On Sep 4, 12:16 am, abcdefz <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm going to nit-pick a little here, since the "Poor Epistemological > Standards" title is so ripe for criticism. But with a smile on my > face, I'm not here to insult anyone, really, I'm new to "Google > groups", and haven't posted anything yet, so why not start here...it's > an interesting line of thought... > > On Aug 18, 12:51 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You don't hear that phrase [I'm assuming "Poor Epistemological Standards"] > > often, do you? > > No, you don't. And I believe the reason for that is, anyone who even > uses the term "epistemological" is not likely to try and frame the > concept in such an informal way. Try tweaking the phrase. Is > 'standardization' something you can 'do' with epistemology??? The > word _means_ "theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, > validity, and scope." Theories can be falsified, but rarely > 'proven'. Any scientist will tell you that the theory that the sun > will rise tomorrow is ... 'falsifiable' ... and nothing more. > Just because it's happened throughout all of recorded human history, > don't mean it'll happen tomorrow! > > Do you think it is > > > appropriate to say that a group/category of people has "poor > > epistemological standards" when that group/category has a history of > > making wrong decisions with a strong sense of conviction? For > > example, consider jurors and judges convicting defendants who, after > > years in prison, are exonerated by DNA evidence. > > Who would you fault here? The judge, who's supposed to instruct the > jury in the correct application of their decision making talents, > within a very narrow range, dictated by the particulars of the case, > and the laws that are thereunto applicable? The jury, who may or may > not have been given all the facts upon which they are expected to > adjudicate? The prosecutor, who may or may not have an ulterior > motive in presenting the case in the way that he or she does? There > was recently a story in the news about pervasive, pernicious, legally > questionable problems with the _entire_ North Carolina crime lab > system. > What do you do there??? > > And, what about > > > government officials who wage war because they falsely believe that > > there are "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq? Can you think of a > > better phrase to describe them? > > Absolutely. > The phrase/word is "mistaken". > > Since the whole flap is mentioned here, I can't help but comment on > the fact that _ALL_ of our 'allies', (I use that word in place of > "NATO allies", because I'm not sure that all of our 'allies' in the > conflict _were_ 'NATO'), anyhoo, ALL of our allies had the same > incorrect information sitting in front of them, and the powers that > be, in _EACH_ of our 'allies' respective governments, decided that the > information was 'actionable'. They _ALL_ made the same mistake, based > on incorrect information. Time to stop blaming George W. Bush for a > MISTAKE that ALL of the 'involved' world leaders made, agreed upon, > and took action as a result of... > > jdg
Too vebose and wrong. Don't you remember the "Freedom Fries" propaganda campaign? The French wanted to gather more information before waging war with Iraq. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries . Not that it matters because, when a group is unanimously wrong, it just means that they are in bad company. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
