Print

Print


"that all comments regarding this particular discussion (the so-called
"anti-science left") be restricted to valid critiques of the articles
(scientific analysis) rather than broad-based attacks on the authors or
their supporters."

For the reasons I outlined in my post yesterday, I think that this
particular restriction would basically take the politics out of political
discussions of science. In the example of 9/11 conspiracy theories, it would
require posters to disprove the theory point by point and could disallow
comment on the politics and psychology behind these theories; same with HIV
denialism. Politics is about polemics and analysis, and sometimes broader
interpretations--some would call them attacks--are necessary.

Michael

On 2/19/07, Jonathan Campbell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>  George,
>
>       I didn't pay enough attention to that aspect of Jose's proposal; I
> interpreted it as the people who comment would be doing so with the intent
> of critique of the article rather than the person who wrote it. That is,
> comments like "xxx is a known quack" would be disallowed as part of the
> discussion because it does not relate to the article at hand. But now that I
> look at the wording more carefully I agree with you, and I would propose, in
> substitution, that all comments regarding this particular discussion (the
> so-called "anti-science left") be restricted to valid critiques of the
> articles (scientific analysis) rather than broad-based attacks on the
> authors or their supporters.
>
> Kind Regards
> Jonathan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* George Salzman <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:01 PM
> *Subject:* Re: The 9/11 conspiracy virus
>
> Hi Josť,
>       I realize you proposed some rules in an attempt to resolve
> disagreements. *A priori* not a bad idea, *if the rules are not rigid*.
> One of the things you wrote is: " I say that we agree up front that the
> people who choose to participate speak for the whole list.  Anyone who
> disagrees, say so up front.  No second guessers."
>       To me that's unacceptable. Only I can speak for myself. And whether
> or not others on the listserv answer you is irrelevant, because no mature
> person can willingly surrender the right to speak for him/herself.
> Sincerely,
> *George*
>
>
>


-- 
www.michaelbalter.com

******************************************
Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
[log in to unmask]
******************************************