Conservatives that have something good to say about the book, or liberals that find fault with it. The testimony of someone who goes against their own ideological bias is to be preferred over someone who merely parrots it. If there were some liberals joining in the critique of the book, then I might be motivated to examine the counter-arguments. If it's just a straight partisan divide, then I probably will not.
What an odd thing to say! If there are flaws in W&P's methodology, for example, it really shouldn't matter who draws your attention to it. If the 'observations' of the two groups who published criticisms of The Spirit Level have merit in basis of fact, they have merit in basis of fact. That may be unpalatable, but to prejudge potentially valid criticism ...[text shortened]... e should read, not only to bolster one's prejudices, but equally to have them challenged.
28 Sep 10
Originally posted by rwingettGosh. You've moved from "I have not read the provided articles yet" to "I probably will not" in two posts...
If thirty right wing sites all condemn the book and thirty left wing sites all praise it, you can rest assured that you are not being given an objective, impartial analysis of the facts (if such a thing is even possible). You are being fed their inherent ideological biases disguised as fact. So you look for the anomalies. Conservatives that have something g ...[text shortened]... amine the counter-arguments. If it's just a straight partisan divide, then I probably will not.
I maintain that only intellectual poverty leads one to read only to bolster one's own prejudices: the opinion of someone who reads against their own ideological bias is to be preferred over that of someone who reads only parroting of their own bias. As you almost said yourself.
28 Sep 10
Originally posted by DrKFI have a pronounced left wing ideological bias. It would be foolish of me to deny that, and I make no apologies for it. As such, I hold conservatives to a higher standard of proof than for liberals. Again, I make no apologies for that. If the opinion is split solely along ideological lines, then I will automatically conclude that the liberals are correct and the conservatives are dissembling liars. Once again, I make no apologies for that, and if it offends your rarefied sensibilities, then that's just too bad.
Gosh. You've moved from "I have not read the provided articles yet" to "I probably will not" in two posts...
I maintain that only intellectual poverty leads one to read only to bolster one's own prejudices: the opinion of someone who reads against their own ideological bias is to be preferred over that of someone who reads only parroting of their own bias. As you almost said yourself.
Let's just say that I definitely will not read any of the stilted propaganda put forth by your two conservative groups. Fair enough?
28 Sep 10
Originally posted by rwingett*shrugs*
I have a pronounced left wing ideological bias. It would be foolish of me to deny that, and I make no apologies for it. As such, I hold conservatives to a higher standard of proof than for liberals. Again, I make no apologies for that. If the opinion is split solely along ideological lines, then I will automatically conclude that the liberals are correct an ...[text shortened]... not read any of the stilted propaganda put forth by your two conservative groups. Fair enough?