Whenever this book comes up there are comments about it being debunked and Pinker cherry-picking sources, but I have yet to find a serious scholarly critique.
I would seriously love to read a view from, say, a professional historian as to pinker's methods.
If anyone knows a good non-wingnut counterpoint please tell.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature...
From the comments I am reading here I am gathering that Pinker's work is exploratory and not scientific (keep in mind that I have not read it myself). If that is the case then there are no grounds for a counterpoint.
Exploratory works can be used as a framework on which to build points and counterpoints, but attempting to disprove them is a fundamental error.
All it comes down to is this default argumentative state that the internet seems to have.
I'm most interested in accusations that he cherry-picked his sources or data, and I haven't seen any of these backed up. (Other than rambling rants like the above "criticism" which says that adjusting for world population is "massaging the numbers".)
Edit: typos