From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Jul 09 2005 - 13:38:56 BST
Hi Platt,
(Per your other post, no... I accidentally hit "send" before I started writing
anything. So no, you missed no message.)
[Arlo had written]
> > In the end, they must decide for themselves. But that is no reason not to
illuminate the dialogue.
[Platt responded]
> No objections. I would only add that we must defend freedom to decide and act
on our values for ourselves.
Agreed. And I would only add that we must remain vigilant against those that
would seek to use rewards and fear to make us act in a way we might normally
not do (e.g., advertising and speech-making as tools to manipulate).
[Platt had written]
> In citing educated opinion one looks for credentials such as degrees
> earned, books written, length of experience in a particular field, awards
received, etc. I'm not a lawyer but I gather there are number of criteria along
those lines for establishing someone as an expert witness.
But just like with statistics, you can easily find two people with equivalent
levels of "education" that disagree significantly. I'm not sure that shows that
"educated opinion" is more reliable than statistics per se.
The point is that, of course, there are both "qualitative" and "quantitative"
research questions. When I ask, "do Americans live longer than people in any
other country?", that IS a question I can answer with statistical measures. I
can also answer whether people at various socio-economic levels have an average
different lifespan.
Other questions, like the "fullness" of the lives they lead CAN be quantitative,
if definitions are offered, such as "I define fullness by whether or not the
majority of peoples over 75 are living in nursing homes." You may, as a reader,
agree or disagree with such a definition, but I, as a researcher, can quantify
it. However, the value of qualitative research is profound. Case studies,
ethnographic research, "educated opinion" I do certainly find worthwhile (and
indismissable simply for being "qualitative"... I even like the word ;-))
However, even in taking a "qualitative" approach to a question, a person has to
offer more than simply "I am saying this is so". This is only what D'Souza
does. He is not saying, for example, that his experience shows that a mid-high
socio-economic America has a better chance to pursue whatever may interest them
in college, than an similar person in India. He is making sweeping and
incredibly broad claims "Americans lead fuller lives", and offering no
criteria, multiple case-studies, supporting studies (either QN or QT), etc.
For example, his comment "America has the gentlest army in the world" (or
something like that) needs some definition. And it needs to respond to the
historical facts that our army has been involved in situations that many people
feel were "misguided". Not to mention the obvious comparison with an army such
as the Belgian. Statements need some clarification and support, they can't JUST
be unsubstantiated opinion. Well, they CAN be, but then that's all they should
claim to be.
[Arlo had written]
> >Do you have any proof other than "opinion" that his second is true? (Elderly
Americans lead fuller lives).
[Platt responded]
> See above about the question of "proof" vs. "opinion."
Of course, now you realize that "proof" does not have to be numbers. But it does
need some measures, case-studies, etc., and a definition as to what "fuller"
means. Can you elaborate then or what D'Souza means by this statement?
For example, if I said "Canadians are a greater people". You could easily ask
"on what are you basing that statement?". It is a fair question to ask, and one
that must be asked when people make try to pass off unsubstantiated opinion as
something more.
[Platt had written]
> > So, since Denmark has these things, you'd say there is no measure to
> > compare the two? And again, what makes one opinion "educated" and another
> > "not"? Whether or not it trumpets "conservativism"?
>
> I think Denmark is a better country than, say, Saudi Arabia. As for
> "educated opinion," see above.
I'd agree. But no comparison can be made between Denmark and the US, getting
back the original proposition that "less CEP means the majority of citizens
lead better lives"?
[Arlo had written]
> > No, Platt. It reveals compassion. Caring about something more than my
> > personal little wealth stockpile.
[Platt responded]
> Yes, I know. You want to be admired for your compassion and caring. Maybe we
should initiate a study of who is more compassionate, you or me. :-)
You make such a materialist assumption, and this shows the blindness people have
when internalizing an ideology (see my post to Ham). You make the assumption
that "materialism" (working only to reward myself) is the natural state of all
people. If I think of others, it is only because I "want to be admired"? This,
I think, speaks volumes about "you", Platt. As I said to Ham, are the Amish
"wanting to be admired" when they work communally to pay for, and build, barns
(etc) for others in their community? Was Jesus looking to be admired when he
performed all those charitable and compassionate acts?
Nonetheless, I do think there are greater things in life than "me amassing
money". Call that whatever you like.
[Arlo asked]
> > But let me ask you, are the "poor" responsible for their poverty?
[Platt responded]
> In many cases in the U.S., yes.
How often? The majority of poor? Half? About what percent would you say are
responsible for their poverty?
Also, in what ways are they responsible?
[Arlo had written]
> > Ah, yes. The last appeal of the Limbaughians is to "the Founders". I can
almost hear the Stars and Stripes playing in the background. The founders,
however, we very specific in drafting documents that clearly indicate what "low
Quality" they were combatting. Taxation without representation, for example.
Indeed, in their opening they state "a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the
separation". When they say "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed" they are very openly
stating that they were rejecting as low Quality the idea of monarchy and
non-representative government. The DoI continues with a long list of direct and
open complaints as to specific actions which can be historically documented and
examined.
[Platt responded]
> Well, feel free to bash the Founders if you wish. They (and the
> Continental Army and the millions who have died to defend this country
> since) assured you of that right
Reread my paragraph and tell me how I "bashed" the founders? I "bashed"
Limbaughians, to be sure. But where and how did I bash the founders?
[Platt asked]
> As noted above, I'm not claiming my beliefs are the absolute truth or
> undeniable fact. Do you claim that yours are?
Of course not. But I didn't author an essay claiming "Canadians are a greater
people" and "Canadians are more virtuous than the people of any other nation".
[Platt wrote]
> Let's discuss reliable sources. Perhaps we can start by agreeing that
> Wikipedia should be our basic reference encyclopedia and that Merriam-
> Webster our dictionary since both are readily accessed on the Web.
We can agree to use them, but I wouldn't rely on them exclusively. Interesting,
you know, wikipedia is a massive collectivist project, undertaking by people
for no profit (almost exclusively anonymously, I might add), all to make
something "better". :-)
Arlo
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 : Sat Jul 09 2005 - 13:42:45 BST