----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:22 PM Subject: Re: Lurkers afraid of flames?
> 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 dropped out of college my first year and I dont find anyone here intimidating really. The subjects may be over my head sometimes and others may have superior educations in a particular subject, but I can converse about a lot of things and sometimes add something to a conversation. There have been several discussions where I asked a question or made a comment that caused the thread to veer off into a new direction or caused a subthread to be created. I may not know much about metaphysics or classical philosophy. I will likely never read Kant or Huxley, but I get to learn a bit about them in the threads where others discuss them. > > 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. Or he starts ignoring you! <G> > > 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. The basics of philosophy can be argued by anyone. Not that it will win an argument, but I think most people like to know what others think and why they think thusly, right or wrong. > > Don't be scared: the kicks in the head hurt a lot less after the first > dozen or so. :-) But a poke in the eye with a sharp stick is forever.........at least until we start ranching headless clones. <G> BTW Headless Clone Ranching is a popular thread over on the Culture list these days. See what you done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! xponent Talk Among Yourselves Maru rob
