Re: Objects and Relations

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:51:52 GMT
Message-ID: <ca%zh.5522$R71.83485@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

JOG wrote:

> On Feb 12, 12:31 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

>>JOG wrote:
>>
>>It went on so long because you kept feeding the troll, Jim.

>
> I don't agree the original post was merely troll bait - its far too
> easy a term to throw about (although we have our fair share on cdt).
> Here it is over-exuberance in an idea, without anywhere near
> sufficient exploration or research. There is a whole host of reasons
> that nonsense is generated and trolling is just one of them. It
> implies intention, whereas in this case, imo it is more naivite and
> obstinancy in the arguments.

Jim, you have an hypothesis. I very quickly reached a different hypothesis. Which of our hypotheses has greater predictive value?

In the end, whether David is a crank like Cimode or Neo, a snake-oil salesman like Joe or Dawn, or a more classic troll has little import.

All of the above share the same very important trait: they lack intellectual honesty.

One can speculate on a physical pathology in cases like Cimode or Neo; however, whether the missing intellectual honesty is more "cannot" than "will not" has little effect in the end. Whether the individual self-aggrandizes for the indirect benefit to some hair-brained construct or for some direct benefit to himself makes precious little difference.

Likewise, it doesn't matter in the end whether the individual sees himself as an altruist pursuing some noble cause or a cynic duping all the suckers. The outcome remains the same.

When David first arrived here, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. He very rapidly and very emphatically proved he has no intellectual honesty. Everything of his I have seen since only reinforces the hypothesis. He is here to promote himself.

Lacking intellectual honesty, he cannot or will not learn. You cannot persuade him or teach him. Because his responses lack sincerity, you cannot evaluate your rhetoric or pedagogy against his responses. Without meaningful feedback, you cannot improve your rhetoric or pedagogy by interacting with him.

If you keep interacting with him, I can only assume you get some other payoff from doing so. I have no idea what the payoff might be.

> There are people out there who will make mistakes, but are capable of
> rectifying them in time. Maybe not as quickly as people like yourself,
> vadim, jan, etc., and definitely not within the remit of a single
> thread, but they /can do/ eventually. That is why I'd encourage you to
> keep your forthright stance but without resorting to insults over a
> single thread.

This is not David's first thread. Jim, there are important reasons why David is in my killfile and you are not. Neither is Marshall. Neither are quite a handful of people who have showed up here over the years. Some of them came here as novices to the field. Some of them obviously know more about the field than I do.

I keep a copy of the following post pinned to a wall near my computer: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/msg/ff845b5d43c991d4?as_umsgid=3e6ef1b4.0@news.ruca.ua.ac.be

It is a response to something provocative I wrote. Jan's reply models intellectual honesty with tremendous clarity. Contrast that with the ways the self-aggrandizing ignorants react.

> I find your best posts are the latter (and *especially* think they
> read the best to new readers).

Do you know what an interrupt is? I find new readers are lazy and complacent. Something needs to shock them into thinking for themselves.

>>I sincerely hope you take my other suggestions to heart.

>
> You can rest assured that I give all your suggestions thought, and
> think there are a lot of perceptive points there.
>
>

>> I would like to
>>see more of the sort of content that Vadim and Marshall generate when
>>they are playing with the math.

>
> Totally agree.
>
>

>>You have mentioned teaching. I hope you
>>find a way to produce educated students proofed against some of the
>>nonsense they will see.

>
> Aye, it has become a bit of an obsession in fact. I'd also like to see
> more online resources for creating such nonsense-proofing, especially
> now dbdebunk appears to have been wound down. But that's another
> thread.

We all lost a tremendously valuable resource when Fabian lost interest in the field. I find it a very melancholy time right now. A lot of the most influential thinkers are reaching the ends of their careers. Some of my heros like Codd and Dijkstra have already passed on. Now, Jim Gray is missing at sea.

I wonder when we will see more like them. Hopefully, the next generation of great and clear thinkers is already out there somewhere. Received on Mon Feb 12 2007 - 08:51:52 CST