[SAJ]

1) The good doctor's views were stated clearly; he disapproves of 'unqualified' bloggers commenting on economics. He considers himself apodeictically qualified, of course.
2) The only apparent differences between him and an 'unqualified' blogger are A) his Ph.D. and B) the fact that he is employed by some entity in the capacity of economic analyst.
3) Therefore, he considers either A) or B) or both to be necessary 'qualifications' in order for someone to comment on economics. However, B) can clearly NOT be, by itself, the necessary condition, for, quite obviously, any given company or university or goobermint agency is able to hire anyone it chooses, having a Ph.D. or not, as an economic analyst. Thus, either A) by itself or A) and B) together constitutes his 'necessary' condition(s). Since A) is present in both constitutions, A) is therefore THE necessary condition, according to the doctor.

He makes no sufficiency argument whatever; it might have been more interesting had he done so. Additionally, I never made any sort of sufficiency argument. This is something you apparently plucked out of thin air, rather a 'straw man' argument in its own right.

Further, because we're evidently being formalistic today, your sentence "People that live in glass houses should not throw stones." perforce should read, in proper grammar, "People who...".

As to my not "thinking logically", if you are familiar with the field of formal logic, may I suggest you consult Richmond Thomason for what I should consider a definitive view on that subject. He will very likely disabuse you of that notion in short order. He can be reached at the University of Michigan, unless he has retired by now and moved away.

Do have a nice day, laddie.

[1rudeboy]

Athreya stipulates that there are Ph.D’s in his field that don’t know what they are talking about . . . yet you appear to be defending bloggers as a group.