Edwina, Jon, John, list, Edwina wrote:
ET: I question the use of off-line comments to support the analysis and conclusions of an argument. Off-line comments are usually in support of a poster and do not, in themselves, include any argument. If they did include data and analysis - then, they would be posted to the list. [. . .] I think an argument has to stand on its own merits. I agree, and would like to think that virtually every member of this forum does as well. Regarding the off-list exchange between Jon and John, Jon wrote: JAS: John received off-List comments supporting him against me, and I received off-List comments supporting me against him. He shared some of the comments that he received with me off-List, so I reciprocated. He then (wrongly, in my view) posted what I sent him and omitted what he had sent me, thus implying that I was the one who had initiated our off-List exchange. Again, I agree. John initiated the off-list exchange by quoting anonymous snippets of off-list posts to him showing support for his (John's) views; Jon then reciprocated off-list saying that he too had received support for his (Jon's) on list arguments and offered, more or less tit for tat, 'evidence' that he had. That should have ended the matter, and the rest of us in the forum wouldn't have known about the exchange. But, then John included in a post to the list the snippets of support that Jon had sent him without acknowledging that he, John, had *initiated* their off-list exchange which initial off-list post included snippets of support for his (John's) position. In my view that was inappropriate not only for the reasons which Edwina outlined, but also, in fairness to Jon, John should have acknowledged that it was he, John, who had initiated the off list discussion. John should not have posted on list those supportive remarks sent to Jon off list, and especially since he (John) didn't include those sent to him and forwarded off-list to Jon. Jon appropriately did *not* post to the list those remarks sent to John in support of his (John's) views on the matter under discussion. (I apologize if I've been over meticulous in explicating the exchanges under consideration.) But let's move on; John and Jon are, in my opinion, both excellent contributors to peirce-l. I'll conclude by paraphrasing both Jon and Edwina: let us each make our cases as best we can--let each argument and line of argumentation speak for itself--and let the readers of the forum make up their own minds as to who has been most persuasive in their argumentation. Best, Gary R (writing as list moderator) *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* ++ On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:12 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Edwina, List: > > One more time--I agree completely. However, what you describe is not what > happened in this case. John received off-List comments supporting him > against me, and I received off-List comments supporting me against him. He > shared some of the comments that he received with me off-List, so I > reciprocated. He then (wrongly, in my view) posted what I sent him and > omitted what he had sent me, thus implying that I was the one who had > initiated our off-List exchange. > > None of us are mind-readers, so discerning someone else's *unconscious *biases > or personal agendas is always fraught with speculation. Nevertheless, if > anyone suspects that such influences might be governing my on-List > argumentation, then I hope that they would *contact me* off-List, rather > than someone else (including John). Alternatively, an on-List post would > enable all readers to make up their own minds whether such concerns have > any merit. > > On the other hand, I have pointed out repeatedly that John and I clearly > have different *purposes *in studying and discussing Peirce's > writings--and that sometimes results in *consciously *approaching them > with different agendas. I wish that he would join me in acknowledging > that, rather than repeatedly assuming that anyone who disagrees with him > must not *really *understand the issues, and thus needs his help to see > the light. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:04 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> JAS - I don't want to get into a fuss about this but I think you are >> missing my point - which is that off-list comments frequently are not about >> the topic but about the poster. About the biases and personal agendas which >> might intrude on and even control the argumentation of that poster. That >> cannot easily be addressed by 'reading, writing' about the argument - >> because it's not the argument that is obstructing discussion!!!- it's the >> poster's personal agenda/personality [which might be unconscious]. >> >> Your conclusion to John didn't acknowledge this - and, after all, since >> the problem might be unconscious, that's hardly unusual that one doesn't >> acknowledge it! Sometimes it can only be done if enough people say to the >> poster: Hey- aren't you aware of it? Your hair is on fire! - So- stop >> talking about logical patterns and do something!' >> >> Edwina >> >> On Fri 22/03/19 10:37 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] >> sent: >> >> Edwina, List: >> >> Again, I agree completely. For the record, here is how I concluded my >> off-List message to John, which he opted not to include in his post. >> >> As Peirce himself put it, "Different people have such wonderfully >> different ways of thinking" (CP 6.462, EP 2:437; 1908). In my case, I do >> my best thinking by reading, writing, and then responding to >> feedback--typically learning the most when someone takes the time to >> express and defend disagreement with me, forcing me to rethink by rereading >> and rewriting. That being the case, I sincerely appreciate our recent >> exchanges, although I continue to wish that they would not become so >> contentious, recognizing that I share the blame when that happens. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon S. >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:25 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Yes, JAS, but I also meant that one doesn't, even in a private off-list >>> exchange, send to each other what someone else has written about you - as >>> a tactic to support one's argument!. So- neither you nor John should >>> have sent each other the private comments that others made to each of >>> you - again as a tactic to support your argument. Since, presumably, >>> these were not arguments about the topic, but personal comments about the >>> posters, you and John. >>> >>> The arguments have to stand on their own. >>> >>> But there is a different issue - which is what I'm talking about - and >>> it is: - can our analytic capacities be smothered by our own biases or >>> perspectives? I can understand why we send and even should send, other's >>> views about each other - when, for example, the personality of the poster >>> [JAS and John in this case] seems to override the content of the argument. >>> That happens quite often, when a poster has a philosophical or other >>> agenda, which takes over and even controls the analysis and argument. How >>> do you inform a poster that his private perhaps unconscious agenda is >>> smothering a clear analysis of the topic? Sometimes you can only persuade >>> the poster of this fact by informing him that others can see this problem. >>> So- it's not a tactic to support the argument, but a method of showing the >>> other poster that he has a serious 'blind spot' which he can't acknowledge. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> On Fri 22/03/19 9:39 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] >>> sent: >>> >>> List: >>> >>> I agree completely with Edwina. What John Sowa failed to mention is >>> that he initiated our off-List exchange by relaying similar comments about >>> me that others had sent to him. I will not provide them here, because I >>> believe that it is highly inappropriate to post someone else's off-List >>> statements without permission--even anonymously--which is what John has now >>> done. As I have said repeatedly, I am content to make my case to the best >>> of my ability, and let those reading along decide for themselves who has >>> the more persuasive argument. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 8:15 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I question the use of off-line comments to support the analysis and >>>> conclusions of an argument. >>>> >>>> Off-line comments are usually in support of a poster and do not, in >>>> themselves, include any argument. If they did include data and analysis - >>>> then, they would be posted to the list. >>>> >>>> So, I don't think that JAS can consider off-line comments as >>>> 'argumentatively' supportive - so, there's no need to send them to anyone >>>> else. After all - just because someone agrees with me [and my argument] >>>> doesn't mean that I or they, are right in this opinion. We can see that >>>> problem in the, at one time, strong popular support for >>>> witches-causing-illness. >>>> >>>> I think an argument has to stand on its own merits. >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
