Struan,
>
> RICK:
> 'Struan informs us that Anthony's status as a lecturer is
> questionable...'
>
STRUAN:
> No I did not. Read it again and do not fall for the distortions of
> others!
What lead me to the above paraphrase was not a distortion of others... it
was either MY misinterpreation or YOUR lack of clarity. You wrote:
" ...Anthony describes himself as a 'philosophy lecturer at the University
of Liverpool' in his bio and a lecturer of Pirsig's work in his review....
...The Department of Philosophy at Liverpool University does *not* have an
Anthony McWatt on its staff...."
Clearly you can see how this gives the impression that you believe that
Anthony's claim to being a lecturer was tantamount to a claim that he was a
staff member (note you did *not* write "the department of Phil. at Liverpool
U. does *not* have an Anthony McWatt GIVING LECTURES). If you weren't
implying the two were equivalent, then why object to Anthony's assertion
that he is a lecturer on the basis that he is not a staff member???
Moreover, as a seasoned academian you surely must know that classes at
Universities all over the world are taught by people who aren't on staff (I
myself am a law student in NY at a school in which half the damn faculty
isn't technichally on staff ---between visiting professors, interim
professors, adjuncts, lecturers and guest lecturers, dozens of names you'd
expect to see don't show up on a list of the school's "staff").
> RICK:
> 'Had this turned out to be true (and I believe Anthony's response, has
> more put the issue to rest) it would have influenced to me to use a higher
> measure of scrutiny when examining Anthony's assertions of fact in this
> forum. If he cited some philosopher for a certain proposition I would be
> more inclined to go look it up rather than take his word on it.'
>
STRUAN:
> Which is precisely why I pointed out the truth about Anthony's position.
> Hopefully now that you have ascertained that I am correct by looking for
> yourself, you will continue to use that higher measure of scrutiny.
It's difficult for me to agree with whether or not you have yet shown
that you are "correct." Unless one first shows that Anthony (at some point)
falsely held himself out to be a member of the Faculty, I'm not sure what is
so "correct" about showing that he is not a member of the faculty. Anthony
said he was a lecturer, and he is. He's not a staff member, but as far as I
know, he never aserted he was. What's the big deal??? Have you considered
the possibility that the confusion here was yours alone?
STRUAN:
You must research what everyone tells you Rick. The Liverpool
> Uni website is crystal clear and I was correct to write what I did. Do
> not just fall for the most convincing post you have read to date.
> Including this one.
RICK:
Of course we must research... (I'll admit, I did miss that notice on the
website about the search engine... sloppy on my part). But, realistically,
if we researched every fact that everyone told us, most of us would still be
busy verifying facts and information we received in grade school!!!
Sometimes we just have to believe that people are telling us the truth.
What we bother to research and what we don't is governed by a topic's
respective value to us. Believe me, if someone here made some sort of legal
assertion that I didn't know to be true, you can bet your autographed copy
of "A Critique of Pure Reason" that I would find out for sure--- b/c having
knowledge of the law is important to me and makes a real difference in my
life. It simply is not worth my time to find out whether Anthony McWatt is
or is not technically a faculty member at the U of LP (and with absolutely
no offense intended--- I'm puzzeled as to why it's worth your time).
My only point was that whether Anthony's credentials are or are not what
he says they are is logically irrelevant to the veracity or consistency of
his Metaphysical arguments... the same way your status as a "Master in the
Faculty of Religious Studies with a special interest in Philosophy and
Ethics, at one of England's top fee-paying boarding schools" is logically
irrelevant to the veracity or consistency of your philosophical positions.
Philosophical arguments stand for themselves and can neither be bolstered
nor diminished by attacking the declarant's credentials. That was my answer
to Platt's question. And that's all I meant to point out.
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:41 BST