Andrew, of course you are right, but there is a quandary, and I think
David's comment addresses it directly.
The bad faith arguers make every effort to look as if they are arguing
in good faith. So it's hard to tell.
My recommended tactic is to avoid assuming that any given person is a
member of the confusers of of the confused. If someone begins to
appear stubborn, I will give up arguing with them unless they have an
uncommitted audience.
If they appear to have such an audience, I will try to take some time
to argue with them, with the full knowledge that it is the audience,
and not the individual, that I am trying to convince.
We scientists have the advantage that truth is on our side. The
obfuscators have the advantage that they get paid for their
participation in the debate while we, at best, get paid despite our
participation.
They (people who put politics ahead of truth with whatever their
agenda) also have the advantage that liars can be more creative than
truth-tellers, as David Mamet points out:
"Law, politics and commerce are based on lies. That is, the
premises giving rise to opposition are real, but the debate occurs not
between these premises but between their proxy, substitute positions.
The two parties to a legal dispute (as the opponents in an election)
each select an essentially absurd position. "I did not kill my wife
and Ron Goldman," "A rising tide raises all boats," "Tobacco does not
cause cancer." Should one be able to support this position, such that
it prevails over the nonsense of his opponent, he is awarded the
decision. ...
"In these fibbing competitions, the party actually wronged, the
party with an actual practicable program, or possessing an actually
beneficial product, is at a severe disadvantage; he is stuck with a
position he cannot abandon, and, thus, cannot engage his talents for
elaboration, distraction, drama and subterfuge."
-- David Mamet in "Bambi vs Godzilla: Why art loses in Hollywood",
Harper's, June 2005.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
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/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
