On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Dan Minette wrote:
[snip]
> This idea leads to two more points.  First of all, IMHO, if we are going to
> have an enlightened debate/discussion about something in the world, then
> facts will probably be well worth bringing in.  I may wander off into a
> philosophical debate with Marvin, and that will probably be less fact based.
> If we do not consider facts, if we do not examine our own analysis of the
> situation, then what is done besides an exchange of pre-set ideas and
> opinions?

I just wanted to take a moment to encourage anyone daunted by the prospect
of arguing with such esteemed intellects as Dan's to look at my example.
I have a BA in philosophy, and not even the technically abstruse
advanced-logic philosophy either, but the artsy-fartsy existential stuff.
When my friends' hobbies involved learning to administer and hack Unix
systems and how to build computers from spare parts, my hobby was karate.
In other words, I spent my spare time letting people kick me in the head
(I am not much of an athlete).

I wouldn't dare contradict Dan on the technical details of QM, say, but I
feel able to argue about something as apparently rarefied as QM's
metaphysical implications.  It's not because I spend a weekend learning
the details of QM (though I do do some reading now and then when I need
more clarity) but because something a reader can do is winnow an argument
down to the points he or she feels capable of discussing.  One of the best
ways to do that is to not back down, not be intimidated, but instead to
insist again and again that a point be made in terms one can understand.

I'm sure this kind of insistence exasperates experts and specialists, but
I don't think we should blame people with skill for arguing their points
in techcnical detail, especially if the implications of that detail are
what is at stake.  What we can insist on is telling experts that, if they
want to convince us of their point of view, then they need to help us see
the reasons why and explain why our own understanding is insufficient.  In
a lot of ways I'm the last person who should get involved in a highly
detailed argument -- but if I can do it, so can you.

Don't be scared:  the kicks in the head hurt a lot less after the first
dozen or so.  :-)

Marvin Long
Austin, Texas

Reply via email to