From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Jan 09 2005 - 16:27:02 GMT
Hi Platt,
If I can drag you away from working out a "Universal Morality" I'd
like to follow up on the idea of how we might support our arguments
by referring to outside sources of information. This seems to me to
be an important topic at the heart of all meaningful discussion.
On 7 Jan 2005 at 10:48, Platt Holden wrote:
Talk about talking quotes out of context! But, that aside, the
credibility of sources is always a legitimate point to make in a
debate, especially when those sources are widely known for their
political agendas.
msh says:
Agreed. But I would say the term "widely known" needs some
clarification, as all kinds of nonsense is widely known. Imagine a
world where I'd never heard of Rush Limbaugh, never read his books,
his columns, or heard his radio programs. Would I be justified in
saying his political agenda is well-known because Al Franken told me
so? Or even if numerous left-wing pundits said the same thing?
platt:
If I were to cite Rush Limbaugh or The Wall Street
Journal as my authority, you would rightly point out that they can
hardly be characterized as politically neutral observers and that
their supporting "facts" can well be viewed with suspicion.
Likewise, I have little trust in Chomsky, the New York Times or CNN.
msh says:
Actually, I consider the WSJ to be an excellent source of
information, except for their editorials, of course. For example, by
reading the Journal, I learned a lot about what the passage of NAFTA
would mean to American business. People who read such papers,
primarily investors, require and expect accurate information. But
this is off-point...
I don't think there is such a thing as a politically neutral
observer. Everyone's world experience shapes and colors their
opinions. And, in the case of the profit-driven mass media a new
level of skepticism is warranted. This is why it's important to
examine the full spectrum of opinion, from a wide variety of sources.
For example, would you agree that some measure of truth can be
arrived at when 1000 people report witnessing essentially the same
event, even though one or two might tell a radically different story?
I trust we agree that there was a recent earthquake and devestating
tsunami, though neither one of us actually witnessed it. Why do we
agree that such an event occurred? Stalin died years before I was
born. Why do we agree that he was a brutal mass-murderer of monstrous
proportions?
platt:
Awhile back I cited an article in a British newspaper reporting on
the sad state of their National Health System only to be told by
someone (Anthony McWatt as I recall) that the newspaper I drew the
information from was totally unreliable.
msh says:
I remember this exchange. But I don't remember whether Ant gave his
reasons; if he didn't, then he was just being contrary without
argument. It would seem to me, though, that we might give a little
extra weight to Ant's (and Adam's) defense of the quality of health
care in the UK, since they have actual experience of it.
In general, I agree with you. The article you cited indeed paints a
negative picture of one particular National Health system. But this
is where your investigation of the issue should BEGIN, not end.
When I did my own quick search of articles on this subject I found
many more positive than negative reports, and not just in the UK, but
in Canada, Sweden, France; in fact the general impression I received
was that people living under these systems were quite happy with
them. So the next question would be why is the article you chose to
share with us so negative? This might cause us to look more closely
at the owner-management of that paper.
platt:
Well, as I've pointed out several times, you can take any position on
any subject and find supporting documentation for your view because
rationalizing is what we're really good at.
msh says:
Sure. But if you are looking ONLY for support of your position, and
you filter out or ignore or discount conflicting information, then
it's fair to say that you are not really investigating the issue at
all. Don't you think?
Looking forward to your thoughts.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." 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 Jan 09 2005 - 17:15:29 GMT