Re: THe OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:19:53 GMT
Message-ID: <tGU1g.63393$VV4.1184460_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Marshall Spight wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>>Marshall Spight wrote: >> >>>I guess you have a hard time telling the difference between >>>commenting on a person and commenting on an idea >> >>I would guess the same about you.
>
>
> How interesting! I find that a surprising result. I would have
> thought you would have considered the distinction irrelevant.
> Perhaps I simply misunderstand you.
>
> I still don't like name-calling, though. I still think it's
> intellectually
> unnecessary, and I still think ad-hominem reasoning is
> logically invalid.
What makes you think I reasoned anything using ad-hominem. I reached my conclusions by perfectly valid reasoning. You object only to my efficient repetition of those conclusions and ignore my reasoning entirely.
>>>that could perhaps explain your difficulty in understanding why >>>I acted as I did in that situation. I only object to the first one. >>>If they look the same to you, though, it may appear as if I >>>object to both, which would indeed be a problem. >> >>With all due respect, I find your methods no different than mine.
>
> I admit that in this thread, I careen dangerously into the territory
> of becoming that which I criticize. This could perhaps be labelled
> hypocracy, but I will plead simple human weakness.
>
>
>>I believe I have a more realistic expectation of outcome and >>a more solidly fixed moral compass.
>
> I am not sure I have ever said what my expectation is, so
> I don't know to what you are referring here.
That's why I indentified my belief as merely belief.
> My expectations
> are quite low, however this is tempered with hope and patience,
> such as I can muster, and these are often considered virtues.
>
> I also do not see this as a moral issue, but rather a civil one.
I agree. It is my civic duty to identify the vociferous ignorami to those who might not yet have the faculties to identify them for themselves or who may be complacent enough to miss the fact.
Likewise, when someone in my presense advocates medicinal remedies based upon dilution of substances to the point where it is questionable whether a dose even has any of the active ingredient and where the concentration of the ingredient is many orders of magnitude smaller than inevitable environmental contaminants, I point out that the advocated remedy is quackery.
Insofar as no other remedy exists, such superstitions cause no harm, and the placebo effect may even offer some comfort. Insofar as the advocacy causes someone to forego an effective remedy, the advocacy of quackery is harmful. I think it is wrong to sit idly by and watch someone get harmed.
I have yet to meet an advocate of such quackery who responded to the observation in anything resembling valid reasoning or in any polite way no matter how gently I debunked the quackery.
Given that we are undeniably discussing civics, I did not ask what topic you thought you were discussing but what justification you think you have for your position regarding the topic.
By rejecting empiricism, you have rejected the basis for intellectual justification, and I expect all other justifications. Do you consider your position a moral position? An ethical position? Do you understand the difference?
I cannot see how you can act in a manner similar to myself while rejecting empiricism and pretend to have either a moral or ethical justification.
Suppose you observe the leader of a nation and decide the leader is evil. If you voice your opinion, one could consider you rude to the leader. If you silence your opinion, one could consider you rude or even worse to the millions of people harmed by the leader's rule. This involves a moral question.
However, there are circumstances where such a simple idealized morality does not apply and where a pragmatic morality requires a different set of rules and a different set of behaviours. Diplomatic protocol, for instance, establishes the appropriate behaviour for a small number of people in very limited circumstances where silence of the opinion does the greater good. This is an ethical question.
Likewise, the ethical behaviour of a criminal defense lawyer may require the lawyer to act solely in the best interest of a decidedly immoral person. While some may then consider criminal defense lawyers immoral, their ethical behaviour is required for the proper functioning of a fair and impartial judiciary based upon adversarial advocacy.
>>If one accepts your position that length of >>participation establishes legitimacy, then [name deleted] has greater >>legitimacy than the willful ignorant you championed at his expense.
>
> I am the champion only of politeness.
I disagree. I find it impolite to allow these pretenders to cause the harm they cause without any challenge.
Face it: You champion prohibition of specific words. Insofar as those words express ideas, you champion prohibition of those ideas. The name for that is political correctness.
Words like 'stupid' and 'idiot' express the idea that some people occupy a range of the normal distribution of intelligence with very low cognitive ability. Words like 'slow', 'weak' or 'clumsy' as well as words like 'slowpoke', 'weakling' or 'spazz' express that some people occupy a feeble range of the normal distributions of other abilities.
Now, for some reason, it is not considered impolite to say that some people are too slow or too weak or too clumsy for some professions or to compete at certain levels of some sports.
Of course, the cost of identifying the slow or weak or clumsy is quite low, which places an inherent limit on the possible success of pretenders to speed, strength or agility. And the fact that few people make decisions based upon the fast, strong or agile feats of others limits the public harm a pretender to these abilities can do.
Just as physical ability comprises several specific abilities, cognitive ability comprises at least two: general intelligence and verbal ability.
Through exercise and practice, one can improve one's physical abilities, and the same is true of one's intellectual abilities. Exercise improves the tissues upon which these abilities rely while practice improves form and efficiency to achieve greater results with the same tissue. We all have innate limits to our potential even with exercise and practice.
The pretenders refuse exercise and practice while they demand recognition and reward for abilities they lack.
Cognitive ability presents some interesting challenges: 1) Cognitive ability affects one's ability to recognize one's limits, 2) High verbal ability can partially mask low general intelligence, 3) The cost of identifying the stupid or ignorant pretender to informed intellect is much higher, 4) People make decisions affecting their own welfare based on the words of those whom they believe speak with informed intellect.
I think those challenges (and especially #4) impose a moral obligation on the truly informed to expose the pretenders for the benefit of society. Since there are limits to the costs society can demand in the name of civic duty and since the pretenders are undeterred by sound reasoning and unassailable logic, society must allow some efficient means to perform that duty.
Calling an idiot an idiot when they persist in public idiocy is just such an efficiency. Sadly, usenet does not present many other efficiencies.
Other venues attempt to prevent the public idiocy through other means such as peer review. Within academic circles, it is not unreasonable to have to read a couple of articles per year that do not merit publication and several that do. That's another efficiency to achieve the same goal, but it doesn't apply in usenet.
>>>I still find it useful, and a valuable resource. If you don't, why >>>stay? >> >>Good question. I stayed away for a couple of years. Did that enrich the >>newsgroup?
>
> Honestly? You're asking me?
>
> I really, really, REALLY thought it did. My heart sank when you
> returned. I knew the amount of substantive discussion would
> go way down, and it did.
Did the substantive discussion decrease in absolute terms? What have you done to quantify the decrease?
I suspect that one can attribute much of any decrease to you distracting yourself with this crusade for political correctness. I suggest you add me and a handful of others to your killfile to avoid the distraction. Then you can get back to the substantive work you do with some others.
If one of the people you killfile says anything substantive, there is a good chance someone not in your killfile will excerpt it in any case.
>>If the handful of willful ignorants selling their snake-oil >>here left, would anyone really lose anything of value?
>
> Not that I accept your labels as such, but I believe I know
> to whom you are referring, so I can answer: not much.
>
> I do believe there is some modest value to vigourous dissent,
> though; it sharpens the mind.
Having challenging competition in a running race motivates one to better oneself. Having an unqualified competitor in the race who gets lapped three times and who thereby creates havoc on the track can spoil the effect--especially if he then elbows his way onto the podium during the awards ceremony.
> The most valuable members of the newsgroup, though, are
> the ones who are the most patient and the most educated.
I agree. And yet for some reason you once felt compelled to chastise me for pointing out a couple of them to others.
>>>Mostly I also find it a pleasant place, as long as the commentary >>>stays focused on ideas, and stays polite. >> >>Good for you. So, then, is it okay to drive out people who can make >>substantive and reasoned contributions as long as it suits what you want?
>
> I do not believe in driving people out, so no. That is why I try to
> reason
> with you. I reject insults as a rhetorical technique.
This is where the distinction between general intelligence and verbal proficiency becomes particularly important. Mathematics does not require rhetoric but does require general intelligence.
The self-aggrandizing ignorants use rhetoric to intrude into mathematical discussions they demonstrably cannot comprehend. My identification of the ignorants is cautionary not persuasive.
>>If that is okay, is it any less okay for me to drive out >>self-aggrandizing ignorants when it suits what I want?
>
> It is identically not okay.
Do you realise that the diarrheic gibberish the self-aggrandizing ignorants post drives out many who have a lot more to contribute?
>>>>It's a free world. The self-aggrandizing ignorants can post diarrheic >>>>nonsense if they want. I can point out to the world what the diarrheic >>>>nonsense means: they are nothing more than a self-aggrandizing ignorants. >>> >>>Agreed. Also, I can point out when people are not being polite, and >>>when people are name-calling. And you can call me names for >>>doing so. >> >>And I can question you on your expectation for doing so. What do you >>hope to achieve?
>
> Politeness. Civil discourse.
With all due respect, the diarrheic nonsense is anything but polite.
> An end to ad hominem attacks, and
> a return to on-topic, substantive discussion of data management.
> I do not particularly expect this to happen, but I have some
> modest hope.
You can make it happen for yourself. Since you do not like specific words and specific posters, simply filter them out. Poof. Problem solved. Received on Fri Apr 21 2006 - 01:19:53 CEST