Yes, there is a Laffer curve for inebriation as well, how clever of you to see it - not drunk enough and you'll never swallow it, too drunk and you'll believe anything so who cares what you think - you have to hit that sweet spot where you're credulous enough to believe what you're being told but sober enough to…

Thanks. You are right of course and I did not mean that modelling is not a useful method for understanding something. Nor are the qualitative equivalent in other social sciences, Weberian ideal-types. There are all sorts of useful methods to understand something and of course like maps they mostly work by simplifying…

Econometric models are of far greater validity if you can draw the curve on a napkin after a heavy dinner.

I work at a law firm, and I will simply never understand why people think they can do without them at the dark hour.

I think in a lot of cases (like Civil Forfeiture and the fact that local police departments are now armed like small militarized nations), there's been a steady erosion in checks against the power of police officers. As far as the persecution of non-white people, that's always been true, we're just kinda sorta paying…

"Science-y folks" laugh at people of faith who say things like "a lot of science involves faith...faith in the fact that you're correct." That's a complete misunderstanding of how proper science works. Science never involves a "faith" that you're correct. It involves testing those ideas you think are correct to…

And yet Schilling, who was being far more aggressive (and wrong) in his tweets, and who has continued to bring up controversial things he knows nothing about, has not been told to stop. ESPN has absolutely taken a side here.

The difference is that fundamental things in science like the existence of the electron etc. were predicted mathematically and then observed soon after. Scientists will be the first ones to admit that something uncertain like string theory is still very difficult to experiment with and test, and shouldn't be taken as…

The scientific method and thinking that evolution is real do not require faith. Period. Your beliefs are based on ancient myths and do require having faith in something for which there is no demonstrative evidence. Evolution has reams of evidence.

Nope you are completely wrong. Show me any evidence that the universe was created and I will consider it.But no one has provided one jot of evidence while the evidence of evolution is all around us.

No, evolution is a testable hypothesis which has been repeatedly validated through thousands of experiments. Creationism predicts nothing, nor is it testable.

So at ESPN you are allowed to express your racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and anti-science beliefs, but presenting facts is a suspendable offense?

Truly fascinating. He keeps chiding others for their opinions on Ferguson because "they weren't there," and yet his single source for believing creationism over evolution is a thousands-year-old collection of historical fiction.

You don't know what faith means if you believe that statement. Or the scientific method.

both evolution and creationism requires faith

Ya because the bible is so much more credible than Wikipedia

Defraud Rhode Island taxpayers out of millions? You get prime billing on ESPN.

I'd say it has the underpinnings of a valid social science: theoretical models, long-term observations to evaluate cause and effect, and the ability to correct itself with time.

Smith thinks there is no one good answer, but suggests that it may be that economics attracts smart conservatives, who couple fiscal conservatism with social conservatism.