Yes, I am giving my opinion on Thomas Sowell in a post about Thomas Sowell. My post is very short, like a third of it is a quote from him. And I didn't define conservative as wrong, I said he is a standard, non-special conservative AND wrong. What are your actual disagreements?

Well, the problem with opinions is that they are not that helpful. For example, I could say the following:

Sowell is a classical liberal and right. Sowell is a neoconservative and wrong. Sowell is a traditional conservative and right. Sowell is a neoliberal and wrong. Sowell is a classical liberal and wrong. Sowell is a neoconservative and right. Sowell is a traditional conservative and wrong.

Without some way to separate the true sentences from the false sentences none of them are very helpful, even if one in the pile happens to be true.

Of course your opinion can be more or less helpful than another's, depending on what you say, how you say it, and what your sources are

Well, by no means am I trying to shut you down, I'm doing the opposite, asking for more details. For example another comment on this thread pointed out that apparently Republicans usually sign some kind of "loyalty oath" that's associated with him. I would consider that strong evidence for his association with traditional conservatism.

If you check that part of the thread again, you'll see that that "loyalty oath" is associated with Grover Norquist rather than Thomas Sowell (although I'm fairly sure Sowell also thinks that taxes and government expenditures in the U.S. are way too high).

You're offering commentary, not a counterargument. What specifically is Sowell wrong about?

What specifically is he right about? Why do we require evidence when someone says he is wrong, but we do not require evidence for the numerous times in this thread where people say his book is “required reading”?

First, everyone here who likes Sowell can put forth specific, concrete examples where he is right, instead of making vague statements about how brilliant he is and then demanding evidence only when someone disagrees.

> First, everyone here who likes Sowell can put forth specific, concrete examples where he is right, instead of making vague statements about how brilliant he is and then demanding evidence only when someone disagrees.

Why? The positive argument already exists. It's Sowell's writing. What are you asking for a cliff's notes? The disagreement you're talking about must obviously stem from something in the source material we're talking about. So what is it?

It exists for economics exclusively, he has never proven himself in regards to social issues to be anymore than a common twitter conservative.

Do you expect to be taken seriously when you dismiss someone with a resume like his as “nothing more than a common twitter conservative”? How do you even fool yourself into believing that?

None of his books that I've read are about economics, they're all about social issues, including very deep ones like why people separate into opposing camps on political issues.

It's really just worth reading some of that stuff before you decide he's just a Tweeter. He's basically the opposite of that.

I'm asking for concrete evidence that his opinions have predictive power which has been assessed independently.

If no such evidence exists then all we have is just-so story-telling, which can be discounted.

The fact that a lot of people seem to believe his ideas are convincing is irrelevant to this discussion.

People believe all kinds of things because they sound plausible to them - partly because other people have made careers out of working out how to push people's "This sounds plausible so I shall believe it" buttons.

Which is why reproducible evidence and independent peer review are things. And why it's absolutely reasonable - in fact required - to question assertions that can't be grounded in them.