Bill Scott wrote:
> Puh-leeze,
>
> I'm a sometimes contributor but usually lurker here. As someone who
believes
> that variety is intellectually stimulating, I enjoy reading Mr.
Sylvester's
> jibes, ersatz questions, and racially motivated comments. Why would we
want
> to ban him from participation? I don't think he has ever pushed the
envelope
> on daily "contributions" as others have. Do I really need to hear from
some
> of you three times a day or more? What makes you think that your
> contributions are more worthwhile? I agree that we should keep to the
topic
> of teaching psychology, but most of the comments in this thread have been
> nothing but ad hominem. Those who have contributed to this thread should
> consider whether or not they are actually contributing to the mission of
> this group.
While I agree that Sylvester should not be banned (and I enjoy reading
his posts too), I cannot agree with the assumption here that his posts are
"contributions". You're comparing apples and oranges here. Sylvester posts
to this list to be annoying. No-one else does so. Counting daily posts from
individuals misses the point entirely. The "ad hominem" comment no longer
applies - in this situation, ad hominems are perfectly appropriate (and in
fact TIPSters have been very reserved in that area - we've made plenty of
fun of his idiotic posts, but it has been somewhat unusual for anyone to
actually call him names). The only basis we have for judging Sylvester is
his posts, and yes, those posts are idiotic. He knows it, and persists, and
can hardly complain if we believe he's an idiot.
I wonder what an outsider would think about our reactions to Sylvester.
Specifically, I'm relieved that we did not as a group continue to believe
that he was a serious person in our field raising important psychological
issues, but rather recognized this drivel for what it is, and knew to be
suspicious of his claim to be in our field. In other words, we could have
really embarrassed ourselves the way that the editors of Social Texts did
when they accepted the Sokal paper/hoax. I would have been extremely
disappointed in a teaching of psychology list that took posts like those of
Sylvester at face value as though he were raising serious arguments that
needed debate. That would have confirmed the right's worst suspicions about
psychologists/social scientists: that we're completely unwilling to take a
stand and distinguish between sense and nonsense (cf. the Sandra Harding
piece that Jim Clark posted). We, as a group, passed the test.
I have never tried to check on the credentials of any other TIPSter
(e.g., looking at a website) even when I strongly disagreed with that
person, because there has never been a reason to do so. The content of
Sylvester's posts made me and others suspicious enough to check, and sure
enough, he was lying. Even before we knew that for sure, his posts WERE
qualitatively different from those of ANY other regular participant* and
obviously cannot be compared. Why take deliberate idiocy seriously?
Paul
* Yeah, we've had a few short-term wackos come through, but no-one who stuck
around long enough that we'd use the term "TIPSter".
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
