On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Naiman wrote: >> I never said that it should be one-zero; that would be a pure appeal >> to authority. > > Good, though this idea that those with experience on a specific issue > should be heeded much more than those who don't have experience is > totally off. The tyros often have a new perspective that can be very > productive. Looking at an issue from a new and different way can help.
OK, how about "more" rather than "much more"? Can we agree on that? Yes, I certainly agree that tyros can have a new perspective that can be productive. If it weren't for young people trying to do something different, Occupy probably wouldn't have happened. At the same time, knowledge and experience counts. I accept the fact that you know more about Keynesianism than I do, so if we're having a conversation about Keynesianism, I'm going to show you some deference. Can you accept the fact that I know more than you do about trying to intervene in U.S. politics around U.S. policy in the Middle East, and show me some deference? >> But I continuously get the sense from you that you think >> that the fact that I know much more about these issues than you do and >> have much more experience with them than you do doesn't count for >> anything, and I find that offensive. > > No, I do value experience. That's a kind of empirical evidence. But > it's not the only input that should be heeded. > > For example, earlier I brought in the nuts and bolts of politics > (e.g., to actually get something from politicians you have to have > something to give them in exchange and/or some way to pressure them). > What's wrong with that? > >> Speaking of analogies, it reminds >> me of neoclassical economists who think they don't need to learn >> anything about labor economics and yet can freely pontificate about >> issues in labor economics because all questions in labor economics can >> be resolved as corollaries from neoclassical theory, so if you know >> neoclassical theory, then you know everything there is to know about >> everything, and don't need to learn anything. > > I don't get this at all. The NC approach is to impose their pre-cooked > answers on reality. In contrast, on these issues my approach is > generally to ask _questions_. By the way, I ask questions (rather than > giving answers) to a greater extent as my ignorance on a subject > rises. (For example, I think I know what the Keynesian perspective is > (having studied the subject a bit), so I don't ask questions about it > as much as simply explain my perspective to David (and anyone else who > wants to read my prose). Of course, that doesn't mean that my > perspective is correct. It involves abstracting from details, so it > can always be found wanting.) > > Anyway, personalities shouldn't be central. Let's stick to something > substantive. If one actually has political capital to spend, why is it > better to push someone like Hagel instead of opposing someone like > Brennan? > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your > own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
