From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sun Aug 29 2004 - 08:43:58 BST
David, you have taken some trouble to understand me here, and in good
humour, so I will attempt a more thorough response.
BTW you know already that I use "scare quotes" to signify words that "I
know" I'm using in a special way, not necessarily understood the same way
(yet) by my reader. Yes ?
> Words / Dictionaries ?
[DMB QUOTE]
> you are using terms in very idiosyncratic ways
[UNQUOTE]
Yes I guess I am using words a little out of the boxes in which they may
have become pigeon-holed. I do that not to be difficult (I really would like
people like you to understand me), but because often the pigeon-holes have
been framed by the "prevailing paradigm", and their original intent /
metaphor has been lost. I'm not playing King Cnut, holding back the tide of
etymology (though again that was never Cnut's objective either). What I am
doing is demonstrating that the tide of "scientific political correctness"
is making it very difficult to use words in the spirit in which they were
originally intended. I've never felt hide-bound by the (democratically
conventional) definitions of a million dictionaries. "Conventionally
speaking" is the problem for me, if it is "the convention" that is "wrong".
Bear with me. (I did make the same point about dictionaries in another
thread - on the word "petard".)
> Get with the program / name of the thread ?
Sorry if I hijacked someone's thread, but I did it to bring us back to the
MoQ (which is rather arrogant of me I'll admit), but a serious intent
none-the-less.
[DMB QUOTE]
> the relative merits of various news organizations,
> where facts and logic, conventionally speaking,
> mean everything
[UNQUOTE]
This is the problem I'm addressing, in a nutshell. I could just leave it at
that, or I could get all post-modern and deconstruct it, one concept at a
time. As usual, I'll fall between stools.
"Conventionally speaking", yes, but you cannot seriously believe Fox News
(or the BBC, or the House of Representatives, or the Oval Office for that
matter) actually deals in facts and logic, at least not in any truth /
quality sense ?
Anyway, here goes ... The "prevaling paradigm" is indeed to have facts and
logic underly the truth of any story. That's scientific, right, its gotta be
true - Yes ? It's not the facts an logic that are (necessarily) wrong,
that's only a small part of the argument. It's the prevailing paradigm
that's wrong in expecting "scientific facts and logic" to tell some kind of
meaningful truth in what is a highly non-scientific situation (eg morality
and truth around the reasoning of going to war, or justifying torture at Abu
Graib, or the quality of a national helthcare service, or whatever -
sceintific logic ? - do me a favour)
> Political corrcetness / dominant paradigm ?
You provide me with a dictionary definition. Well thanks, but no thanks,
seen a million of those. See above.
Political Corrcetness ...
IS - exactly "Conventionally Speaking"
IS - using "scientific facts and logic" rationale, "by convention".
QED.
Seriously, I do mean pretty much "dominant paradigm", but in a VERY
dominant - all prevailing - way. The "scientific" paradigm (meme) dominates
even in domains where scientific facts and logic represent only a tiny
proportion of the argument. This becomes "political correctness" because,
like the "forbidden" words in the narrow definition you supply, I am almost
forbidden to argue unless I agree to use the scientific euphemisms of "facts
and logic". By rejecting these, I am outcast from the argument, eg by you
DMB. (This is my Catch-22 BTW - how can I argue my case in your space, if I
don't agree to the dictionary definitions (rules) in your space. Yossarian
all over.) If I reject "scientific facts and logic", I'm left with no tools
with which to argue - in that space.
To use your "spaz & nutter" vs "physically or metally challenged" example.
To euphemistically call a statement (backed by "some" logic) by Fox News "a
fact" is PC; to call it "bollox" is non-PC.
BTW even "disabled" is non-PC now. This is that Catch-22 again. All this
kind of PC does is move the word on to a "euphemism". Eventually the
underlying sense catches up with the word, and the new word needs a fresh
euphemism, to keep ahead of the (unpleasant) meaning. These "unpleasant"
meanings are those concepts where we have no alternative to hard facts and
logic in discussing them, so we introduce the euphemism to avoid that case
where the facts and logic are actually very complex, too difficult to use
for simple causal arguments, so we use a euphemism to let the rhetoric back
in. Another reason why I see domination of scientific logic as pretty much
the same as PC in the long run. You can keep running from the argument, but
you can never hide.
Ian Glendinning
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 2:08 AM
Subject: RE: MD Fox News and Logical Analysis
> Mark, Ian and all MOQers:
>
> Mark said:
> "logic might and sometimes does produce better results."
>
> Ian replied:
> I say therefore, not because of the logic, but in spite of the logic. Not
> actually connected with the logic in any causal way.
>
> dmb says:
> Ian, you are using terms is very idiosyncratic ways and confusing
categories
> like retail politics and the philosophy of science. I mean, you're not
> denying that logic is a good and useful thing in practical matters such as
> the causes of war or bridge construction, are you? Check the thread name
and
> notice the topic, will you? We're talking about the relative merits of
> various news organizations, where facts and logic, conventionally
speaking,
> mean everything. Get with the program, will ya pal?
>
> Ian continued:
> Doxastic. Just wishful thinking. A desire to believe in logic. A refusal
to
> believe real (human) world outcomes are emergent from much more mysterious
> (complex that is, not mystic) relationships than classical "scientific"
> logic. (And highly politically incorrect for me suggest logic is just
> wishful thinking, or that science is just political correctness.) What I'm
> amazed by, given that this is an MOQ discussion board that so many
> people defend the SOM logic.
>
> dmb replies:
> Oh, now I see what you were trying to say last week. Again, you are using
> terms in a very strange way. You're using 'political correctness' to mean
> something like 'the dominant paradigm' or 'the scientific worldview". If
> anyone other than you uses 'political correctness' in this way, I'm
unaware
> of it and such a definition does not even resemble the definition I know.
> From wordiQ.com...
>
> Political correctness
> Political correctness is the alteration of language said to redress real
or
> alleged unjust discrimination or to avoid offense. The term most often
> appears in the predicate adjective form politically correct, often
> abbreviated PC, and is usually used mockingly or disparagingly. One
purpose
> behind politically correct language is to prevent the exclusion or the
> offending of people based upon differences or handicaps. The idea behind
> using politically correct terminology is to bring peoples' unconscious
> biases into awareness, allowing them to make a more informed choice about
> their language and making them aware of things different people might find
> offensive. The new terms are often awkward, euphemistic substitutes for
the
> original stark language concerning differences such as race, gender,
sexual
> orientation and disability.
>
> An example of substituting politically correct terminology for terminology
> considered offensive would be exchanging the phrase disabled person for
> cripple when describing a person with a physical or mental disability.
Using
> terms such as spaz or nutter to refer to the aforementioned groups would
be
> decidedly politically incorrect.
>
> dmb continues:
> See Your idea of political correctness is very far from the actual meaning
> and it was central to the point you're making about logic. Now its
perfectly
> clear why your post made no sense. (One can only wonder what you mean by
> words like 'logic' and 'science'!) I realize its quite a petty and
> small-minded thing, but I do feel refreshed knowing the confusion was
Ian's
> fault. ;-)
>
> Thanks,
> dmb
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 29 2004 - 08:44:21 BST