I agree with Weick re. Hanson's postings, but would be blunter in
labelling them than Ed's polite term "uncivilized." I would call
Hansen's postings a prolonged, personal, rant.
This does nothing to enhance Hanson's credibility or his basic
argument. There is lots to critize in economics, and many economists
(as many political scientists, physicians, architects, and -- yes --
even environmentalists and social activists) can be criticized both in
detail and in the generality of their particular positions and stance.
But to damn a whole field, repeatedlly, and with a wealth of innovation
in invective and argument, seems to me more like expression of a
personal obsession than either a critical viewpoint or a valid argument
in pursuit of a social-economic-enviromental goal.
I don't know what the difference is between this kind of rant against a
whole group, on the one hand, and "flaming" an individual, on the
other. Since we are loathe to engage in the latter, can we indulge
ourselves in the former, or at least can we do so in a repeated, and
immoderate, fashion? Hanson is one of the posters on this lists whose
postings, I regret to say, I have started to skip.
Sincrely,
Saul Silverman
