http://cms.studentsforacademicfreedom.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2210&Itemid=3 I read the article. The 'debate' struck me as being nothing of a debate insofar as Horowitz and Steinberger largely talk past each other. Horowitz plays the political animal while Steinberger does what most academics do. Not sure about Charlie Hinkle who curiously feels himself abused. Maybe something is missing from the transcript or perhaps something happened that wouldn't show up on a transcript. What I found odd was Steinberger's argument for why so many academics are liberal. What I gather is that Steinberger takes there to be a preponderance of current evidence regarding the moral intuition that social luck should be moderated. I haven't a clue how one accumulates arguments and evidence regarding moral intuitions. I mean, one can survey people regarding their having this intuition, but surely one doesn't arrive at this intuition through argument and evidence. It seems to me that the reference to moral intuitions is a bit of a conversation stopper and not appropriate. According to Steinberger, because academics are focused on argument and evidence, and there is this preponderance of evidence, it should not be surprising that the majority of good academics follow the evidence and arrive at a liberal position. Leaving aside the dubious claim regarding intuitions, argument and evidence, there is the matter of what conservatives are doing when they raise serious, intelligent concerns regarding particular attempts to mitigate social luck. From the little I know of these matters, virtually all conservatives seem willing to consider mitigating social luck, it is just that they adopt a different approach to how one ought to go about this business. For example, conservatives are suspicious of government as an effective means for accomplishing social goals and prefer using either market forces or philanthropy. And surely there is evidence that these are effective to at least some degree. Why, then, should 'following the evidence' inevitably lead, as Steinberger implies, to a liberal position? In short, isn't it a bit problematic to claim that conservatives are not interested in mitigating social luck when the difference seems to be one of means? Finally, it seems a bit circular to claim that the preponderance of evidence, which I take to be evidence found in academic circles, leads academics to adopt a particular stance regarding the evidence. If we are talking about peer-reviewed evidence, and the majority of academics are liberal, it won't be surprising that what counts as evidence is of the liberal kind. Just as Steinberger takes liberals to be concerned with evidence and conservatives with doubts and skepticism, surely a majority of liberal academics will determine what counts as a preponderance of evidence. This isn't a defence of Horowitz, who in my opinion is a nutjob, but a question whether Steinberger is right regarding why liberals dominate academic, if in fact they do. Have I missed something in Steinberger's argument? Sincerely, Phil Enns ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html