Re: QRe: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me

Michael Gaab wrote:

> "Keith H Duggar" <duggar_at_alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:1151745359.987862.87340@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>

>>Robert Martin wrote:
>>
>>>Please notice how the use of insults diverts the topic
>>>from the real issues to the insults themselves. I suggest
>>>that this simply confirms what a waste the use of insults
>>>truly is.

>>We have been over this before. They are diverting only for
>>those unable to maintain mental focus on logical content. If
>>you feel insulted why not simply ignore the putative insults?
>>Why falsely claim insults that are not part of the argument
>>are ad hominem?

>>Why not follow the advice I gave: focus on
>>logic /both/ when sending /and/ receiving?

Since the insults either accompany or follow a substantive argument, they only reduce credibility among those too ignorant or too stupid to recognize substance.

> If I had a vote I would filter posts with insults as a first resort and
> if need be the poster themselves until they got their act together.

As it happens, you have the only vote when it comes to filtering what you read. Filter away. If you filter the wrong content, it's your loss, and nobody is harmed but you.

In contexts where third-party filtering is available, no insults are required to address self-aggrandizing ignorants, cranks and trolls. In effect, this is exactly what peer review attempts to achieve.

> This is no place for insults. It is a forumn where all
> can learn regardless of there experience, background or
> IQ.

I disagree. The first prerequisite for learning is intellectual honesty. The snake-oil salesmen have a commercial incentive to maintain their ignorance or at least their outward appearance of ignorance regardless of any information they receive. Had they any intellectual honesty, they would never have become snake-oil salesmen in the first place.

Snake-oil salesmen appeal to anti-intellectualism, which is part of what makes them so appealing to North Americans.

Similar arguments regarding intellectual honesty apply to all other forms of self-aggrandizing ignorants. Cranks are psychotic. While their intellectual dishonesty might be pathological and originate in physical defect or injury, they nevertheless lack intellectual honesty in the most profound way: their brains refuse to acknowledge what their senses experience.

Trolls feign similar psychosis. etc. Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 20:02:51 CEST