I don't want to give the imrpession that I've read it in full detail or that I endorse everything in it. I only spent about half an hour with it, getting familiar with the content and reading a few sections in detail. I could point out many things that are flawed or problematic in it, but I do feel that arguments about its content need to be grounded in fact as regards what it actually says.
Leaving aside the source of the article and the background of the author, can you point to the issues with the argument of the book? What makes the critique unreasonable in your view?
This article doesn't do the work. It does not provide good arguments, nor does it provide evidence. It simply repeats some fairly popular platitudes and jabs in hopes that it will make people agree and go buy the book. But nothing is really being properly explored in the article and I would not give it any credit.
The book is another matter but that will need to be analyzed separately.
I appreciate the input, but on the contrary, I don't think an author's history and interests should be ignored when evaluating their argument. The world is full of people who excel at making compelling arguments for whichever side of an issue suits their interests. Personally, knowing that an author has a upcoming book whose thesis might be undercut by the decisions he's criticizing makes any doubt cast upon this article much more compelling. Which is why I mentioned it :)
I know, I thought the same thing. All that work, citations of research done after the writing of the book, and some how still misunderstood the points made by the author.
Curious also why this isn’t published in a journal, and be peer refereed... or has it? That is the standard required for a “takedown”.
Edit: Or at least allow a right of reply from the author. Having just read the book you have intentionally misrepresented a number of (perhaps even all) points. I can only think you are trying to generate controversy to build your own profile.
The book has garnered some criticism from experts, which is expected for conjectures where most of the evidence has been destroyed, but I don't believe there's been a complete refutation of his ideas
> Pascoe is a conman.
As per this thread, you've made a lot of claims without sufficient back up, seem somewhat intransigent, and hold very one-sided beliefs. I think a little self-reflection is warranted, especially if your motivation is to convince people you have beyond a superficial understanding on these matters.
There are many criticisms of this book. (I don't know what to make of the debate, just wanted to bring up that many high profile scholars have criticized it harshly.)
You could confirm or deny whether or not you have actually read the book, having presented yourself two posts above as someone in a position to critique it. Is misrepresentation of expertise and talking past the people you're responding to not also a low-effort, bad faith act?
Why be flippant? I've simply cited resources which may be relevant to your interests. Do you have a problem with the works, or any evidence to the contrary which I may examine?
Actually I own the book (and 4HWW), have read several chapters, and found much of it useful but some claims rather incredible. I was merely hoping for a more thoroughly researched rebuttal than my own gut instinct.
Sure but I’m just providing more info to the other person? I’m not defending the author. I think many of their criticisms on both sides have flawed arguments and misconceptions .
Without speaking for the validity of it, there’s a lot of material in the book, which provides lots to “shoot at”. I’d expect anything which presents an ideological challenge like this book to draw a high volume of criticism from multiple angles.
The only way to sort it out (if you happen to care) is to actually wade through the various arguments.
I'm looking for people to poke holes. And so far I've just heard a lot of, well, that.
Which I agree with, I am not an expert, and have not (I hope) pretended to be one.
reply