Mike ends his piece with a lovely bit criticising the agenda of "academics" (he doesn't have to go "all academics suck!" to prompt a response). I quoth- > But I don't say that Craig's above-quoted attitude is original with > him. Maybe Craig has just explained why the academics generally > don't seem interested in the standards that concern actual voters. > > But though I may not agree with the priorities or goals of most > academics, I wouldn't insult them by counting Craig among them. > I merely mean that he may have copied their style and jargon, and > verbalized their values more frankly than they usually do, in > the above quoted statement by Craig. Craig, also, is a big old "anti-academic." I feel that sometimes people feel that in order to achieve theoretical greatness they have to go "out in the wilderness." This is wrong. I recommend that people read at least- - Arrow's original monographs on the Arrovian paradox - Either of Saari's "Geometry of Voting" books and his recent articles - Anything they can get their hands on by Steve Brams and other Approvalists (usually what I've found has been in collected texts) - Samuel Merrill the Numeral's work - Good modern texts on game theory (especially those with a focus on probablistic Nash equilibrium). I especially recommend Stahl, Saul. A gentle introduction to game theory. Providence, R.I. : American Mathematical Society, c1999. - Basically anything they can get their hands on that relates in the slightest to their field of interest. On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Rob Lanphier wrote: > On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, David Catchpole wrote: > > For feck's sake people, can we stop bagging voting theorists who get paid > > for what they do, and start reading their work? They may be part of the > > dreaded orthodoxy, but their ideas have more validity than the bullshit we > > usually chug out and this is indicated by their recognition by academic > > circles. As someone whose desire is to join their ranks sometime over the > > next 20 years, I feel that they're not getting a fair run from this > > list. Take things on their merits. Not on prejudices. If you're going to > > bag someone, read their work and attempt to understand what they're > > saying. When I say "Steven Brams and Donald Saari are wrong" I feel > > confident that I've taken steps to find out _how_ they're > > wrong. Pant. Pant. Huff. Pant. Wheeze. > > David, > > What part of Mike's comment are you replying to specifically? Also, who's > work do you recommend we read? Since many of us aren't professional > voting theorists, we don't have the time to read everything. Moreover, I > think Mike has done a pretty good job of understanding whatever position > he criticises. So, especially after your reply to Craig, I'm a little > confused as to what position you are advocating. Are you advocating that > we pay more attention to Craig, to Brams, to Saari, or to some other > theorist? > > Rob > ---- > Rob Lanphier > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.eskimo.com/~robla > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important" -Eugene McCarthy