From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon Jul 11 2005 - 17:09:44 BST
Hi all,
This following has slipped over from another, related thread. The
subjects are the manipulation of opinion, and "facts."
platt:
You may have a point, but if you can see the manipulation in speech
and advertising, and I can see it, I think it's safe to say others
can, too. I believe people are smart enough to know what's good and
not good for them. Of course, there are exceptions, but by protecting
them from their mistakes, they'll never learn.
arlo:
The whole point of it being covert is that by definition it is
internalized and invisible <snip>
At any rate, let's just agree that there is some amount of covert
coercion that occurs that makes people internalize behaviors that
they would, in the absence of such coercion, not find Quality.
Advertising and speech-making, as well as ideological assumptions are
just a few I would argue contain covert coercive components.
msh 7-11-05:
I think there's an element missing from this discussion. In addition
to covert and overt coercion, there's another more direct way in
which people may be persuaded to act against Quality: Lie to them
from trusted positions, or deprive them of accurate information, or
make the retrieval of accurate information so difficult and time-
consuming that very few people are able to do it and still have
something like a normal life.
These three related methods of persuasion are usually interwoven.
Anyone who evaluates the political deceptions that went on during the
recent runup to war, in both the US and Britain, will have a clear
understanding of what I mean. As will anyone who thinks about the
way commercial advertising works.
This is why, in a moral society, there will be easy access to the
full spectrum of ideas and information on any issue of public
concern, including political and consumer policy. This in turn means,
among other things, that wealth and power cannot be allowed do
control the public airwaves, or to dominate the free press.
People are not stupid, but, without accurate information on which to
base our decisions, any of us may unintentionally decide to act
against our own best interests.
platt:
Here I ask what constitute "facts?" That's what's really at the heart
of my question about reliable sources. I've named Wikipedia and
Merriam- Webster as reliable sources and will now add the phone
directory, daily stock market reports, and almanac of the moon, stars
and planets. I look forward to any specific reliable sources you care
to recommend. Limbaugh and Chomsky are definitely out. :-)
msh 7-11-05:
Whether or not a source is reliable is determined by evaluating his
or her research. No political philosopher on earth provides more
historical analysis and documentation in support of his opinions than
does Noam Chomsky. To suggest that Chomsky and Limbaugh are "equals"
in this regard is pure fantasy, as will be obvious to anyone who
compares, say, Chomsky's "Profits Over People" to either one of
Limbaugh's books.
arlo before:
I think there have been thread on empiricism and the like, and what
constitutes "fact". I'm not an expert in that field, so I'll plead
ignorance. I'll just state that as close as you can get to valid and
reliable statements is important. Whether you can ever get fully
there, or even if it is important to do so, I have too little
knowledge to cast a comment.
msh 7-11-05:
I agree. It's not possible to obtain mathematical certainty about
any historical or even scientific "facts." I don't know any sane
person who says it is. This does not mean we cannot approach
certainty on these issues. If 999 people are running out of a
theater screaming "Fire" we can reasonably make the obvious
inference, even if the thousandth person is only complaining about
the popcorn. This is why it is so important to have for our
evaluation the widest possible spectrum of ideas and observations.
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
"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why,
why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell
himself he understand." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
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 : Mon Jul 11 2005 - 18:26:44 BST