From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Wed Jan 26 2005 - 08:43:51 GMT
Ant Asked:
Is there a Guidebook on Goldberg’s work or even a University thesis that
treats it in a positive light? If so, let’s have the references so we
can check them out!
Platt Replied:
> No problem. Check out the Media Research Center website for supporting
> material to Goldberg's books. Plenty of "university" studies there,
> although you know as well as anyone that those who wrap themselves in the
> cloak of a university are not free of bias. :-)
Ant McWatt replied January 19th:
> Many thanks for that Platt. I'll look into Media Research Center in
> some detail though "I've got a Dynamic feeling" you're going to have
> do to do better than this organization as evidence of credible
> supporting material for Goldberg. One of the first entries on the
> Google search engine for "Media Research Center" + Goldberg brought up
> the following article by Geoffrey Nunberg (BA, Columbia; MA, Penn;
> PhD, CUNY) who is a senior researcher at the Center for the Study of
> Language and Information at Stanford University and a Consulting Full
> Professor of Linguistics at Stanford University...
Mark Heyman asked January 20th:
> What is your response to Ant's refutation of [the MRC]?
Platt Holden replied January 20th:
> Ant's response is that nothing is to be believed unless it's follows the
> format required for a PhD thesis. That eliminates 99 percent of
> everything
> written.
Ant McWatt replied:
> A very funny “platt-itude” if very misleading. I obviously never
> stated that no research is to be believed unless it follows the format
> required for a PhD thesis.
>
> However, what I do try to emphasise is that every information source
> (not just 99%) needs to questioned on the lines given by Ian G. (on
> January 15th) i.e. consistency of fit with the rest of reality and the
> motives of the writers (and, if applicable, editors and owners) who
> produce it.
Hi all,
To me, Ant and Platt are arguing about two things here. The first is the
intellectual quality of Goldberg's work which I wont deal with as I
haven't read it. The second problem here seems to be with the
connotations of the word bias and the definition of it's parent 'the
test of truth' which I will try to deal with.
On Jul 18 2004 I made a post about bias which never really sat with me
100%. Below I would like to fix this..
On Jul 18 2004 I said..
"Firstly, I think it’s important to highlight the change the term bias
undergoes as it leaves SOM.
Within SOM you are supposed to be objective and unbiased and report
things only as they are. If one is biased then you are letting your
emotions get the better of you which is not that dissimilar to what an
animal from the jungle might do. So it clearly has low quality
biological connotations. "
DJH comments on himself:
Actually to correct myself it has high quality biological connotations
and low
quality social connotations. Moreover, there seems to be another
connotation of
bias which is an inclination towards social quality at the risk of
intellectual quality.
Such as someone changing the truth in order to get a raise or a
promotion at work.
Now Pirsigs statement
“Intellect can support static patterns of society without fear of
domination by carefully distinguishing those moral issues that are
social-biological from those that are intellectual-social and making
sure there is not encroachment either way.”
is understood with a lot more clarity. A revised definition of bias
becomes low quality
biological inclinations in the face of social quality and low quality
social inclinations in the face
of intellectual quality.
Which now brings us back to Ants statement..
"However, what I do try to emphasize is that every information source
(not just 99%) needs to questioned on the lines given by Ian G. (on
January 15th) i.e. consistency of fit with the rest of reality and the
motives of the writers (and, if applicable, editors and owners) who
produce it.
I was hardly expecting a response (even a glib one) concerning Geoffrey
Nunberg’s critique of the Media Research Center just yet as I said that
was I delving further into the organization and its articles. However,
without some equally credible academic source to discredit Nunberg’s
critique – at some point, at least - Platt’s contention that there is
credible supporting material for Goldberg's books does appear
increasingly unlikely."
To me, the 'tests of truth' Anthony uses here looks similar to Einsteins
which Pirsig alludes to early on in Lila p113 which is very good...
"As Einstein said, common sense—non-weirdness—is just a bundle of
prejudices acquired before the age of 18. The tests of truth are logical
consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of explanation."
Moreover, it appears to me Ant is also concerned with motives which are
an important consideration considering motives and values can be
interchanged. Thus while the test of truth is logical consistency,
agreement with experience and economy of explanation; intellect should
make sure that it supports intellect in the intellect-social code of
morals and society in the social-biological code of morals.
However Anthony seems to stress the importance of credibility which in
my view is a celebrity value in an intellectual arena. As Pirsig says "A
person who holds an idea is a social entity, no matter what ideas he
holds. The ideas he holds are an intellectual entity, no matter who
holds them."
Best Regards.
David Harding.
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 : Wed Jan 26 2005 - 08:50:02 GMT