Because it makes Friedman heartless. He feels bad but he still promulgated theories which wreaked the badness he felt bad about. So it goes to character.
If he _really_ felt bad, he'd have done what Norbert Weiner did and move out of the field. He stayed an economist. Not so bad feeling, eh?
Predicting a negative effect is extremely common in science effecting humans. No reason to abandon a field.
but he still promulgated theories which wreaked the badness he felt bad about
No. His prediction was that increasing the minimum wage leads to increased unemployment. He predicted a negative effect and a negative effect happened.
None of this has to do with article, which makes a very simple point about statistics.
None of this has to do with article, which makes a very simple point about statistics.
I am addressing a 'how is this ad hom' question not Friedman's character or the article. I seek to explain what view of him would be a critique of character not substance.
Comments
Because it makes Friedman heartless. He feels bad but he still promulgated theories which wreaked the badness he felt bad about. So it goes to character.
If he _really_ felt bad, he'd have done what Norbert Weiner did and move out of the field. He stayed an economist. Not so bad feeling, eh?
Predicting a negative effect is extremely common in science effecting humans. No reason to abandon a field.
No. His prediction was that increasing the minimum wage leads to increased unemployment. He predicted a negative effect and a negative effect happened.
None of this has to do with article, which makes a very simple point about statistics.
I am addressing a 'how is this ad hom' question not Friedman's character or the article. I seek to explain what view of him would be a critique of character not substance.
It isn't an adhom because it is irrelevant.
This isn't a very good line of reasoning because it's a non sequiteur. At this point I think you're trolling more than discussing rationally.
It is an article about a statistical concept.