Our exchanges with the followers of Michael Eden’s blog continue. Today I received a comment in response to one of my previous postings related to Mr. Eden. This anonymous respondent wrote: “See, I came from his blog hoping well thought out responses, but, I'm sorry, he uses actual numbers and sources. Not to mention that you seem to automatically take your responses as final, which is disheartening, as from your initial post on his blog I thought you would be more reasonable. Granted, I think he responded to harshly, but I had hoped that at least you would ignore that and give a formal response to his points with equal sources, numbers, and backed-up statements. You, however, seem to take your own opinion as fact, as you showed throughout this post. Your entire argument to him was that he doesn't know what socialism is, worships fox news, and lies until people believe him. The question here is: do you have support for these claims? It's easy to call someone a liar, but the real truth comes out through the evidence. As of now, I think you both are acting a bit childish towards each other, but out of the two of you, at least Eden backs up what he says as opposed to just spewing opinion as fact.”
Here is my reply for all to see:
Dear Anonymous:
I am going to call you out as false. Despite your claims to the contrary, I really doubt anyone who frequents the Start Thinking Right blog would really be looking for, as you say, “well thought out responses.” Having read a selection of Mr. Eden’s posts I cannot believe anyone who knows much about statistics, ethical reporting, or good argument would agree with him. Your claim that Eden “uses actual numbers and sources” is only superficially true; having sources and data is dependent on the accuracy of the quoted material, the parity between the source material and the new use of it, and, most importantly, the argument being supported by the data in question. Just because Eden pastes text from predominantly conservative sources does not make his arguments well thought out or accurate. Has he ever read The Economist? They use better data to make insightful statements about politics and economics without resorting to hyperbole, slippery slope fallacies, and hasty generalizations. Do you or he even know what these terms mean?
Let me give you an example of Eden’s shortcomings. In Eden’s post of February 27th he argues that the U.S. is in worse shape than Greece by reposting questionable material from The Washington Examiner, not exactly a credible or unbiased source by the way. Furthermore, the original material does not come from a neutral, trusted entity, but via the office of conservative Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, who really manipulated IMF data to come up with it. Importantly, Sessions is no economist and neither am I. However, I do know that debt does not necessarily mean, to use Eden’s phrasing, “we’re WORSE than Greece.” Greece has nowhere near our standard of living, our natural resources, our GDP, or any of the other myriad factors that determine a country’s risk of economic collapse, default, probability for large-scale rebellion, and crippling depression. This is what I mean when I write that Eden uses faulty reasoning and fear mongering. In short, Eden is guilty of a hasty generalization and the same sort of data manipulation that Sessions and others use to get people to support their political platforms and candidates of choice. How, Anonymous, could you have missed this?
Furthermore, Eden makes two very problematic claims at the end of his post. First he writes, “Barack Obama is leading this nation to a quick suicide that will result in a lingering and painful economic death and the media won’t report the truth.” Where is the data to back up such an overly exaggerated claim? Can our current situation be likened to “suicide” and “economic death”? Members of the financial community (not a particularly left-leaning group of souls) do not seem to agree, particularly because they have not downgraded our country’s financial rating to anything like that given to Greece. Next, what is one to think of his final words, “The beast is coming”? Not only one must share Eden’s apocalyptic religious perspective but s/he must agree that his questionable economic indicators are proof thereof. Since you believe Eden to be so infallible, please prove to me that his last two claims are accurate.
Anonymous, you are both insufficiently critical and unable to discern good argument from hollow posturing. The whole point of my original invitation to Eden was to have each participant marshal arguments and evidence in support of a position on a mutually selected issue. Such an activity would have provided all readers with an opportunity to analyze and reflect upon the strength of each person’s position. When my courteous and innocent suggestion for a formal debate was “harshly” (to use your own word for it) rebuffed, you seem to expect me to blithely go on and waste more time arguing Eden’s logical inconsistencies, misrepresentation of data, and specious claims. This is not going to happen. I only did some of this to prove that your own comments, along with Eden’s ravings, lack merit.
In sum, I am done with you. Please return to whatever intellectually unchallenged (virtual) territory that you and Eden inhabit. Neither of you seem capable of playing in the sandbox of critical, ethical, and rational deliberation.
No comments:
Post a Comment