me: >> if arguments involve matters of appeal to preexisting biases and >> style, then they really don't contribute much at all. The lefts that >> are left in the US and are represented in pen-l are in big trouble and >> deserve better. They deserve clear thinking.
Doyle: > What goal do you think clear thinking is? I don't think you have a > creditable standard for that. I'm not saying this to tweak you, but to say > a 'clear standard' is a kind of production process that we could use to some > goal. It might be that an editorial doctrine of content so that someone > goes out and gets some reportage that might be x number of words and has to > report on something or the other 'clarifies'. Maybe it's easier to say what "clear thinking" is not: it avoids illogical leaps, assertions of fact that don't have any evidence to back them up, and obvious skipping of relevant questions that should be asked to try to answer the question at hand. Strange and seemingly irrelevant analogies don't fit in clear thinking. For example, a "clear standard" is NOT a "production process." It refers to a _standard_, something that one wants. A "production process," on the other hand, refers to inputs of whatever sort being transformed into outputs (usually some wanted and some not). "Clear thinking" could be seen as a crucial _part_ of an editorial doctrine. But it is not analogous to how many words should be used. The latter refers to the formal standards, not to content. > Anyway, the list can't do what you ask of it. Thinking can't be cleared up > in the sense of some sort of argument would give us something. One can > collect data, put that into databases, extract reports summarizing a method > of inquiry, but then this list can't do that. There is little need of Pen-L > for archival purposes, so the content is time sensitive and the development > of content is untenable in the sense of working back and forth to clean up > self expression. It's likely that pen-l can't achieve clear thinking, since it involves more than one person. It's hard enough for one person to pull off. But issues can at clarified: if nothing else, we can move toward having clearer differences of opinions. We don't have to appeal to emotion, preexisting biases, style, etc. In other words, even though purely clear thinking may be impossible, we can try. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
