BTW Case, I will respond to more of your points - some good ones in there - when I get a chance ...
Ian On 2/19/07, ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for that clarification Case, > > I did recognise the irony in Poot's mail, but I joined the thread much > later after several threads had converged on the quality of the > "sustainability" arguments. > > Our difference is as you say tactical - I'm having a debate (in-house > argument) with quality people, whereas you are still fighting battles > with the Platt's of this world. I have moved on from even bothering to > point out how ridiculous his perspective is. Whilst some of us seek > progress, we do all still need to keep an eye on the rear-guard - no > disagreement there. > > Regards > Ian > > On 2/16/07, Case <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ian, > > > > My problem with your post was that you insert a kind of in-house argument > > about the nature of academic discourse into a thread where Platt is arguing > > that academics are a bunch of bed wetting liberals crying wolf so they can > > justify marching people off to Gulags. The utter sarcasm of Poot's post > > seemed totally to have passed you by. > > > > > > Further comments on specifics: > > > > > [Case] > > > Newton just about single handedly invented modern science. His reluctance > > > to publish and his battles with Hook and Royal Society are legendary. But > > > this is the kind of office politics that is inevitable in any human > > > institution. > > > > [IG] Tell me something I didn't know. And when you've done that tell > > me something relevant to my point. Inevitable, take note, your word. > > > > [Case] > > The Royal Society printed what may have been the first scientific journal. > > My point was that from the beginning there were in-house arguments about > > publications rights, giving credit where it was due etc. etc. But these were > > in-house office politics not liberal/conservative politics. When scientists > > have to deal with real politics science suffers. > > > > The fact that flaws in human institutions are inevitable does not mean we > > should abandon the institutions or any attempts to correct such flaws as can > > be corrected. Nor do the existence of inevitable flaws invalidate the > > enterprise. > > > > > > [IG] I'm NOT talking about "mistakes" nor am I condemning it. I'm > > talking about situations where the balance is closer to rhretoric than > > objective logic. Of course I support peer review. But the further it > > gets from simple repeatable cases, further from Newtonian mechanics, > > the more it depends on rhetoric. Inevitable, as you said. > > > > [Case] > > Newtonian mechanics are nothing if not mathematical. Mathematics is > > persuasive because it is non-rhetorical. You can go way beyond Newton and > > still employ mathematics unambiguously. Platt is claiming that the current > > global crisis is being manufactured through statistical lies. My claim is > > that peer review moderates against this. I do not think statistics in > > scientific journals can be manipulated in this way. And of such manipulation > > survives peer review there are plenty of journal readers to correct the > > problems. > > > > [IG] I'm fully aware of that risk and suffer the slings and arrows > > constantly, lest I forget. Which is good. In a community like this > > though, I'd expect people to at least see the middle-ground I'm > > pointing at, praticularly as it was Pirsig that pointed out to most of > > us that there was something valuable underlying these damn subjects > > and objects we're all so quick to divide the world up into. > > (postmodernish-cult-of-professionals ? you'll have to elaborate.) > > > > [Case] > > I listened to a debate between Dennett and Roty not long ago were in Roty > > seemed to be claiming the lawyers and scientists were on an equal footing > > because they were both professional communities of experts seeking after > > truth. There are kinds and degrees of truth and by the time your analysis > > reaches a point where all of them are on equal footing, all relevance has > > long since vanished. Sure the universe is one, so what? > > > > [IG] I'd be much obliged if you could point out where I said "any". > > That would be plain wrong. (Stop excluding middles - "forced" to make > > a choice between two, I'd make the same one as you, I'm an engineer / > > technologist / scientist through and through, but "given" a free > > choice, I choose the middle.) > > > > [Case] > > Again my point was made in the context of the discussion at hand. Platt is > > asking how one picks a valid source. I don't think it is a safe to say that > > people do know these things. We have people here quoting as authorities > > bloggers, random forum posts and just about anything else they turn up in a > > Google search. There is often not discernment at all as to what is credible. > > Platt would put "some-guy's-blog" on an equal footing with Science and > > Nature. > > > > [IG] You telling me ? Blogger of this parish ? > > > > [Case] > > Yes I am. As a blogger would you claim that the stuff you blog should be > > treated as authoritative? Traditional news outlets at least in the past > > lived or died on their reputations. You might not like the way your local > > paper said things but you had a pretty good idea of how to judge its > > contents. Those kinds of relationships between reader and writer are not as > > clear as they once were. > > > > [IG] A "seal of approval" is a social phenomenon, reliant on rhetoric > > and social authority ... good when used appropriately, but not > > foolproof over intellect, and better understood as a result. That's > > largely what Booth's paper is about. Jeez Pirsig was a teacher of > > rhetoric ! > > > > [Case] > > The "seal of approval" conferred by publication in an academic journal still > > means something. It means what the article in question meets certain high > > standards. Far higher standards than what is published in almost any other > > form of discourse. This is true of nearly all professional journals. They > > are written by people who know what they are talking about for people > > trained to understand them. Certainly when they have a position, they are > > seeking to persuade. But this is a far cry from the use of rhetoric in other > > areas. > > > > > [Case] > > > To abandon this goal to some idealized democratization of intellect is > > > sheer folly. > > > > [IG] Abandon. Jeez where did you dream that. No such words ever cross my > > lips. > > > > [Case] > > What you said was, "Only the long run, evolved, emergent outcome of patterns > > in large bodies of free dialogue and narrative get close to "truth"." If my > > interpretation of your meaning is skewed I apologize but maybe you could > > elaborate. > > > > > [Case] > > > Society can eventually learn to love its contrarians but by God they > > > ought to have to work for that love. There should be obstacles in the path > > > of wackos. > > > > [IG] There are penty, thank god. But equally, thank god, they are only > > obstacles, not exclusions. It's not all or nothing. Repeat after me > > ... > > > > [Case] > > Once again the point in this thread was Platt's contention that academics > > are a bunch of bedwetting liberals who throw up obstacles to prevent right > > thinking good Americans from having their say. We are safe in just ignoring > > the scientific community because they are no better than lawyers, they are > > just grinding personal axes and if they were worth a crap they would get > > real jobs... > > > > > [Case] > > > If society is going to be totally open minded there is not telling what > > > kind of nonsense will pass as common sense. > > > > [IG] Totally !?! you extremist. I never used such a word. I'd like to > > think no nonsense will ever pass me as common sense, but it might > > strike me as worth thinking about. > > > > [Case] > > No, you want to take both extremes seriously so you can find a path down the > > middle. Well look around, the middle has shifted because liberals have > > tolerated the nonsense issuing from cranks. It has become common sense that > > government is wasteful, politicians are crooked and academics are bed > > wetting liberals. I have recently renounced tolerance as a virtue. It is > > not. And the middle of the road looked a lot better when it was closer to > > the actual middle of the road. In the mean time all I ever got out of > > sitting on the fence was aching nuts. > > > > [IG] > > We're talking quality ... some ideas are better than others, but the > > better ones ain't necessarily "totally" right, nor the inferior ones > > "totally" wrong for that matter. Is that so hard to accept, or are you > > a totalitarian at heart ? > > > > I'm disappointed case. > > > > [Case] > > No we are talking about how to judge Quality and the MoQ is next to > > worthless in this respect. Everyone here judges Quality in light of their > > preexisting prejudices. When an idea is so bad that all you can say for it > > is that is not "totally" wrong what respect does it deserve? If all that is > > good about it is its sentence structure that baby belongs out in the yard > > with the bathwater. > > > > Conversely when a good idea is not "totally" right, this does not mean we > > should toss it because it has faults. Good ideas should not be treated as > > equal to bad ideas in establishing middle ground. > > > > Yes, I am embracing this new intolerance with a vengeance. Having one foot > > in a bucket of boiling water and the other in a bucket of ice does not > > average out to being cozy. > > > > We are dealing here with people who think that the extinction of a species > > is no big deal; especially if we can save thirty cents a month on our power > > bill. It doesn't really matter if the ice caps melt because it could be good > > for the real estate market. It's ok if we pollute the air and water because > > our descendants will be clever enough to figure out something else to drink > > and breathe. > > > > moq_discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
