Hey all,
In the thread previously known as "MOQ as a moral guide," Platt and I
debated whether or not the plan to change the races of two firefighters in
the now-defunct fireman's memorial made the statue 'historically
inaccurate'. I won't go into the specifics of the debate, the posts are
there for anyone interested.
However, today I thought of brief example which I believe may be
evidence for the proposition that in some cases 'historical accuracy' could
be outright detrimental to Intellectual Quality, and I wanted to put it
before the forum to get some input....
(I gathered these facts from an article a professor gave me years ago.
For our purposes, it doesn't even matter whether they are true... Treat it
as a hypothetical:)
In 1969, Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the moon. In
fear that the astronaut to first step out would say something lackluster,
NASA had provided their man with an inspirational line to quip as he made
history. They gave him, "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap
for mankind." However, when Armstong in fact uttered the famous line, what
came out was, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for man kind."
Armstrong missed the 'a' in 'a man' and made his statement an
absurdity... basically what he said was the equivalent of "That's one small
step for man(kind), one giant leap for mankind." NASA would later argue
that a 'static glitch' had muted the 'a', but recordings seem to lack any
glitches in the conspicuous spot (clips of quip are common on the net if
anyone refuses to take my word for it)--- Odds are, Armstrong just goofed.
The following day the 3 newspapers in the town we live in each wrote a
story about the event. (1) One newpaper wrote the quote as Armstong actually
said it [without the 'a']. (2) One newspaper printed the story as if
Armstong had said the quote correctly [with the 'a']. (3) One printed a
correction, and noted that it had done so.
Now... Paper (1) has printed a story that is 100% accurate, but in which
Armstrong's message is nonsense statement. Paper (2) has printed a story
that is historically inaccurate, but in which Armstrong's message makes
sense. Paper (3) has balanced things out by printing the quote as Armstrong
said it (without the 'a'), but pointing out that Armstrong had goofed and
tfixing it for him by also printing a corrected version.
I don't think I would be out of line in saying that we'd all agree that
paper (3) printed the story of the highest Intellectual Quality. Their story
was 'historically accurate' and allowed the 'Intellectual content' of
Armstong's intended message to get through by pointing out his error. This
version is Roger's 'win/win' ideal.
But I ask ya'll now: Of papers (1) and (2) respectively, which story do
you think had more Intellectual Quality?
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 - 16:01:47 BST