Print

Print


Michael:

I doubt that the two sides in this potential debate will convince each
otherčat least immediately.  The people you want to reach are those of us
who are just reading (the email equivalent of listening quietly because we
may do not know much).

So, if you want to reach me, for example, appeals to authority will not help
because I will probably not know who they are.  Likewise, personal attacks
will not help because I will not get the reasons for the personal attack.
In that sense a personal attack is like raising your voice in an argument to
try to convince the other person when they are not convinced by your more
measured presentation.

However, I will understand discussion about a critique of the basic
assumptions behind the referenced paper, especially if I have time to read
it.  A critique of basic assumptions gets at the politics.  Politics may be
in part about polemics, but I will not be convince by polemics that are
without substance.  It is, again, like raising your voice.

I also know that sometimes words I write that I think are descriptive others
feel are personal attacks.  Tough to express feelings in a written messages
to a diverse audience.

Do not know if I am typical of the readers of this list, but that is my
perspective.

I have participated in fierce email exchanges and I know how useless they
are because the rest of the list appears to be using their delete keys.  (If
they do not participate, one is never quite sure.)

Larry Romsted


On 2/19/07 12:36 AM, "Michael Balter" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> "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 <mailto:[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
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>