>is simultaneously an appeal to emotion and a presumptuous ad hominem.
I don't see how that is the case.
If he _really_ felt bad, he'd have done what Norbert Weiner did and move out of the field. He stayed an economist. Not so bad feeling, eh?
>but he still promulgated theories which wreaked the badness he felt bad about
No. His prediction was that increasing the minimum wage leads to increased unemployment. He predicted a negative effect and a negative effect happened.
None of this has to do with article, which makes a very simple point about statistics.
I am addressing a 'how is this ad hom' question not Friedman's character or the article. I seek to explain what view of him would be a critique of character not substance.