Some of my best education on Austrian economics, “Volunteerism” and libertarianism has been delivered to me via youtube.
For kicks listen to the video responses of his video.
Because the proffesionals got their knowledge from god, right? He handed them a light bulb while they sat in a dark basement masturbating to tentacle porn? Please. How do you think logical dissections happen? Is it not from repeated debate, the accruement of knowledge (which you would recieve either from self or mutual debate) and the study of history (itself open to debate)? A logical dissection is the answer of a logical problem. This could be on any scale, from whether or not to put your hand on the oven to macroeconomic policy. Scholars become scholars by study and analysis, debate is the study and analysis of a subject with multiple people trying to solve the logical problem. You don’t have to be a scholar to do that, if that was the case scholars wouldn’t exist (excepting divine intervention).
… such as?
I’m sorry.
So according to you, no one can post a video making the same arguments as those found in a book? I am sure you look down on the podcasts distributed by Mises.org too. Some people prefer to learn through audio and visuals, and if you don’t that is fine.
HOWEVER, the big issue here is that you are saying we should not waste time on people with valid questions and points. Is the answer, in your view, to throw a book at the opposition’s face and simply refuse to discuss the matter until they’ve read it? Not everyone reads books, and other means can be used. A ten minute flash animation illustrating Austrian business cycle theory can be just as effective, if not more, than a dip in Chapter 12.
Oh, and the worst way to convert others to your way of thinking is to dismiss any conception of the world that is not your own. If at any moment someone approaches you with curiosity about liberalism and you can’t answer their questions because you feel less adequate than Human Action then I doubt that person will come back to you for discussion. It is one thing to think someone said it better, but is it really too hard to paraphrase? If worst comes to worst, parrot quotations, but do not ever sink so low as to think books are the only effective means of spreading “quality knowledge”.
At any rate, there have been plenty of instances where many different people can reach the same conclusion from different approaches. But I guess you are probably set in the “correct” path.
There’s a big difference between that and a kid cracking jokes into his webcam.
These mediums are not conducive to systematic, logical or clear thinking. Even on this forum, debates are prone to collapse, with very few ideas ever being actually developed.
david gordon has commented that g.a. cohen is pretty bright.
That is because youtube is a video site that provides for far more than just academic tastes, though there is a spot for that if you would take the time to look. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. =]
That can be applied to all mediums, on the internet things just moves faster (for better or worse).
The idea is to provoke interest in others.
If we stick ourselves in a closet and read until we are old and ripe bearing all the knowledge of the world, who did we benefit? Can it even be said that we benefited ourselves?
Two words: mental. midget.
Do you like driving? I do. Do you like roads? I do.
this is at like the 1:17
Who pays for those roads? You tell me… Who protects us from foreign invasion?
No, you tell me who pays for those roads.
Foreign invasion? lolwut?
Lam is probably not aware of the Misesmedia or Nielsio channels.
Great movie. Even more relevant now than then.
-
Bertrand Russell was pretty smart and he saw through marxism right away.
-
Funny how the brightest minds were so dead wrong. Or do people still believe in marxism after the collapse of Russia etc.?
So the q here is: How could the brightest minds be so stupid? Possible Tentative Answer: Marxism is a very appealing fairy tale, that was untested in the real world and therefor not yet proven wrong. In addition, bright minds may not always be shrewd practical minds.
I must say, I don’t really understand why people take offense at this. As far as I understand, laminustacitus is making two claims:
- Empirically Youtube debates are carried out, almost always, by those with little understanding of and education in the area they’re debating. The corollary of which is that the debate have little content and possibility for expanding one’s knowledge of a given subject.
- The empirical evidence shows that Youtube debates are all to often far too long, the opportunity cost of watching such videos is reading the literature on the subject, by a scholar who is trained in the subject and has spent years researching it.
I don’t know what people would deny here. I don’t think laminustacitus he told anybody that they should never watch Youtbue video debates (although, I don’t) just that they’re educational value is low.
People here seem to be getting all angsty about some alleged elitism in his post, to be honest I can understand why, but they should really stop kidding themselves.
Rather, lam should back his claims.
We hold those truths to be self-evident.