= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cupholder comments on Open Thread: June 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (651)
Fair enough. Thanks for the Gieringer 1985 cite; it's 25 pages long so I haven't read it yet, but skimming through it I see a couple of quantitative tables, which is a good sign, and that it was published in the Cato Journal, which is not such a good sign. But it's something!
I said my standards were lower. My point was that your original comment could be taken for having read this and dismissed it.
I had noticed that you said that. I was originally not going to draw attention to the paper's source, but it occurred to me that someone might then have asked me whether I was aware of the paper's source, referring to my earlier claim that I wanted to discourage people from offering me overtly partisan analyses. So I decided to pre-empt that possible confusion/accusation by acknowledging the paper's origin from a libertarian-leaning journal.