A fallacy is incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness.

Formal fallacies[link]

A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form without an understanding of the argument's content.^[1] All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

• Appeal to probability – assumes that because something is likely to happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.^[2][3]
• Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false.^[4]
• Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgement based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.^[5]
• Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.^[6]
• Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.^[7]

Propositional fallacies[link]

A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound propositions. In order for a compound proposition to be true all the simple propositions in it have to be true and validly related as the logical connector (<and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only if>) suggests.
Types of Propositional fallacies:

• Affirming a disjunct – concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B.^[8]
• Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.^[8]
• Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.^[8]

Quantification fallacies[link]

A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of Quantification fallacies:

• Existential fallacy – an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion.^[9]

Formal syllogistic fallacies[link]

Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.

• Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.^[9]
• Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.^[9]
• Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum) – a categorical syllogism that has four terms.^[10]
• Illicit major – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.^[9]
• Illicit minor – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.^[9]
• Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative) – when a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises. ^[9]
• Fallacy of the undistributed middle – the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.^[11]

Informal fallacies[link]

Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.^[12]

• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).^[13]
• Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
• Argument from scripture (Spider-man fallacy) - claiming that because there is some truth in a piece of text (such as a factual city or factual historical figure), that everything mentioned in the text must, by default, be "historical fact".
• Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on silence of opponent, failing to give proof, based on "lack of evidence"
• Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
• Begging the question (petitio principii) – where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises^[14]
• (shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
• Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause
• Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.^[15]
• Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.^[16]
• Correlative-based fallacies
  • Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.^[17]
• Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)^[18]
  • Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated^[19]
• Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.^[20]
• Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.^[21]
• Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole^[22]
• Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts^[23]
• False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.^[24]
• If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
• Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
• Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking place.^[25]
• Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification^[26]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
• False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
  • Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.^[27]
• Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct^[28]
• Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event.^[29]
• Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.^[30] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
• Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.^[31]
• Incomplete comparison – where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison
• Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
• Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.^[32]
• Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
• Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.
• Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
• Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
• Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion
• Petitio principii – see begging the question
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y^[33]
• Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)
• Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found
• Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event
• Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.^[34]
• Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
• Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
• Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand
• Shotgun argumentation - the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them.^[35]
• Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
• Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.^[36]

Faulty generalizations[link]

Faulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.

• Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored.^[37]
  • No true Scotsman – when a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.^[38]
• Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.^[39]
• False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.^[40]
• Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.^[41]
• Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
• Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.^[42]
• Pathetic fallacy – when an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects.^[43]
• Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.

Red herring fallacies[link]

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.
Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.

• Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
  • Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says^[44]
  • Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
• Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position^[45]
• Argumentum ad populum (appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so
• Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality.
• Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same
• Appeal to authority – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.^[46][47]
  • Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.
• Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion^[48]
• Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning^[49]
  • Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
  • Appeal to flattery – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.^[50]
  • Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents^[51]
  • Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
  • Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
  • Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.^[52]
• Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer
• Appeal to novelty (argumentum ad novitam) – where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.^[53]
• Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)^[54]
• Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.^[55]
• Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).^[56] (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
• Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence
• Chronological snobbery – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held^{[citation needed]}
• Genetic fallacy – where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.^[57]
• Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment
• Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy^[58], naturalistic fallacy^[59]) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.
• Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card) – comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled (See also – Godwin's law)
• Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position^[60]
• Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data^[61]
• Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position^[62]
• Two wrongs make a right – occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.^[63]

Conditional or questionable fallacies[link]

• Black swan blindness – the argument that ignores low probability, high impact events, thus down playing the role of chance and under-representing known risks^[64]
• Broken window fallacy – an argument which disregards lost opportunity costs (typically non-obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. For example, an argument that states breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but disregards the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on new shoes.
• Definist fallacy – involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.^[65]
• Naturalistic fallacy – attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of either one or more claims about natural properties (sometimes also taken to mean the appeal to nature)^{[citation needed]}
• Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact^[66]

See also[link]

Logic portal

References[link]

Notes

Works

Further reading[link]

The following is a sample of books for further reading, selected for a combination of content, ease of access via the internet, and to provide an indication of published sources that interested readers may review. The titles of some books are self-explanatory. Good books on critical thinking commonly contain sections on fallacies, and some may be listed below.

• Engel, S. Morris (1994). Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap. Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-28274-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=jue4i6VVly0C. Retrieved 30 November 2010. 
• Hughes, William; Lavery, Jonathan (2004). Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills (4th ed.). Broadview Press. ISBN 1-55111-573-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=Rot3obO0iRoC. Retrieved 30 November 2010. 
• Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (2006). Thinker's Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery. Foundation for Critical Thinking. ISBN 978-0-944583-27-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=shrn4lTg_RkC. Retrieved 30 November 2010. 
• Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter; Fogelin, Robert (2010). Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic (8th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0-495-60395-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=lCPdoLjftxAC. Retrieved 30 November 2010. 
• Thouless, Robert H (1953). Straight and Crooked Thinking. Pan Books. http://neglectedbooks.com/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking.pdf. Retrieved 30 November 2010. 
• Tindale, Christopher W (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Critical Reasoning and Argumentation. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-84208-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=ved8b9Cr8Z8C. Retrieved 30 November 2010. 

External links[link]

• LogicalFallacies.info
• Logical Fallacies, Literacy Education Online
• The Taxonomy of Logical Fallacies, FallacyFiles.org
• An Informal Fallacy Primer
• The Skeptic's Field Guide: Fallacy List
• Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies (mirror)
• Visualization: Rhetological Fallacies, InformationIsBeautiful.net

Look up list in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

List or lists may refer to:

Enumerations[link]

• Any enumeration of a set of items
• A list of comma separated values, a common way of listing in everyday life and computing. (British usage: Comma-separated values)
• A mailing list
• An electronic mailing list
• An electoral list
• List (computing)
• Task lists, a list of tasks to be completed
• Listicle, an article in list format
• Watchlist
• Ranker

Other meanings[link]

• List (watercraft), the leaning to either port or starboard of a ship
• List, an alternative term for roll in flight dynamics
• Lists (jousting), a roped-off enclosure where medieval knights jousted
• SC Germania List, German rugby union club
• List College, an undergraduate division of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America

People[link]

• Friedrich List, German economist
• Guido von List, Austrian Armanist
• John List, murderer
• Liesbeth List, Dutch singer
• Maximilian List, SS officer and Commandant of Lager Sylt, a labour camp on Alderney
• Paul List, chess player
• Peyton List, the name of two American actresses:
  • Peyton List (actress born 1986), American actress in the TV series Mad Men
  • Peyton List (actress born 1998), American actress in the Disney Channel TV series Jessie
• Siegmund Wilhelm List, WWII German field marshal

Places[link]

• List, Schleswig-Holstein, the northernmost village in Germany, on the island Sylt

Work titles[link]

The List may refer to:

• The List (magazine), a Scottish magazine
• The List (South Park), an episode of the television show South Park
• The List (The X-Files), an episode of the television show The X-Files
• The List (2007 film), a film based on the novel by Robert Whitlow
• The List (album), an album by Rosanne Cash

See also[link]

• Liszt (surname)
• Listing (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2012)

Thomas Sowell (born June 30, 1930) is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author. A National Humanities Medal winner, he advocates laissez-faire economics and writes from a conservative and libertarian perspective. He is currently a Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Sowell was born in North Carolina, but grew up in Harlem, New York. He dropped out of high school, and served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. He received a bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1958 and a master's degree from Columbia University in 1959. In 1968, he earned his doctorate degree in economics from the University of Chicago.

Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell and University of California, Los Angeles, and worked for think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980 he has worked at the Hoover Institution. He is the author of more than 30 books.

Biography[link]

An African-American, Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina. His father died shortly before he was born, and his mother, a house maid, already had four children. A great-aunt and her two grown daughters adopted Sowell and raised him.^[1] In his autobiography, A Personal Odyssey, he said his childhood encounters with white people were so limited that he did not believe blond was really a hair color.^[2] When Sowell was nine, his family moved from Charlotte, North Carolina to Harlem, New York City. He attended Stuyvesant High School, the first in his family to study beyond the sixth grade. However, he was forced to drop out at age 17 because of financial difficulties and problems in his home.^[1] He worked at a number of jobs, including at a machine shop and as a delivery man for Western Union,^[3] and tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1948.^[4] Sowell was drafted in 1951, during the Korean War, and was assigned to the Marine Corps. Because of his experience in photography, he was assigned as a photographer, but he also trained Marines in .45 caliber pistol proficiency.^[1]

After his discharge, Sowell worked a civil service job in Washington, D.C. and attended night classes at Howard University, admitted on the basis of his General Education certificate. His high scores on the College Board exams and recommendations by two professors helped him gain admission to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics.^[1][5] He received a Master of Arts from Columbia University the following year, and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968.^[5]

Sowell had initially chosen Columbia University to study under George Stigler (who would later receive the Nobel Prize in Economics). When he learned that Stigler had moved to the University of Chicago, he followed him there.^[6]

Sowell has taught economics at Howard University, Rutgers, Cornell, Brandeis University, Amherst College, and UCLA. Since 1980 he has been a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he holds a fellowship named after Rose and Milton Friedman, his mentor.^[5][7]

In 1987, Sowell testified in favor of federal appeals court judge Robert Bork during the hearings for Bork's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. In his testimony, Sowell said that Bork was "the most highly qualified nominee of this generation" and that judicial activism, a concept that Bork opposed, "has not been beneficial to minorities."^[8]

Sowell has stated that he was a Marxist “during the decade of my 20s"; one of his earliest professional publications was a sympathetic examination of Marxist thought vs. Marxist-Leninist practice.^[9] His experience working as a federal government intern during the summer of 1960 caused him to reject Marxian economics in favor of free market economic theory. During his work, Sowell discovered a correlation between the rise of mandated minimum wages for workers in the sugar industry of Puerto Rico and the rise of unemployment in that industry. Studying the patterns led Sowell to theorize that the government employees who administered the minimum wage law cared more about their own jobs than the plight of the poor.^[10]

Writings[link]

Sowell is both a syndicated columnist and an academic economist.

Besides scholarly writing, Sowell has written books, articles, and syndicated columns for a general audience in such publications as Forbes Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, and major newspapers. He is a regular contributor to GOPUSA, a conservative web and email newsletter run by Endeavor Media Group, LLC. He primarily writes on economic subjects, generally advocating a free market approach to capitalism. Sowell, whose autobiography describes his serious study of Brady McGarry, opposes Marxism, providing a critique in his book Marxism: Philosophy and Economics.

Sowell also writes on racial topics and is a critic of affirmative action and race based quotas.^[11][12] While often described as a black conservative, he prefers not to be labeled, and considers himself more libertarian than conservative.^[13]

In another departure from economics, Sowell wrote The Einstein Syndrome: Bright Children Who Talk Late, a follow-up to his Late-Talking Children. This book investigates the phenomenon of late-talking children, frequently misdiagnosed with autism or pervasive developmental disorder. He includes the research of—among others—Professor Stephen Camarata, Ph.D., of Vanderbilt University and Professor Steven Pinker, Ph.D., of Harvard University in this overview of a poorly understood developmental trait. It is a trait which he says affected many historical figures. He includes famous late-talkers such as physicists Albert Einstein, Edward Teller and Richard Feynman; mathematician Julia Robinson; and musicians Arthur Rubenstein and Clara Schumann. The book and its contributing researchers make a case for the theory that some children develop unevenly (asynchronous development) for a period in childhood due to rapid and extraordinary development in the analytical functions of the brain. This may temporarily “rob resources” from neighboring functions such as language development. The book contradicts Simon Baron-Cohen’s speculation that Einstein may have had Asperger syndrome (see also people speculated to have been autistic).

Themes of Sowell’s writing range from social policy on race, ethnic groups, education and decision-making, to classical and Marxist economics, to the problems of children perceived as having disabilities.

In Intelligence and Ethnicity, Sowell argues that IQ gaps are hardly startling or unusual between, or within, ethnic groups. He notes that the roughly 15-point gap in contemporary black–white IQ scores is similar to that between the national average and the scores of particular ethnic white groups in years past.

Sowell has also written a trilogy of books on ideologies and political positions, including A Conflict of Visions where he speaks about the origins of political strife, The Vision of the Anointed, where he compares the conservative/libertarian and liberal/progressive worldviews,The Quest for Cosmic Justice, where, like in many of his other writings, he outlines his thesis of the need for intellectuals, politicians and leaders to fix and perfect the world in utopian, and ultimately he posits, disastrous fashions. Separate from the trilogy, but also in discussion of the subject, he wrote Intellectuals and Society, where he discusses what he argues to be the blind hubris and follies of intellectuals in a variety of areas, building on his earlier work.

Sowell takes strong issue with the notion of government as a helper or savior of minorities, arguing that the historical record shows quite the opposite.

Sowell also challenges the notion that black progress is due to progressive government programs or policies, in The Economics and Politics of Race, (1983), Ethnic America (1981), Affirmative Action (2004), and other books. He claims that many problems identified with blacks in modern society are hardly unique in terms of American ethnic groups, nor in terms of a rural proletariat swept by disruption as it became urbanized, discussed in his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals.

In Affirmative Action Around the World^[14] Sowell holds that affirmative action covers most of the American population, particularly women, and has long since ceased to be directed towards blacks.

Columns[link]

Sowell has a nationally syndicated column distributed by Creators Syndicate that appears in various newspapers, as well as online on websites such as Townhall, WorldNetDaily, OneNewsNow and the Jewish World Review.^[15]

Sowell comments on issues he considers to be problematic in modern-day society, which include liberal media bias;^[16] judicial activism (while staunchly defending originalism);^{[17][18][19][20][21]} partial birth abortion;^[22] the minimum wage; socializing health care; government undermining of familial autonomy; affirmative action; government ^[23] bureaucracy; militancy in U.S. foreign policy; the U.S. war on drugs, and multiculturalism.^[24]

Sowell supports free market and pro-growth economics. In one column he criticized as socialism for the rich certain policies which he describes as benefiting the wealthy at the expense of the poor.^[25]

Sowell in a Townhall editorial, "The Bush Legacy," assessed President George W. Bush, deeming him "a mixed bag," but "an honorable man."^[26]

Sowell also favors decriminalization of all drugs.^[27]

In November, 2011, a column fiercely critical of "Obama's America" and falsely attributed to Sowell was circulated on the Internet.^[28]

Critical reception[link]

Awards[link]

In 1990, he won the Francis Boyer Award, presented by the American Enterprise Institute. In 1998 he received the Sydney Hook Award from the National Association of Scholars.^[29] In 2002, Sowell was awarded the National Humanities Medal for prolific scholarship melding history, economics, and political science. In 2003, he was awarded the Bradley Prize for intellectual achievement.^[30] In 2004 he was given a Lysander Spooner Award for his book Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.^[31] In 2008, getAbstract awarded his book Economic Facts and Fallacies with its International Book Award.

Controversies[link]

Sowell has been criticized for various remarks such as a comparison he made between President Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler in an editorial for Investor's Business Daily^[32] after the creation of a relief fund for the BP oil spill. This has been criticized by liberal groups such as Media Matters^[33] and the Democratic National Committee.^[34] However, Republicans such as Sarah Palin^[34] and Representative Louie Gohmert^[35] have endorsed Sowell's comparison.

Sowell was also criticized for an editorial in which he stated that the Democratic Party played the Race card, instigating ethnic divisions and separatism, and argued that a similar situation occurred between the Tutsis and the Hutus in Rwanda.^[36][37]

Economics[link]

The Economist magazine praised Sowell's books Affirmative Action Around the World as "terse, well argued and utterly convincing" and "crammed with striking anecdotes and statistics"^[38] and Economic Facts and Fallacies: "Mr Sowell marshals his arguments with admirable clarity and authority. There is not a chapter in which he does not produce a statistic that both surprises and overturns received wisdom."^[39]

Reviewing Sowell's 1984 book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?, University of Chicago sociologist William Julius Wilson said that Sowell did not explore "reasonable alternative explanations and hypotheses" in his critiques of affirmative action. For instance, regarding Sowell's theory that women are underrepresented in fields like law and engineering because of the heavy responsibilities of marriage such as childrearing and other household work: "A plausible alternative to Mr. Sowell's hypothesis on women's pay differentials and occupational segregation is that women are virtually excluded from many desirable positions and therefore crowd into obtainable occupations."^[40] Sowell since then has written on affirmative action in an international context to address such criticisms in two books (Preferential Policies, Affirmative Action Around the World) and has written about pay differentials and occupational segregation in Economic Facts and Fallacies.

Patricia Roberts Harris, who was an official in the Carter Administration, once said that Sowell and Walter Williams "don't know what poverty is." Sowell called her position "a pathetic sign of intellectual bankcruptcy," saying that he "was almost 9 years old before [he] lived in a home with [hot] running water" and that she "was a campus social leader in an 'exclusive sorority' - meaning that it was for middle-class (light-skinned) women" while he worked full time and went to [the same college] at night."^[41]

Career highlights[link]

• Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, September 1980–present
• Professor of Economics, UCLA, July 1974–June 1980
• Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, September–December 1977
• Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, April–August 1977
• Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, July 1976–March 1977
• Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972–July 1974
• Associate Professor of Economics, UCLA, September 1970–June 1972
• Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, September 1969–June 1970
• Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University, September 1965–June 1969
• Economic Analyst, American Telephone & Telegraph Co., June 1964–August 1965
• Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963–June 1964
• Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, Rutgers University, September 1962–June 1963
• Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961–August 1962

Books by Sowell[link]

• 2011. The Thomas Sowell Reader. Basic Books. pp. 464. ISBN 978-0-465-02250-2. 
• 2010. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy (4th edition ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Perseus Books Group. ISBN 978-0-465-02252-6. 
• 2010. Dismantling America. Basic Books. pp. 352. ISBN 978-0-465-02251-9. 
• 2010. Intellectuals and Society. Basic Books. pp. 416. ISBN 978-0-465-01948-9. 
• 2009. The Housing Boom and Bust. Basic Books. pp. 184. ISBN 978-0-465-01880-2. 
• 2008. Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One (2nd ed.). Basic Books. pp. 400. ISBN 978-0-465-00345-7. OCLC 260206351. 
• 2007. Economic Facts and Fallacies. Basic Books. pp. 262. ISBN 978-0-465-00349-5. 
• 2007. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy (3rd edition ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Perseus Books Group. ISBN 978-0-465-00260-3. OCLC 76897806. 
• 2007. A Man of Letters. San Francisco: Encounter Books. pp. 320. ISBN 978-1-59403-196-0. 
• 2006. Ever Wonder Why? And Other Controversial Essays. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. pp. 460. ISBN 978-0-8179-4752-1. 
• 2006. On Classical Economics. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. 2006. pp. 320. ISBN 978-0-300-12606-8. 
• 2005. Black Rednecks and White Liberals: And Other Cultural And Ethnic Issues. San Francisco: Encounter Books. pp. 360. ISBN 978-1-59403-086-4. 
• 2004. Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. pp. 256. ISBN 978-0-300-10775-3. 
• 2004. Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy, revised and expanded ed. Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-08145-2 (1st ed. 2000)
• 2003. Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One, ISBN 0-465-08143-6
• 2002. The Einstein Syndrome: Bright Children Who Talk Late, ISBN 0-465-08141-X
• 2002. Controversial Essays, ISBN 0-8179-2992-4
• 2002. A Personal Odyssey, ISBN 0-684-86465-7
• 2002. The Quest For Cosmic Justice, ISBN 0-684-86463-0
• 1998. Conquests and Cultures: An International History, ISBN 0-465-01400-3
• 1996. Migrations and Cultures: A World View, ISBN 0-465-04589-8 OCLC 41748039
• 1996. The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy. Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-08995-X
• 1995. Race and Culture: A World View. Description & chapter previews. ISBN 0-465-06796-4
• 1993. Inside American Education, ISBN 0-7432-5408-2
• 1990. Preferential Policies: An International Perspective, ISBN 0-688-08599-7
• 1987. A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. William Morrow, ISBN 0-688-06912-6
• 1987. Compassion Versus Guilt and Other Essays. William Morrow, ISBN 0-688-07114-7
• 1986. Education: Assumptions Versus History. Hoover Press, ISBN 0-8179-8112-8
• 1985. Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. Quill, ISBN 0-688-06426-4
• 1984. Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? William Morrow, ISBN 0-688-03113-7
• 1983. The Economics and Politics of Race. William Morrow, ISBN 0-688-01891-2
• 1981. Ethnic America: A History. Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-02074-7
• 1981. Markets and Minorities. Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-04399-2
• 1980. Knowledge and Decisions. Basic Books.
• 1975. Race and Economics. David McKay Company Inc, ISBN 0-679-30262-X
• 1972. Say's Law, An Historical Analysis. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04166-0

See also[link]

Biography portal

• List of newspaper columnists

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Thomas Sowell

• Thomas Sowell’s home page
  • Complete list of writings
• Thomas Sowell Features at Creators Syndicate
• Column archive at Townhall.com
• Free Podcasts of Sowell’s recent articles
• Archive of Articles by Thomas Sowell at JewishWorldReview.com
• Book review of The Einstein Syndrome by Isabelle Rapin, Albert Einstein College of Medicine.
• Snopes.com on Various articles attributed to Thomas Sowell

Articles and interviews[link]

• 'Uncommon Knowledge' Interviews (2008-2011)
• 'The George Jarkesy Show : Sowell on Derrick Bell, Critical Race Theory and Obama Mentors (2012)
• Booknotes interview with Sowell on Preferential Policies, June 10, 1990.
• Fox News - 'In the Right Direction' interview (2005)
• C-SPAN Q&A interview with Sowell, April 17, 2005

• "A Dangerous Obsession" — Part I II, III, IV, and V
• "Too “Complex”?" — Part I, II, & III
• "Alice in Health Care" — Part I, II, III, IV
• "The 'Costs' of Medical Care" — Part I, II, III, IV
• Socialism for the rich by Thomas Sowell (October 6, 2006)
• “10 Questions With Thomas Sowell”, John Hawkins, Right Wing News. Sowell on flat-tax vs. progressive tax, rent-control, balanced budget amendments, protectionist tariffs, poverty and welfare, profit-restriction, illegal immigration, a weak dollar vs. a strong dollar, affirmative action, and reparations.
• 'Uncommon Knowledge' discussion of affirmative action
• Economic Fallacies -- Interview with Thomas Sowell by Bill Steigerwald
• Thomas Sowell- Columns on Jewish World Review website
• “Race and IQ” Detailed discussion of Race and IQ including techniques that have masked the improvement of black IQ scores.
• “Choosing a College” — discusses benefits and costs including college quality, size, specialty, intellectual rigor, social, political and sexual environment of today’s campuses. Recommends hard-nosed parental analysis (including campus visits) that ignores PR fluff and focuses on the bottom line
• “Affirmative Action around the World” - critical analysis of Affirmative Action and its failures worldwide.
• Salon interview with Sowell
• Audio interview with National Review Online
• Sowell on Economic Facts and Fallacies: Audio interview
• Sowell en español

Steve Keen

Post-Keynesian economics
File:SteveKeen01.jpg
Born	(1953-03-28) March 28, 1953 (age 59)
Nationality	Australia
Opposed	Neoclassical economics
Influences	Hyman Minsky Piero Sraffa Joseph Alois Schumpeter François Quesnay
Contributions	Mathematical models of financial crises and debt-deflation

Steve Keen is a professor in economics and finance at the University of Western Sydney. He classes himself as a post-Keynesian, criticizing both modern neoclassical economics and Marxian economics as inconsistent, unscientific and empirically unsupported. The major influences on Keen's thinking about economics include John Maynard Keynes, Hyman Minsky, Piero Sraffa, Joseph Alois Schumpeter, and François Quesnay. His recent work mostly concentrates on mathematical modeling and simulation of financial instability. He is a Fellow at the Centre for Policy Development.

Financial instability and debt deflation[link]

Most of Steve Keen's recent work focuses on modeling Hyman Minsky's financial instability hypothesis and Irving Fisher's debt deflation.^[1][2] The hypothesis predicts that an overly large debt to GDP ratio can cause deflation and depression. Here, the falling of the price level results in a continually rising real quantity of outstanding debt. Moreover, the continued deleveraging of outstanding debts increases the rate of deflation. Thus, debt and deflation act on and react to one another, resulting in a debt-deflation spiral. The outcome is a depression. Steve Keen argues that the current global economic crisis is the result of too much debt.

[edit] Debunking Economics

Keen's full-range critique of neoclassical economics is contained in his book Debunking Economics.^[3] Keen presents a wide variety of critiques on neoclassical economic theory, and argues that they show neoclassical assumptions are fundamentally flawed. Keen points out that several neoclassical assumptions are empirically unsupported (that is, they are unsupported by observable and repeatable phenomena) nor are they desirable for society at large (that is, they do not necessarily produce either efficiency or equity for the majority). He argues that economists' overall conclusions are very sensitive to small changes in these assumptions.

Keen's book closes with a survey of various schools of heterodox economics, concluding "None of these is at present strong enough or complete enough to declare itself a contender for the title of ‘the’ economic theory of the 21st century." However, he argues that neoclassical economics is a degenerative research program, not generating new knowledge but growing a belt of protective auxiliary hypotheses to shield its core beliefs from critique. There is an accompanying web site which provides more detailed mathematical expositions.

Critique of neoclassical theory of the firm[link]

Keen's work (as opposed to his popularization) has also focused on refuting the neoclassical theory of the firm, which argues that firms will set marginal revenue equal to marginal cost. Keen notes that empirical research finds real firms set price well above marginal cost: they charge a markup, often cost-plus pricing; compare fellow post-Keynesian Alfred Eichner, who also argued for markup pricing.

He cites Eiteman & Guthrie,^[4] finding 89% of firms set prices above the level where marginal revenue is equal to marginal cost, as well as more recent work by Alan Blinder.^[5]

Keen's article on "profit maximization, industry structure, and competition"^[6] has had counter-arguments by Paul Anglin.^[7]

Criticisms[link]

Some reviewers contend that Keen has not shown what he claims and that he misrepresents economic theory.^[8] Keen agrees that some more nuanced and qualified versions of neoclassical economics exist at very high levels. However he claims that his critique is aimed at the core neoclassical ideas that are taught in universities at undergraduate and postgraduate level and which are often used as the basis for policy prescriptions. As a cover blurb from Alan Isaac states, Keen's book is "A wide-ranging yet accessible critique of the staples of neoclassical pedagogy."

Firms setting price to marginal cost is consistent with the neoclassical theory of the firm if those firms have some market power.^[9] However, Keen argues"^[6] that economic theory neglects the effect on price of increasing or reducing supply by a single item and finds that charging a markup is actually a more stable, profitable equilibrium. In neoclassical theory, a firm would also charge a markup above marginal cost.^[9] In fact, part of the purpose of the work by Eiteman & Guthrie and by Blinder that Keen cites as evidence, was to show that real life firms have some monopoly power, within the standard context of a neoclassical model.

Other publications[link]

• Lee, Frederic S. and Steve Keen (2004): "The Incoherent Emperor: A Heterodox Critique of Neoclassical Microeconomic Theory", Review of Social Economy, V. 62, Iss. 2: 169-199
• Co-editor of: Commerce, Complexity and Evolution: Topics in Economics, Finance, Marketing, and Management: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium in Economic Theory and Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-62030-9.

See also[link]

• Paul Ormerod

References[link]

1. ^ The Roving Cavaliers of Credit
2. ^ Steve Keen (1995): "Finance and economic breakdown: modelling Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis", Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 17, No. 4, 607–635
3. ^ Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences (2001, Pluto Press Australia) ISBN 1-86403-070-4
4. ^ Eiteman & Guthrie (1952): "The shape of the average cost curve", American Economic Review 42: 832–838
5. ^ Blinder, Alan; et al. (1998): Asking about prices: a new approach to understanding price stickiness, Russell Sage Foundation, New York
6. ^ ^{a b} Steve Keen & Russel Standish (2006):"Profit Maximization, Industry Structure, and Competition: A critique of neoclassical theory", Physica A 370: 81-85
7. ^ Paul Anglin (2008): On the proper behavior of atoms: A comment on a critique Physica A 387: 277-280
8. ^ David Stern, "BOOK REVIEWS: Debunking Economics", Ecological Economics Volume 39, Issue 2, November 2001,pages 319–320 [1]
9. ^ ^{a b} Tirole, Jean, 'The Theory of Industrial Organization', MIT Press 1998

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Steve Keen

• Website of "Debunking Economics" and Steve Keen's personal web site
• Steve Keen's Debtwatch blog
• List of Steve Keen's publications
• There is madness in their method A sample chapter from Debunking Economics.

• A more detailed presentation of the contents in the Physica A article.
• A news feature on an Econophysics paper co-written by Prof. Keen appeared in the journal Nature, accompanied by an editorial.
• Interview conducted on the 13th of Dec 2009 by Dominic Frisby about Steve Keen's predictions for 2010
• Steven Keen 04 February 2010 (video from Switzer TV)
• Steve Keen interviewed on BBC's Hard Talk
• Steve Keen interviewed on RT's Capital Account (10 Nov 2011)