----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:46 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
> On Apr 19, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hmm. If you had to be taught it, does it surprise you that the skill -- > which might well be acquired, not innate -- is not universally to be > found? No, I'm not surprised at all. > My own background is probably working against me here. As a writer, > consumer and editor of fiction I tend to prefer phrases that engender > strong reactions in readers. That kind of incisive, sometimes > confrontational language, coupled with presentation of ideas that might > go against the grain of thinking in readers, is something I find > stimulating. OK, I follow that so far. > One of the reasons I like Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, > for instance, is that I can see, very clearly, how carefully he > constructed his Lunar society to give room for his ideas to function. > But as I read that book I was constantly aware of how very impractical, > to me at least, his tenets were; that is, in the "real" world, without > the constructs he'd erected to support them, I think his ideologies > would quickly collapse. Agreed. > What I mean is that I just don't agree with his politics as presented > in that novel, but I thought it was well-done as a polemic anyway, > because it was quite internally consistent, even where a lot of his > characters' reactions and behaviors (to me) simply couldn't work in > application. > The other thing I liked in Heinlein's opus was the pidgin he used in > the text, BTW. I thought it was a really interesting voice to use for > the story. That helped give his society a organic feel; I agree it was effective. > But the point is that while you're working from one space of experience > and promotion of thought, I'm working from another one, and I think we > both have acquired behaviors that in some places just don't intersect, > which seems to generate sparks from time to time. OK, that seems reasonable. The problem to be solved, then, is how to keep this from interfering with communication. > OK, fine -- but I don't always rate my certainties as 10. Only the > things that I really feel pretty sure of. There are definitely times > when I'll get hyperbolic, but that's not the same thing as saying I've > got Absolute Certainty in an opinion, only that I'm using incendiary > language to put forth a point. > To be fair I don't always make the distinction when I comment on > something, which surely doesn't help anyone else decide whether I think > I'm right or I'm just blowing hot gas. ;) I wouldn't mind having to ask which is it from time to time if you don't mind being asked. If we agree that you sometimes use hyperbola and sometimes take strong serious positions, this seems like an obvious thing to do. > That last sentence is interesting. Do you mean you don't *recall* being > wrong, or that you never were wrong, or that you were just cautious in > areas you were unsure and retracted ideas regularly? Oh, that sentence was not intended to be interpreted that way (althought I can see why you would read it that way). I've been wrong plenty of times. I just have not been wrong on those occasions when I invoked the "Nobel Prize" arguement. I'll give an example of the use of this. One district engineer told me that his equipment was working just fine, it was just that this particular source had statistical uncertainty that was different from the theoretical statistical uncertainty. I won't bore you with the details, but the statistical distribution of 1 second count rates for a gamma ray detector is well approximated by a Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of sqrt(cps) (as long as the cps is sufficiently high so the Gaussian distribution does not get close to zero). He was arguing, in his case, the numbers were far different than that. I told him I could guarantee _that_ wasn't the problem, and if it was we'd be rich from the Nobel prize money for falsifying QM. I was very careful not to invoke that without that type of assurance. If you told me that you had a perpetual motion machine that took heat out of the earth and did work without putting heat in a colder body, I'd use it. I didn't use it when you stated string theory removed indetermancies because I was only 99% sure that was wrong. (it was actually infinities....which does make sense.) > As it happens I've seen some very absolutist statements coming from > Gautam, regular use of adjectives such as "absurd" and "nonsense", > etc., and yet I don't see you calling him out on his language like > you've chosen to target me. OK, a fair observation. You are right that I don't do it. I cannot remember when he used such strong language and I called him on it. The reason for this isn't automatic deference to his education. It's that when I look at that type of statement, I don't have the resources to mount a counter-arguement that meets my standards. Let me give an example of such a resource...if I could find an example where a well respected writer in his field gave virtually the same arguement in what looks like a well reasoned case, then I wouldn't hesitate to bring it up. The bar he sets for himself when he calls something absurd is high. My observation has been, unless he gets very very upset, he realizes how high he sets the bar and is prepared to defend it well. That doesn't mean that he isn't sometimes wrong when he uses definitive but less strong language. I called him on a post concerning Bush's African AIDs initiave last summer. He quoted a good off the record source he had, which I have found to usually be good. But, my Zambian daughter was working for a lobby that looked out for the interests of Africa in Washington and was sitting in the committee hearing, taking notes at the time. She said if she had time that she could get hard proof to back up her memory, but she was in a rush to leave for school in Europe and didn't get it done. The exchange was what I would call pleasant, because we followed similar norms. Your point about fiction writing having different norms is relevant here, I think. It sounds as though you are claiming that the communications problem is due to a difference in language norms. That seems like a pretty defensible point....indicating that we need to find a pleasant way to deal with that. For example asking if you are serious or just posting for effect sounds reasonable to me....and I'm open to suggestions on this. > Perhaps you respect his education; I'm wondering if you're not a little > in awe of it. Respecting it too much, I mean. Alma maters and > fellowships and such are not absolute measures of the validity of a > person's point of view, after all, and they don't give carte blanche to > belittle others in any context. Yet that seems to be his approach to > those who question his judgment on anything, which makes me wonder why > you haven't pointed it out. Well, there's a bit of history between us. We've been arguing on list for about six years I think. We still argue regularly via IM. I respect him because of what he has accomplished in the arguements. While we are not as good in our fields as they were in theirs, it's kinda like Shaq and Hakeem. Shaq deferrs to Hakeem and because Hakeem had taken him to school in the low post in some key games. From the battles we've had, I have come to the conclusion that I need to treat him like a worthy opponent. After your bell has been rung once or twice, you proceed with caution. I think, although this may be just ego on my part, that he feels the same way on a number of issues. >All I'm > trying to say is that such honors and academic achievement, while > impressive, don't necessarily mean his opinions on a subject are more > valid than mine; his background is not the same as my own, we've had > very different life experiences, and we're bound to have dissimilar > views on a range of topics, which means that in matters of life > experience and outlook, there's the possibility that my views are every > bit as sound as his when looked at from a different angle. The possibility is there....but the probability strongly depends on the field. For example, there are few people on this list that I think have a good chance of being right about an issue in QM that I'm quite sure about. If Rich were to post, since he's an ABD (all but dissertation) in theoretical physics, I'd take notice. If Julie started making definitive statements on QM, I wouldn't take them seriously. (But, I'd worry that thousands of acres of grass were burning around the Georgetown area. :-) > To the extent that someone has a deep education in history, I'd have to > concede any point that dealt with historical facts. Conclusions, > however, based upon those facts are nowhere near as concrete. They are not. It's more that someone in the field is likely to be familiar with the range of scholarly opinion in the field. If someone who argues that two generations of Bush presidents were secretly on the Saudi payroll, then they should expect a very strong reaction when they merely give arm waving arguements. I think it is fair to say, that even among strong critics of Bush I and Bush II's foreign policy in that foreign policy community, this type of statement would be likely to be met with derision. > > I understand that; however, the argument from authority I was referring > to is more on the order of "I know more than you on subject A, which > means I can comment with impunity on subject B, even though it's only > partially related." You know, I can see why you might think that, but I don't think that's what is really going on. It's more "I'm very aware of the range of scholarly opinion on this and I'm all but positive that no one with a good reputation accepts that idea. Look back, Gautam has said that the advisability of invading Iraq was a question that reasonable people can differ on. > I don't think I've tried to take on Gautam in regards to history's > facts, though I do know I've sparred with him on how those facts can be > interpreted. >"That's just the empty cant of ideologically and morally bereft leftist extremists" He usually reserves that for the least defensible arguements from the left. It might be instructive to read some of the works of folks he has enormous respect for. I've seen Hoffman tear Bush's policy to shreads. But, his work isn't an empty cant. > "Morality is not the product of an opinion poll. Something is either > the right thing to do or it is not" -- which are both at least as over > the top as my use of the word "unjustifiable", yet which somehow didn't > raise a single ping on your scopes. I actually commented on that privately to him...because it is something I believe is a faith statement. Maybe I should have done it publically. But, from earlier posts, it was probably something that Debbie agreed with, that there is right and wrong, so it was a close call. Your reply to that wasn't bad, by the way, I'll respond with some quibbles later. One thing to think about is what kind of hole you dug for yourself personally with your arguements there....because it seems to me that you are saying the majority is always right on morality by definition....but I'll leave that to another post. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
