The Popperian case against Ben Stein (and against Jann Wenner)
Felix Salmon has written an epic essay on just what makes Ben Stein such a threat to the republic. It's very good, and very Karl Popper. Felix's main complaint is that Stein is "anti-enlightenment." Rather than offering explanations for the market's behavior (or the evolution of the human race) that are falsifiable--that is, they could potentially be proved wrong as more evidence is amassed--Stein prefers to go with unverifiable assertions. Writes Felix:
Every so often I get comments on this blog saying that I'm an idiot because something I said has turned out to be wrong. But that just doesn't make sense to me. The real idiots, to me, are people like Ben Stein. Stein makes factual errors, but that doesn't make him an idiot. What makes him an idiot is his evident belief in his own infallibility, to the point at which he clearly doesn't allow the NYT's editors to do even a cursory fact-checking run over his copy before it's published.
This Steinian mode of discourse is actually pretty common on the cable-TV news channels, where there's no time or incentive to fact-check the claims of the guests (and on occasion hosts). It's just really jarring to run across it in the business pages of the New York Times. One of the main reasons I got into business journalism (and away from political coverage) was that the realities of business seemed far less friendly to the unverifiable assertions that permeate political debate.
One final thought: This is all John Hughes's doing, isn't it? Ben Stein never would have gotten an NYT column if it weren't for Ferris Bueller. Although, he probably wouldn't have landed the Bueller role if he hadn't first gotten a small part in Cameron Crowe's Fast Times at Ridgemont High sequel The Wild Life. And Crowe never would have been able to make those movies if Ben Fong-Torres hadn't hired him to write for Rolling Stone at age 15. And that couldn't have happened without Jann Wenner's approval. So there you have it: It's all Jann Wenner's fault!
Wait, is that a verifiable assertion?
-
1
1) he clearly doesn't allow the NYT's editors to do even a cursory fact-checking run over his copy
NY Times has editors? Could have fooled me.
2) A fantastic speech by the author Michael Crichton takes on the "talking head culture":
The first on "speculation"
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-whyspeculate.html -
2
That Crichton speech is good. But you're clearly failing to follow his advice to "start turning away from media."
-
3
We all slow down to look at the accident as we pass by Justin...
Most Popular »
- The Crimes and Misdemeanors of Meghan McCain
- The Discovery Gunman: TV as the Enemy, and as the Weapon
- A Few Thoughts on the God-Awful State of Customer Service
- Is red-hot India too hot?
- Hits and Misses from Today's Apple Announcement
- 18 Android Apps To Get You Started
- Call of Duty: Black Ops Multiplayer Offers Theater Mode, Wagering and More
- The 10 Tiny Details that Made Star Wars Matter
- Health Reform is Good for Small Business Employees
- The Obama Speech
- Tony Blair in 'A Journey': On U.S. Leaders Bush, Clinton
- Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers, Study Finds
- Why Israelis Don't Care About Peace with Palestinians
- How Barack Obama Became Mr. Unpopular
- Study: Young, Single, Childless Women Earn More Than Men
- The Science of Ambition: How Genes, Family Affect Success
- Why France Is Deporting 700 Roma, or Gypsies, to Romania
- Arizona's Anti-Immigration Firebrands: Fueled by Out-of-Staters
- How Can a Democracy Solve Tough Problems?
- Cause of Death: Sloppy Doctors













RSS