Sowell on Peer Review

Previously I linked to this pamphlet by economist Thomas Sowell on taxes and the economy. It is an excellent article on many fronts, including debunking from historical fact the idea that higher tax rates are the answer to low revenues, or that lower tax rates for “the rich” shift the tax burden to lower income earners.

He also includes this paragraph, commenting on textbooks that repeat these ideas.

There is no need to presume that the scholars who wrote these
history textbooks were deliberately lying, in order to protect a vision or an agenda. They may simply have relied on a peer consensus so widely held and so often repeated as to be seen as “well-known facts” requiring no serious re-examination. The results show how unreliable peer consensus can be, even when it is a peer consensus of highly intellectual people, if those people share a very similar vision of the world and treat its conclusions as axioms, rather than as hypotheses that need to be checked against facts. These history textbooks may also reflect the economic illiteracy of many leading scholars outside the field of economics, who nevertheless insist on proclaiming their conclusions on economic issues.

Peer review is a good thing, but it is not foolproof. When all the peers subscribe to the same basic worldview and assumptions, their review will be seriously tainted.

If you want real review, seriously consider pursuing the critique of someone who actually disagrees with you.

In the blog world, I think this is prevalent. Blog owners are often quick to edit or just outright remove comments that disagree with them, or present an alternative view.

Of course these comments never appear so few know it, unless you are one that has been affected by it. But on certain blogs espousing controversial positions, if there is no dissent in the comments, it is likely that the blog owner is practicing censorship.

In my view, this is often driven by fear—the fear of being proven wrong on your site. It is sometimes driven by pride—the pride that refuses to acknowledge that your arguments are not as airtight as you would like your readers to think they are.

Does it matter? Not really, at least not in the big picture.

But it participates in the worst kind of peer review, the allowance of views that only agree.

All in all, most points are well-served by counterpoints.

And Sowell reminds us why.

Around the Horn

Several weeks late or a few days early … Take your pick.

At first, here’s a good pamphlet on economics by one of my favorite economists, Thomas Sowell. It is interesting to read someone who knows that they are talking about when it comes to the economy. The downside is that knowing what he is talking about when it comes to the economy completely disqualifies him from politics and the making of economic policy.

At second, continuing on the same theme of Thomas Sowell, here’s a good interview with him.

At third, here’s my new favorite website: Flight Radar 24. This site says it tracks every flight in the world. It is a graphic display. One of the cool things is that you can click on a plane that is flying and a box will pop up on the left that will show the flight information including where it is coming from and where it is going. Even cooler is that you can click on the “Cockpit View” and a box will pop up that will actually show the view from the cockpit in terms of a satellite map. My love of flying has never dried up though my bank account did long ago. This is a cheap substitute for the joy of flying (as in being the pilot, not riding in a commercial jet plane). Right now I am watching Delta 2123 land at Detroit, coming in over 94 from the north.

And closing out today, here’s a weird story about a man with 31-inch biceps, “the size of a grown man’s waist.” I have to ask, Do you know any grown men with a 31-inch waist?

Sad Words

The Bible contains many sad words. Near the top of the list, in my mind, is 2 Timothy 4:10: “Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica.”

What a heartbreak it must have been for Paul to see one of his fellow workers desert him.

What a heartbreak it would turn out to be for Demas himself, who would soon find that the world he loved so much was so temporary.

Having an eternal perspective is a major tool in fighting the lure of the present age.

As Paul himself said, “The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Romans 8:18).

Don’t give up too early.

Today’s the Day

Today’s the day for all those things you said you would do once in a blue moon.

Don’t let it pass. The next one won’t be until July of 2015.

This reminds me of the problems of procrastination.

I am going to write about that later.

No Voice for the Voiceless: Shame on Fox 2 Detroit

Fox 2 Detroit has a regular segment called “Let It Rip.” It’s pretty interesting sometimes.

It also doubles as an indication of much of what is wrong with civil discourse in our society: It’s not civil; it’s too soundbyte-ish; it doesn’t work well to develop actual thinking skills; and I could go on. But it’s like watching a train wreck. You just can’t help yourself sometimes.

Well, last night, the topic was on abortion. When I first turned it on, Huel Perkins was reading an email from a viewer complaining about the idea that a woman, conceived by rape, was pro-life and was exercising her voice. Perkins said, “We want to give all sides a voice.”

So I watched it.

And what I found is that there was no voice to speak up for the thousands of children killed every day. There was a representative for Planned Parenthood who took the expected line that convenience and choice are more important than life.

There is the co-host, Charley Langton, an attorney who actually thinks that Roe v. Wade was a good decision.

There was another attorney, though I am not sure what she brought to the table aside from declaring that Roe was settled and safe.

There was no one to point out that no other segment of our population is treated as these littlest ones are.

The two women on the panel arguing for women’s right never stood up for the two thousand plus women everyday that are killed by the one who should most protect them.

We need to realize that abortion is not about choice. That is a red herring.

This society has already accepted the long established principle that “choice” is never ultimate, particularly over another person’s life. No one can simply choose to kill others without consequence. People here in Detroit mourn the violence that happens every day on the streets.

But somehow, our collective minds checkout when a human being is in the mother’s womb. Then killing someone is something to be protected and treasured.

Fox 2 Detroit, you should be ashamed.

Huel Perkins, you should do better because you know better. As a journalist, you should know that if you are going to have a conversation and debate, you should have two sides represented.

As a human being, you should recognize that life is not something to be debated. It is to be protected and preserved, particularly when they are defenseless.