tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post5188716269684148297..comments2023-10-31T00:46:35.316+13:00Comments on Anti-Dismal: More on Harford on Smith (updated x2)Paul Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13731003529546075700noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-16803656865578028012008-01-20T22:06:00.000+13:002008-01-20T22:06:00.000+13:00Hi PaulI have responded to Marshall jevons at Baye...Hi Paul<BR/><BR/>I have responded to Marshall jevons at Bayesian Heresy as below and this brings up to dat where matters stand:<BR/><BR/>"Hi Marshal Jevons<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your comments.<BR/><BR/>Tim Harford has sent me the reference to David Warsh's book and, since hearing directly from Tim Harford, I have now re-ordered the book as my copy is in France. I live in Edinburgh.<BR/><BR/>Let's get this clear. I did not accuse Tim Harford of lying - I have said that the source of this story (whom I believe was Murray Rothbard) was lying, or at the very, very best was grieviously, if not mischieviouly, mistaken. <BR/><BR/>I have commented on this incident in Lost Legacy (Jan 2006), or you may check the lefthand column on Lost Legacy's home page, where my original postings on Rothbard's (many) errors were collected.<BR/><BR/>The matter rests there until I receive an answer from David Warsh - a most thorough journalist, whom I have met and had interesting discussion with - and from whom I have asked for his source.<BR/><BR/>In the meantime, I shall suspend further public comment, but I do not expect to have to make a retraction as is required of scholars who find they are in error. It is also normal for journalists to do so too (and, I hope, Bloggers!)."<BR/><BR/>Gavin<BR/><BR/>PS While I am waiting for David Warsh to reply I wonder if you could report if he provides a reference to his assertion. Be clear, the source of this calumny is no David Warsh; it was Murray Rothbard.Gavin Kennedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10913775111442059982noreply@blogger.com