this cartoon and your quote from Coulter (given Coulter's documented stupidity) says it all.
Can you list which of Coulter's dozen scholarly best sellers you have read......
Or have we just proven you to be our best source of Greenhouse Gases.
As to her 'scholarly' writing, a reviewer writes:
"With Coulter, I did the same thing when reading her books. I investigated several of her claims. The difference is, with everyone else I found an error within the first few issues I investigated. With Coulter, I never found an error, so I decided she was a good scholar.
To be objective, I used a random method. I'd already tried checking things that stood out to me. This time I investigated
10 random footnotes from her books. For each one, I picked a book, then I selected a chapter with a random number generator, then I went to the footnotes for that chapter and selected one with a random number generator. Whatever was randomly chosen, I committed to investigate it and reach a conclusion, even if it was hard; reselecting any footnotes would compromise objectivity.
This is not a perfect approach. If 1% of Coulter's footnotes are mistaken, I could miss it. Maybe she approaches her columns with a different respect for scholarship than the books I'm checking (why?). Maybe she has mistakes with no footnote. If I missed something, please tell me (with specifics!). Leave a comment below or email me
curi@curi.us
In my experience, I often find scholarship errors within the first three things I check for an author. Because errors are so common, I think a spot check like this is valuable. If you doubt how common errors are, I recommend you fact check some other authors. Plus, I've already read Coulter's books and checked a few claims I found suspicious, so adding random checking provides good variety and objectivity. And, while reading, I already had the opportunity to spot claims in her books that should have a footnote but don't, or notice other issues.
I checked 10 randomly selected footnotes from 5 Ann Coulter books. For each one, I present my analysis below and I score Coulter's scholarship from 0 to 5 points. Her final average score was 5, which is perfect. (I decided on the scoring system before I started.) I found no scholarship errors. Well done!
In addition to fact checking Coulter myself, I also
reviewed other people's criticism and fact checking of Coulter.
Click through for details; in summary, their own scholarship was terrible. Also, my friend fact checked one random Coulter cite I gave him, which was
correct."
I've encountered a lot of scholarship errors in books (and elsewhere) and learned to watch out for false claims. Even if a book gives a lot of footnotes, it can easily still be wrong. I often check the
curi.us
I've already shown you to be a dishonest, slanderous windbag....now it's time to bury you...
Reviewing her critics:
Curiosity – Reviewing Ann Coulter's Critics
a fact check of an attack on Coulter's scholarship. Read it if you want:
Fact Checking Al Franken
Once again we find you not to be a thinker, simply a recording machine of Democrat talking points.
Stick to your job as Garden Gnome.