Subject:
|
Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Apr 2002 16:29:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1599 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
<snip>
I'm starting to realise something... Maybe should have realised it sooner.
Perhaps we need a disclaimer from you. (or you from us) If I get the sense
of what I snipped away, what you do when you post here isn't debate as most
rationals understand it. Debate has a specific rigorous meaning. What you're
doing isn't debate. Rather it's sharing your emotional outlook on matters
that matter very much to you.
There's nothing wrong with that, per se. In fact it's quite good and
important. But it's liable to cause confusion if other participants aren't
clear on that.
Take for example the whole "review" thing. I was frankly flummoxed when,
after I and others presented clear and cogent definitions of what a review
actually was and why your site posts weren't reviews, when after that, why
you didn't agree with us and stop calling them reviews.
It's not like you are/were unwilling to admit you were wrong, not that at
all, because you readily do admit it when you think you are. (and props for
that! Would that others could say the same!)
Rather it's as if we were talking about two completely different things and
just weren't communicating at all. Different bands.
This is the same thing, in some ways, isn't it?
You say heartfelt things about reading, things you believe, even know in
your heart to be true, but provide no logical basis, proof, statistics, etc.
(the sort of stuff that rational(1) people tend to want to see when
evaluating arguments or discourse)
Chris and others point that out and say that they're not ready to be
convinced without data and logic to back up the assertion.
That in turn confused you because I suspect you're at one level wondering
why logic or statistics have anything to do with it at all! You just told us
how you feel and that ought to be enough.
I haven't yet replied to your comments on the 10020 auction threads for fear
of the same disconnect. I can elaborate 1/2 dozen rational, logical,
sensible reasons for why LD auctioned those sets off and why it's a good
thing for LD and for us, and and and... and I can even possibly convince all
the rational people I'm right!
But none of those will do a whit of good against a heartfelt feeling (held
by an emotive person) that these auctions are "icky"(2). No reason, no
logic, no numbers are going to counteract that. They just *are* icky and
offend the sensibility of some.
Is this making any sense? No one is 100% rational or 100% emotive of course
but is this a correct characterisation of your outlook? (3) If it's not it,
or at least close, then I'm more confused than usual about why Chris's
explanations of no linkages in the data aren't gaining any traction.
cf. some observations about the periodic god debates that arise here. No
amount of logic is going to convince the faithful to disbelieve, and no
amount of faith is going to convince the rational atheists to believe
either. Different bands. Different modulations even. AM receivers don't pick
up FM transmitters. Just doesn't work.
1 - contrast with emotive people please, not with IRrational people...
rational people in this meaning are those that use logic as a metric,
emotive use feeling or aesthetics. Different styles... neither IRrational in
the pejorative sense of not of sound mind. Just different.
2 - That's Suz's term of course but it's a good generic shorthand for that
viewpoint I think...
3 - ever take a Myers-Briggs (sp?) ? What was your score?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
59 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
