MD Logical Analysis

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Sep 05 2004 - 19:13:20 BST

  • Next message: Joseph Maurer: "Re: MD interaction between levels - ?"

    Ian and all MOQers:

    We've moved on from media criticism and so I've changed the thread name.

    Ian Glendinning said:
    DMB I suspect I shouldn't have bothered, but here goes on the important
    point ... (I'll ignore all your offensive accusations.)

    dmb replies:
    Offensive accusations? Well, I do find your style a bit frustrating and this
    might be reflected in my response. I'm also shocked and horrified at your
    apparently anti-intellectual attitude toward facts and logic, especially
    given the bloody context in which we were discussing them, but honestly, the
    only intention here is discuss the validity of your assertions, not your
    person. Please take it that way. And I wonder what offended you? You don't
    think I'm charging you with child abuse or otherwise talking about literal
    babies, do you? ;-)

    Ian said:
    The point I made originally was exactly this - when making a political
    decision, don't rely on science, therefore when debating such decisions on a
    board like this, let's not trade syllogisms or pretend the answer lies in
    logic. ...You are in fact agreeing with me, making the same point as me,
    much as it pains you.

    dmb replies:
    That's funny. I don't even agree with your assertion that we agree. I'm
    still not sure if I even understand your point, let alone agree with it. I
    think you've incorporated lots of ideas into your thinking that are alien to
    me, but this can be overcome by simply adding more detail to your
    explanations, especially the meaning of the key words and concepts you're
    using. As much as it pains you, this is what conversationalists do. Please,
    just make yourself clear. Maybe it would help if we start small...

    You've re-made your point exactly. You say we should not rely on science in
    making political descisions. I don't just disagree with this, I am horrified
    by it. The idea that logic should not be used on this board to discuss
    politics also strikes me as quite wrong. And not just incorrect in some
    technical sense, I mean it strikes me with a sense of horror, like something
    valuable is being destroyed. I think these are very bad and dangerous ideas.
    It mostly smells like postmodernism to me, but the effect is actually quite
    regressive. It empowers the premodern, social level forces in their
    anti-intellectual attitudes. I think you are asserting a kind of paralyzing
    nihilism and that this is at odds with the MOQ. Again, I'm talking about
    your assertions, not you personally. Please take it that way. In fact, I
    hope that I've misunderstood and that you're not really saying anything so
    negative about the intellect. I mean, you're not saying that logic, facts
    and science are no better than illogic, groundless opinions and faith, are
    you? You're not saying physicists are sheep-like conformists who bow to the
    latest social tends, are you? You're not really saying that scientific facts
    are meaningless in forming public policies, are you? This is what it looks
    like to me and I certainly do not agree with it.

    If that's your point, then I am horrified. If that is not you point, then
    what is it?

    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 05 2004 - 19:40:43 BST