![]() ![]() Torres proffered no substantive criticism of the data Pinker presents in EN to show progress in the moral and physical well being of our species. There were also differences between Pinker’s and Torres’s views on the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI), which are differences of opinion and not “misleading claims”. When I read Torres’s piece, I wasn’t impressed, as Pinker’s “errors and false assertions” seemed to consist mainly of quotations used in EN that, claimed Torres, don’t accurately represent the actual views of the quoters (Torres contacted some of them). Comb through particular sentences and citations for other hidden - or perhaps intentionally concealed - errors in “Enlightenment Now.” Doing so could be, well, enlightening. Let me end with a call for action: Don’t assume that Pinker’s scholarship is reliable. Torres’s latest Salon piece is an attack on Steve Pinker and his last book ( Enlightenment Now, or EN), a piece called “ Steven Pinker’s fake Enlightenment: His book is full of misleading claims and false assertions.” Torres’s piece is pugnacious, ending with a suggestion that Pinker may actually be hiding stuff that he knows is wrong: Phil Torres is a “riskologist” who studies existential risk, and seems to have it in for the New Atheists ( Salon, of course, is always willing to provide him with a platform for that). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |