If a dissertation needs to be written for the layman, it's not a dissertaion. That is not to say that it can't be explained to a layman sufficiently acquainted with the domain involved. I've led many thesis committees and have served as chair of tenure committees for people outside my field and I know that the distinction between the layman and the specialist is important when innovative research is involved. Whoever gave you that advice is wrong, unless it was in journalism or chic-lit or some other marginal field. Dissertations are often ultimately rewrtten for publication to the informed layman audience and the central task then is to address that wider audience. Then they're no longer dissertations.
The unfortunate connotations of my terms are removed by my explications of how I define the terms in my discussions here. If you need to stick with your popular everyday connotations then you are unwilling to think along with me. WC --- On Thu, 1/1/09, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Geoff <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 6:38 PM > William: Sometimes I think I have a lot of gall > participating on the list. > Then I think of advice I've often heard given to thesis > and dissertation > writers: Give it to someone outside your discipline to > read. If they can't > understand it, you'd best re-write it. (I'm not > advising anyone here to > re-write anything.) > I have little choice but to come to the table with my > armchair notions. > For an armchair philosopher, your defintion has unfortuante > connotations. If > everyone else gets it, let's get on with ... Santayana > (is he now passe?). > Geoff C > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Conger" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 6:06 PM > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > > > > It is a matter of belief. I believe that Newman was > who he was and I > > believe Snow White is what it is. I contextualize the > two ideas > > differently. But I still construct the ideas. > > > > In my contextualization of Newman, which is my > fictionalizing, I find far > > more evidence that he was a real person who, as you > say, had attributes > > like independent intentionality, than I do to support > the > > contextualization that he was a cartoon. > > > > However, I never saw this Newman except as a screen > image, and that's how > > I also saw Snow White. Thus my personal experience and > personal evidence > > would better support the otion that both are cartoons. > > > > But, again, the evidence is so abundant that Newman > was a person like you > > and me, and that Snow White was a cartoon image, that > my fictionalizing > > one as a person and the other as a cartoon, is more > believable (and > > pragmatically workable) than some other > fictionalizing. > > > > Remember, for me fictionalizing is a (partial and > faulty) reconstruction > > of the stream of experience in consciousness based on > evidence. > > > > Because my use of the term fiction here differs from > everyday usage, it > > only reveals the inexactness of everyday language. > For instance fiction > > as equivalent to falsity and falsity as equivalent to > lie is an easily > > disproved line of logic. > > > > We can't have a serious discussion of ideas if we > restrict ourselves to > > common everyday uses of language -- often bordering on > slang and > > colloquialism. Of course, we do need to define our > terms in philosophical > > discussion and I have done that with my term > "fiction" over and over here. > > > > WC > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 1/1/09, Geoff > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> From: Geoff <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 2:41 PM > >> William: For those persons who distinguish between > >> non-fiction and fiction > >> (as book lists do), your use of the term may be > confusing. > >> Your system has one word for events wholly > imagined as well > >> earnest reports > >> of disciplined observation. You succeed at > maintaining an > >> extreme position > >> regarding our (acknowledged) perceptual > construction and > >> obscure significant > >> differences in what are accepted > "facts": Paul > >> Newman's existence (noumenal > >> or otherwise) and Snow White's presented > existence. > >> Geoff C > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "William Conger" > >> <[email protected]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 12:37 PM > >> Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > >> > >> > >> >I think "fiction" is an excellent > word for > >> what I mean by the reinvented > >> >experience we call consciousness. It is a > make-believe > >> narrative. It may > >> >origniate in truth (the unprocessed actuality > of > >> experience) but our brains > >> >make up the story of that and then we becomes > conscious > >> of it. A marvelous > >> >fiction that if verified by evidence is > truthful > >> fiction. > >> > WC > >> > > >> > > >> > --- On Thu, 1/1/09, Geoff > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> From: Geoff > <[email protected]> > >> >> Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and > beliefs) > >> >> To: [email protected] > >> >> Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 11:11 AM > >> >> William: For what it's worth, > we're > >> approaching > >> >> convergence on "fictions". I > >> >> would say that our reality is > >> "constructed" (not > >> >> fictional) and that we > >> >> "construct" based on both > observations > >> which we > >> >> know are 'fictional" and > >> >> "factual". > >> >> I agree that my communications on the > list is > >> impaired by > >> >> my lack of > >> >> background in philosophy and creative > activity. I > >> am little > >> >> able to perceive > >> >> your position purely in philosophical > terms.
