Larry Summers deserves more credit than merely being labeled a naysayer. He is highly respected as an economist, and is well qualified to present an opinion that is counter to that of others with less experience or credibility in his field.
The history of when naysayers were correct.
- Thread starter imwjl
- Start date
what's his post-to-like ratio, though?
WAY better than mine, for sure.
Might help to define "correct"?
Your opening implies you define "naysayers" as some sort of crackpots, as opposed to terms like "watchdogs" or "environmentalists".
Look at environmentalists and for example yeasayers like to point out that environmentalists who predicted human environment abuse based climate change would bring an ice age, but instead we got a different sort of negative result, and we still stuggle to agree on historic shifts which in order to define naysayers being right we firstneed to agree on too many things that too many people find disagreeable.
How about the general warnings that unbridled progress will cause harm in ways we cannot define until after the damage is done?
Water pollution from unchecked industry?
Check.
Running out of clean water access in metro areas due to poor management by industry?
Check.
Myriad diseases caused by each new toxic product rushed through testing by lawers?
Check.
Nuclear weapons as a deterrent may not work out well?
Check.
Just do a rundown of protests against Monsanto over the decades.
Check.
My grasp of watchdogs and/ or environmentalists from 1963-2023 is that we would be better off had we (industry AKA progress) not paid teams of lawyers to discredit them.
Your opening implies you define "naysayers" as some sort of crackpots, as opposed to terms like "watchdogs" or "environmentalists".
Look at environmentalists and for example yeasayers like to point out that environmentalists who predicted human environment abuse based climate change would bring an ice age, but instead we got a different sort of negative result, and we still stuggle to agree on historic shifts which in order to define naysayers being right we firstneed to agree on too many things that too many people find disagreeable.
How about the general warnings that unbridled progress will cause harm in ways we cannot define until after the damage is done?
Water pollution from unchecked industry?
Check.
Running out of clean water access in metro areas due to poor management by industry?
Check.
Myriad diseases caused by each new toxic product rushed through testing by lawers?
Check.
Nuclear weapons as a deterrent may not work out well?
Check.
Just do a rundown of protests against Monsanto over the decades.
Check.
My grasp of watchdogs and/ or environmentalists from 1963-2023 is that we would be better off had we (industry AKA progress) not paid teams of lawyers to discredit them.
chris m.
Doctor of Teleocity
Calling someone a naysayer in no way throws shade on them. Einstein was a naysayer on the probability aspects of uncertainty associated with quantum mechanics, saying "God doesn't play dice". He turned out to be wrong, so was an incorrect naysayer, but no one is going to question his rightful position as a Titan of modern physics.
agreed but
it was a joke
chris m.
Doctor of Teleocity
Aah the age old problem of detecting tone/irony/humor in a post. I guess emojis are supposed to help with that? 
maybeAah the age old problem of detecting tone/irony/humor in a post. I guess emojis are supposed to help with that?
let's try
hmmm..
Wildcard_35
Tele-Holic
I'm pretty sure someone, somewhere said the Titanic was not "unsinkable".
Or another thing to consider is that naysayers fight against each other.
For example some naysayers said NO to big personal transportation vehicles, claiming they will use up fossil fuels too fast and pollute too much, so we need to go to EVs.
Then other naysayers look at EVs and say oh my he batteries explode and making them pollutes China which is a part of the planet we want to stop polluting.
Then yet another subset of naysayers on this one topic, say EVs are closing the barn door after the horses all left, and luxury EVs in every garage is not going to fix the problem which was not the specific tech as much as the waste craved by the wealthy who idealize luxury AKA waste of resources.
Then the fans of the EV as the solution are naysayers about the worry warts warning of pollution caused by making solar panels and batteries then disposing of them en masse in 20 years.
Overall, I think naysayers are emblematic of democracy.
For example some naysayers said NO to big personal transportation vehicles, claiming they will use up fossil fuels too fast and pollute too much, so we need to go to EVs.
Then other naysayers look at EVs and say oh my he batteries explode and making them pollutes China which is a part of the planet we want to stop polluting.
Then yet another subset of naysayers on this one topic, say EVs are closing the barn door after the horses all left, and luxury EVs in every garage is not going to fix the problem which was not the specific tech as much as the waste craved by the wealthy who idealize luxury AKA waste of resources.
Then the fans of the EV as the solution are naysayers about the worry warts warning of pollution caused by making solar panels and batteries then disposing of them en masse in 20 years.
Overall, I think naysayers are emblematic of democracy.
Folks didn’t think bulgogi belonged on a taco. Man, I’m glad Paul Qui proved them wrong.
Francis Bacon would be another example. I'm pretty sure that when he said knowledge is power, most people thought that brawn was power.
And his development of the scientific method led to the scientific revolution. So again if defining "correct" as the revolution happening, then he might be considered correct.
And his development of the scientific method led to the scientific revolution. So again if defining "correct" as the revolution happening, then he might be considered correct.
A-and banchan makes any meal tastier!
Yall know that scene in Jeremiah Johnson where Jeremiah is being a naysayer and tells the Army Captain that he'll never make it to the trapped wagons in time? Remember what the Captain says?
"You have to hunt, you say? I have to try."
"You have to hunt, you say? I have to try."
Reminds me of Jean-François Lyotard, the postmodern thinker that said we no longer have a metanarrative (basically society is fragmented), we no longer have unity...
...and it is better this way. We don't need it.
The attempt to unify always leads to the suppression of freedom somewhere.
There are parts or fields of life (fragments) with hierarchies, but freedom exists as we traverse between them.
I might have a boss at work, but they don't have power over me after hours.
I might have a religion that asks me to obey, but I can leave the sanctuary and go home where a different set of rules apply.
One field of science might say one thing, while another field of science says something different.
This is the revolution we are currently experiencing. So I'd say he was "correct" as well.
