From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 00:27:19 MST
Two things I am quite weary of:
1. People pretending to be an authority on what
other people's (or nation's) motives are
2. Posters complaining that we should "harmonize"
instead of argue---that we should try to "work
together" instead of score points.
On 1, is Australia "scared" of the terrorists? Is the
U.S. so "scared" that it's lashing back out of fear?
This terminology leaves a great deal to be desired.
What Ron *meant* was, is Australia intimidated by the
terrorists? What Damien *meant* was, is the U.S. so
insecure that it has to strike back at someone, anyone?
Speculation is fine (as Mike Lorrey was doing about
Saddam's motives), but outright claims are silly.
Rudiger complains,
> [Ron writes]
>> hard currency and when the mushroom cloud
>> rises over New York City or we are dropping
>> like flies from bacteriological warfare you
>> get to yell piously once
> Do you really believe that we want that to happen
> (or at least don't care)?
It's incorrect for anyone to believe that (most of) you
want that to happen or do not care.
Mike Lorrey writes
> I am positive that Dubya's primary personal goal is
> to settle a score and right a mistake of his father.
You shouldn't be so positive. How d'yah know? He's
probably had hundreds of hours of discussions about
this with everyone on his staff, including his father.
Who knows what strategies are really being cooked up?
One could just as well say that one is positive that
it's all about oil, or all about non-proliferation,
or all about the 2004 election, or all about global
prestige. We cannot know.
On (2), above, Brett writes
> The Lomborg debate provides just one example of where a
> choice was made to frame the discourse in terms of "point
> scoring over the opponent" rather than, framing it in terms of
> "seeking a deeper understanding".
>
> This choice, either to pursue "point scoring" or to pursue
> "deeper understanding" seems available to each of us each
> time we post.
I wish I had a dollar for every time on this forum this
useless sentiment has been expressed.
> Yet it seems that there are STRUCTURAL aspects of a list
> such as this, that make it hard for people to keep in mind,
> both that they HAVE this choice and that there are REAL
> consequences in how the choice is exercised
Do you really think that it would be any different in person?
Consider the exchange between Anders and Mike:
> [Anders wrote]
>> One prerequisite for having a constructive discussion about a
>> powerful topic is to be able to handle it on a high level of
>> abstraction. When you know enough about a topic you can start to
>> look at it from different sides. You can be abstract enough about
>> it so that you become dispassionate.
Mike replied
> On the contrary, the more you know about a topic, when that topic turns
> on Objective Truth, the more likely you are to be very passionate for
> the side which you are able to objectively, quantitatively, and
> qualitatively determine is in the right. The opposition begins, more
> and more, to look not just wrong, but foolish, naive, stubbornly
> obstinate in their willful ignorance, and willing to believe anything
> that agrees with their prejudices.
It's quite clear that the more someone learns about an
issue, the less affected is his or her basic personality
disposition! Those who start by being quite opinionated
remain that way, and those who tend to reserve judgment,
have "working hypotheses", be indecisive, and so on, tend
to remain their way.
And neither speaker here is distinguishing between ordinary
discussions of near-fact, and discussions laced with
ideology. It is *extremely* difficult not to have a
somewhat biased perspective on the latter issues, and
only a fool has such prejudices about matters of fact!
I agree with *all* of these further observations of Brett's:
Lee
> First, RUDENESS, perceived or actual, intended or not,
> enkindles a strong desire to respond that may not be just
> emotional, but may have some intellectual basis - in the
> principle of "tit for tat".
>
> Second, quite naturally, people perceive and respond
> negatively not just to BLATANT personal attacks but also
> to the subtler varieties. Ad hominem, or at least the essence
> of it, can be packaged into sophisticated forms. The use of
> insinuation and innuendo; selective excerpting; misleading
> paraphrasing; even in the formulation of questions that are
> structured not to elicit discussion or serious consideration
> but that are leading and that invite the other to impale or
> ensnare themselves.
>
> When this occurs, I think it is a shame. I feel fairly certain
> that NONE of the frequent posters to this list are
> ACTUALLY as jaded, closed or cynical as some of their
> postings could be taken to suggest.
>
> Ridicule CAN be an effective tools in SOME forms of
> debate, but its use invites an IN-kind response and soon, it
> is difficult for either party to change tack and for genuinely
> open questions to be asked. Passions inflamed are not
> easily dowsed. Subtle slights and put-downs are remembered.
...
> It seems an original or initiating post, however carefully prepared,
> to try and seek deeper understanding of an issue can be used as
> launching pad by any would-be debater.
>
> The opportunity to selectively excerpt affords a ready means
> of changing the frame of reference to that which is more
> suitable to the practice-debater's knowledge base. They need
> only select any detail, however incidental to the original thrust
> and reset the frame of reference to grounds more convenient to
> the development and display of their debating skill.
>
> Yet, I do not think there is ANYONE who frequently posts
> to this list who could neatly or fairly be categorised as ONLY
> interested in practicing their debating skills, or as only interested
> in pursuing and fostering deeper understanding. Indeed, the two
> approaches can be adopted at different times by the same person,
> and imo, sometimes, even by the same person at different points in
> the one post.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST