The Metcalf himself (pictured at right in a Tokyo club about to fight O-Ren Ishii’s private army, the Crazy 88 — O-Ren being a fervent libertarian) takes up the “factual errors” meme I addressed earlier this week in a new, artillery barrage counterstrike of a post.
Read it. It’s tremendously entertaining, and not conciliatory in the slightest.
About Brad DeLong who caught that Metcalf mis-sourced a cutting line Keynes had written about Hayek (though that he had written it about Hayek is not disputed):
Delong is right in saying Keynes wrote Hayek telling him he admired Road (“a grand book”), but since Delong’s primary interest is in pampering his own self-image as the scourge of a lazy world, he leaves his reader with a false, or at least, incomplete impression.
Metcalf goes on to point out that with proper context the “grand book” comment is revealed as rather clearly patronizing considering Keynes thought its economics only functioned in an ideal set of circumstances and were of little practical use.
In other words, “POW!”
To Julian Sanchez:
I’m tempted to let the essay speak for itself, but let me add: Why, if Nozick did not want to game his example, did he choose Wilt? After all, if Sanchez is correct, isn’t the point made just as well with, say, a happy-go-lucky doofus who rides a wave of Internet exuberance and cashes out big, all while adding to the world precisely zero utility
Delicious. That said, I did appreciate Sanchez’ introduction of the term “epistemic closure” to the popular blog-cabulary a couple years back.
Metcalf also responds to the claim made by many that he doesn’t “get” thought experiments using an elaborate (by the standards of your average thousand word article) counterfactual. Toss Slate a click and read it. In the mean time, I thought I might more directly take up the problem of thought experiments as a social theoretic method…
Read the rest of this entry »