Via Zimran Ahmed, this link to An Open Letter to Paul Krugman, in which he takes Paul Krugman to task for the way he often argues the issues:
Do you see any differences between those two types of arguments? I see differences, and to me they are important. Type C arguments are about the consequences of policies. Type M arguments are about the alleged motives of individuals who advocate policies.
His point hits close to home for me. One thing is that type M arguments are useful when you’re preaching to the converted, whereas type C arguments are useful for debating the issues with people who don’t necessarily agree with you. I try not to make or link to pieces that rely on type M, but I’m sure I fail (probably all the time). Anyway, it’s something to keep in mind.
By the way, Arnold Kling has a weblog. So you can see whether he lives up to his C over M expectations.
An Open Letter to Paul Krugman
Via Zimran Ahmed, this link to An Open Letter to Paul Krugman, in which he takes Paul Krugman to task for the way he often argues the issues:
His point hits close to home for me. One thing is that type M arguments are useful when you’re preaching to the converted, whereas type C arguments are useful for debating the issues with people who don’t necessarily agree with you. I try not to make or link to pieces that rely on type M, but I’m sure I fail (probably all the time). Anyway, it’s something to keep in mind.
By the way, Arnold Kling has a weblog. So you can see whether he lives up to his C over M expectations.
Commentary
Previous post
The other spiesNext post
Closing in on the truth