> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:35 PM
> > Subject: Re: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty
> >
Dan M. wrote

> > I am not defending his integrity.  I am musing on what drives people.
If
> he
> > was honor driven, the problem was tangling with the NRA.  If he was
> > integrity driven, he wouldn't have lied in the first place.
>
> I cant see where this is a binary question.

Because, with honor, the whole thing is how you look.  A man of honor can
do what he wants and keep his honor, so long as he doesn't get caught. He
loses his honor when falsely accused, as long as other people don't know
its false.

My point is that if you want to lie about something, then picking a topic
that the NRA can throw a lot of manpower and money to chase things down to
prove you wrong is really stupid.  Now, I think that lying in scholastic
research is abhorant, and it undercuts the reputation of anyone else who
does that research.  So, the question of honor vs. integrety.

He may have also been deluding himself, caught up in his beliefs to the
point where he justified making up data that he knew was there, but had
been destroyed.

>I dont see where in this case honor or integrity would be the driving
forces. I think its likely
>to be ego driven to the point that his personal prejudices over rode his
sense of
> honor and integrity.

That's probably true, because he picked the wrong opponent.  However, if he
got away with it, his honor would be intact. His integrity would not have
been.



>
> It does not surprise me at all that he was forced to resign. I smelled BS
> the first time I heard about him (here on Brin-L). The entire premise was
> preposterous to begin with, the stuff conspiracy theories are made of.

Well, it was proven wrong, but other ideas that have been just as
counterintuitive have been well documented.  What he has done was make the
job of anyone who wants to show something counterintuitive is historically
correct that much harder.  An example of this is the arguement that the
movie cowboy had little to do with reality; or that the Civil War was
really fought over slavery.  We have the president's wife, who is not
uneducated, arguing against that view as thought it was some nasty
postmodern reconstruction of history, instead of what really happened. Now,
he has given people like that more ammunition to fight against true
research.  For undermining the assumption that peer reviewed research can
be truested, he does deserve to be fired.

I'm against it even if he got away with it, but I believe in integrety, not
honor.


> >
> > Its an interesting state of affairs.  People can lie through their
teeth,
> > get caught at it, and have the people who catch them look bad.  Others,
> > can't get away with being called a liar, even if they were later proven
to
> > be telling the truth on the subject.
> >
> I agree with the above, but dont think it has much to do with Bellesiles
or
> his resignation.

Well, if he had falsified an area where there wasn't a massive "army"
opposing him, do you think it would have appeared on the radar of the
school?  Would there have been any investigation? Also, it would be
interesting to see if other tenured professors caught in this type of
shoddy work were fired.  But, others didn't do as much damage to the
institutions they supposedly supported, so if his penalty was higher than
that for others, it would still be justified.

Having said that, I am personally strongly opposed to any falsification of
any academic research, especially in support of a valid supposition.  (Not
saying his was by this.)  His actions would be especially wrong if he was
providing false data for a valid premise.

I guess what I was thinking of is how men of honor were known to lie about
substantial things, and kept their honor.  This was true, even if a man of
integrity would not have lied under those circumstances.  (For example, a
man of integrity would be happy to lie to a potential murderer to save a
life.)  So, if he picked another subject to lie about, he would keep his
honor, he just wouldn't have integrity.



Dan M.


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to