I think it's best to judge someone by her or her own work rather
than on the basis of the funding. I was asking about MacArthur
funding not because I wanted to trash Matthew Rabin but because I
was curious, wondering why anyone would give money to "geniuses."
I'm a cynic about the MacArthur
I wrote:
I think it's best to judge someone by her or her own work rather than on
the basis of the funding. I was asking about MacArthur funding not
because I wanted to trash Matthew Rabin but because I was curious,
wondering why anyone would give money to "geniuses."
Brad writes:
I'm a cynic
There goes your grant, Brad. But not all MacA fellows are famous. I had a friend from
college who got one shortly into his career as a prof; he crashed and burned. Another
college friends who got one is now a Stanford stat prof, a former colleague of yours
(Dave Donoho), and famous only among
However, I add that since I have limited time (especially because I waste
so much of it on pen-l),
Dawkins might say you're wasting it, Jim, but you shouldn't! A lefty'd have
to weigh the social benefit arising from the private opportunity cost.
You're avoiding the worst outcome, Jim!
Come
Marx was mainly a thinker and writer; Nader's a political figure and
organizer. Marx really didn't have to be accountable to anyone, but
Nader's organizations presume to represent the interest of "citizens"
and "consumers."
Doug
This is not an accurate portrayal of Marx. He was almost
Louis Proyect wrote:
This is not an accurate portrayal of Marx. He was almost continuously
involved with trying to organize the socialist movement.
I know all this. But the issue is the relevance of any comparison of
Marx and Nader. If Marx had only been an activist, we wouldn't have
any idea
I tend to agree with Michael H. on this one. I have never found much of use in
Dawkins. Even the strictly scientific stuff is shallow and wrong.
On the other hand, Rob has a point if he refers to genetics, rather than to
Dawkins. Genetics is part of what we are. So long as we remember that we
