I don’t think you can trust me to be unbiased, but I appreciate the compliment!
Ways my analysis could have been systematically flawed (a non-exhaustive list, of course):
I’m not an expert on any of the areas Pinker discussed, and Gell-Mann amnesia would imply that I’m therefore liable to overrate the quality of his analysis. (Note that I found him weakest on AI issues, the area where, relative to the quantity of available literature, I’m probably best-read compared to other areas he discusses.)
I’m inclined, philosophically and aesthetically, toward the same generally science-humanistic views as Pinker. I found it helpful to read this review by an arch-conservative non-utilitarian, as a balancing factor.
I don’t think you can trust me to be unbiased, but I appreciate the compliment!
Ways my analysis could have been systematically flawed (a non-exhaustive list, of course):
I’m not an expert on any of the areas Pinker discussed, and Gell-Mann amnesia would imply that I’m therefore liable to overrate the quality of his analysis. (Note that I found him weakest on AI issues, the area where, relative to the quantity of available literature, I’m probably best-read compared to other areas he discusses.)
I’m inclined, philosophically and aesthetically, toward the same generally science-humanistic views as Pinker. I found it helpful to read this review by an arch-conservative non-utilitarian, as a balancing factor.