--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <jstein@> wrote: > > > [snip] > > > 3) Judy: "And apparently completely missed the fact > > > that the "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to > > > successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted > > > because attention was paid to it." > > > > > > 4) Me (a Mullah Nasrudin story): "A friend noticed > > > that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle > > > crumbs on his doorstep. 'Why do you do that, friend?' > > > : 'To keep the lions away' : 'But there aren't any > > > lions here?' : 'See, it works!'" > > [snip] > > > > Go back to Judy's assertion at (3). Note that it is a > > > bald assertion. There is no presentation of evidence. > > > > > > That's why the Nasrudin story is to the point. The > > > Nasrudin story is a charming way of presenting what > > > would otherwise be a dry point. Viz: > > > > > > :: The failure of a catastrophic scenario to > > > materialise can never IN ITSELF count as justification > > > for any steps we may have taken to avert it :: > > > > Since I never said it did, we can add "non sequitur" > > to the "thought-stopper" charge. > > The point is NOT "that you said it". Rather it is that as you > said nothing ELSE other than *what amounts to that*, the logic > of Nasrudin applied to you.
It would have applied to me if you'd asked me for evidence and all I'd said was, "Well, nothing bad happened." But you didn't ask; you just *assumed*. As far as you were concerned, the Nasrudin story nailed it, no further discussion necessary. > > > (Think priests praying to avert the end of the world > > > next Thursday and then telling you smugly on Friday > > > "we told you so"). > > > > > > But in the absence of evidence - that is all Judy's > > > asserion at (3) is. So, in other words that's what the > > > Nasrudin story is - it's a request for evidence. > > > > Well, no, it's not a request for evidence. It's an > > implicit assertion that there can *be* no evidence. > > That's why I called it a thought-stopper. > > You need to explain that. "Implicit" looks supicious. You mean > something like "it doesn't outright say this, but it means > this"? Do you really not know what "implicit" means? > How so? How EXACTLY does the Nasrudin tale "implicitly assert" > (whatever that means) that "THAT THERE CAN *BE* NO > EVIDENCE"? Now that there... Yes, that WOULD be a "thought > stopper"! Except that it does NOT entail or assert any > such thing. > > There is a threat: Lions, Y2K, The end of the world, whatever. > We do something: Scatter crumbs, spend billions, do some chants > Time passes: No lions, no computer disaaster, no end of world > > If we just say "see, we averted the disaster", The Nasrudin > tale is reminding us about some missing steps: Evidence that > the threat existed in the first place and that the measures we > took fixed the problem. That's all. Nothing else. It does NOT > say implicitly or explicitly "that there can *be* no evidence" > (as you put it). If it did it would be crazy. It's crazy as applied to Y2K or AGW. It's not crazy in its original context because its *assumption* is that the lions are imaginary and the crumbs completely unnecessary. If it points to "missing steps," it's to imply that the steps are missing because the lions and the protective power of crumbs were a fantasy to start with. How do we know this? Because the protective ritual would never keep lions away. If the story had Nasrudin circling his dwelling with bonfires, which *would* keep lions away, you'd have a case. The Nasrudin story is about patently irrational fears and protective rituals. It's still a thought-stopper, but what it stops is *irrational* thought. That's why it's intellectually dishonest to use it as an argument about Y2K or AGW. > So it is no "thought stopper". So there is no "intellectual > dishonesty". We disagree. <snip> > Of course you have NOW said more And would have said more two posts ago had you *asked* me to say more instead of dropping the thought-stopper. , and linked to an article > that looks for the white teeth in the Y2K's rotting corpse. > Fair enough. You've also added this: "...as for the countries > that did little or nothing and had no major problems, that > doesn't prove anything, given the vast differences between the > size and complexity of their infrastructures and the degree of > the dependence of those infrastructures on electronic > information technology". > > I'm underwhelmed by that point I'm afraid. Actually Dutton had > said plenty on this in any case. e.g. "It must have been > galling for computer-conscientious Germans to observe how life > continued its pleasurable path for feckless Italians, who had > generally paid no attention to Y2K". > > Italy, eh? Insufficently complex infrastucture and dependence > on IT? Come on! Not sure why you'd even question that. Whether Germany could have gotten away with no fixes, I have no idea, but my comparison was to larger countries like the United States. Italy relies on computer systems much less than the U.S. and many other countries. And as it happens, although Italy started late, it *did* pay attention and got its critical systems fixed in time. Your philosophy professor needs to update his facts. See the second URL below for more on this. You left on the table my point about the consensus of IT experts that it *was* a threat and that the fixes they implemented *did* neutralize it. Here's a piece (transcript of a radio program, actually) with more testimony to that effect: http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/y2k/transa.html Here's another retrospective piece: http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/categories/smoothly.html > Finally, you say this. > > > "You have a habit of leaving lots of stuff on the table. > > You tend to pick out a tidbit here or there to address > > in such a way that the original discussion gets derailed > > and sidetracked. It's hard not to see that as deliberate. > > And once again you see monsters in the dark shadows that just > aren't there. "Deliberate!". The explanation is much more > dull. Time does not allow all these things to be pursued at > once, especially if we're to try hard to get to the bottom of > an issue. Uh-huh. Funny how the purportedly unintentional result always seems to be that the original discussion gets derailed and sidetracked. Just coincidence, I guess. I suppose my focus has been (rightly or wrongly) to > begin by trying to slay your imagined monsters before settling > down to a nice chat. Hence the title of this thread. No "nice chat" is possible if your claim is that my "monsters" are imaginary. We might have a nice chat about *whether* my monsters are imaginary, but you're too busy slaying them because you simply *assume* they are, in the process neatly evading most of what I present to show that they aren't. Your claim that my monsters are imaginary would be a lot more credible if I were a gloom- and-doom fanatic, but I'm actually quite selective. (And I rely on experts in the field, not philosophy professors and Sufi teaching stories and conspiracy theories.)
