From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Jul 26 2002 - 00:25:56 MDT
Harvey writes
> Your irony is not lost on me, especially since it is my statements
> that you are quoting, spoofing, and probably trying to malign. I
> am ignoring them and trying to respond in a professional manner.
All efforts to advance the light and retard the heat of a discussion
are appreciated. But, although it is perhaps a question of taste,
even here your reference to "professional manner" has to raise eyebrows
from some. Since when is writing email a professional matter? :-D
I am probably not the only one rubbed very much in the wrong way
by your paragraphs one after another that begin, "As a security
professional..." as if this was some vital bit of information
to the argument that follows it. You would practically have to
hold a gun to my head to get me to write "As a chess master, I'm
telling you that a bishop and two pawns almost always wins against
a bishop and one pawn (same colored bishop, of course)". It would
in my own ears sound simultaneously pretentious and condescending.
Why add it?? What possible good would it do to mention that I am
a chess master there? If someone happens to recall the fact, fine,
but it seems horribly out of place for me to mention it, especially
again and again, and doubly especially in an open exchange of ideas
and search for the truth.
The reason is that I *want* criticism, and in no way do I want it
to be discouraged by my pretensions---real or not---to authority.
I want someone to be able to say, "What about positions 212-215
in BCE? (Fine's Basic Chess Endings)". And tellingly, it wouldn't
matter at *all* the rating the speaker. He or she could be a
complete beginner. The point can and should be made by anyone
regardless of his rating.
Of course, if Kasparov or some other GM authors the statement, it
may carry additional weight, and in most minds, it probably should.
But there are probably other GMs who might argue with Kasparov,
even about endings that one might think simple.
> However, the great thing about true professionalism... is that
> nobody should ever defer to our expertise. Once we reference
> a study, a theorem, or an experiment, everybody should be free
> to verify it for themselves.
Yes. And every effort should be made to emphasize that what
I say is true because of the arguments and evidence that back
it up, not because of who I am, or what my credentials are.
> Appeal to authority has no place in logic as a proof. A
> reference to the current state of knowledge in a field is
> not the same as an appeal to authority. Such a reference
> allows the individual to do their own research and find out
> for themselves whether the claims are true or not. As such,
> these references to "common bodies of knowledge" are the
> exact opposite of an appeal to authority.
I agree with the first sentence, but it goes downhill from
there. Were I to begin sentences with "As a chess master,
I...", the effect can *only* be to refer to *my* authority,
my credentials. As a man ;-) I feel awkward in talking about
my feelings, but it makes me sick to my stomach to see
people in any but the most cautious and reserved way
refer to their own expertise while debating an issue.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:40 MST