Not exact matches
The
mistake of thinking that economics must concern either Only Prudence, on the one hand, or No Prudence at All, on the other, is shared by hard right, hard left and soft center, politically speaking, which is to say that it is shared by most
intellectuals.
Notice that such
mistakes are not
intellectual in character, since this type
of symbolic reference does not involve the operation
of thought.
It is bigger than our government, which made an
intellectual mistake in
thinking that it could promote prosperity through Greenspan - like monetary policies, which almost everyone lionized while they were going on, except a few worrywarts like me, James Grant, etc., who followed the buildup
of leverage in the Brave New World.
The reason why I
think that Crichton's invitation was a
mistake isn't because he expressed unpopular views — there are plenty
of critics who could have been invited who have rather stronger
intellectual credentials.
(2) I believe that trying to find a just solution to a contentious matter is as if not more demanding than arguing for its resolution according to legal precedents (I always tell my students that they are
mistaken if they believe that mooting is the pinnacle
of intellectual achievement in law school — in fact it is learning how to negotiate, mediate and problem - solve)(3) Learning how to problem - solve (which includes relating to the people as well as the problem) is a good deal more practical and important for prospective lawyers than being able to find and apply legal precedent, any well - trained monkey can learn to do that and (4) I
think we make the
mistake all the time
of imagining that knowledge and skills are somehow binary processes.