He annoys me a lot, too. His positions on human health, and human progress, are fundamentally flawed. The article talks about a common analytical mistake in many of his arguments. But in virtually everything I (try to) read by him, I find so many that I just give up.
I read part of Rationality Now, but couldn't finish.
The problem with writing a book about rationality is that there isn't much to say about it. But you can fill any number of books with the problems of irrationality. It could be interesting to delve into why some irrational beliefs are so persistent, but Pinker mostly just dismisses them.
Dawkins has the same problem: what can you really say about atheism? So he mostly talks about the problems of theism.
The LessWrong community seems to try harder to dig into where wrong ideas come from, how they take root in our psyches, and how to counteract their subconscious influence.
The only book of Pinker's I found useful was his guide to writing called "A Sense of Style." This columnist could really benefit from giving it a thorough read.
3 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 17.3 ms ] threadThe problem with writing a book about rationality is that there isn't much to say about it. But you can fill any number of books with the problems of irrationality. It could be interesting to delve into why some irrational beliefs are so persistent, but Pinker mostly just dismisses them.
Dawkins has the same problem: what can you really say about atheism? So he mostly talks about the problems of theism.
The LessWrong community seems to try harder to dig into where wrong ideas come from, how they take root in our psyches, and how to counteract their subconscious influence.