From: Colin Hales (colin@versalog.com.au)
Date: Sun Jul 28 2002 - 02:05:59 MDT
Lee Corbin
<snip>
>
> > In validating authority no system is perfect, but it helps
> > if you don't have to work relentlessly at it.
>
> Yes, but be aware of the potential clash with Harvey's statement
> above "Nobody is talking about accepting expertise without checking
> it out first".
>
> > For example, when Amara says something about star stuff, I know that
> > there's a wealth of knowledge back there because she spends her life
> > in it.
>
> That's a reasonable conjecture, but only that. I assume that you
> haven't *really* checked out her thesis or her background in detail.
> But more vitally, the point is that what Amara has to say about
> astronomy, or what Doug Shrecky has to say about flies, is not
> controversial, and even more importantly, as I said earlier, not
> subject to ideologically based differences in values. Nonetheless,
> I must ask: would you find the postings of either of these people
> less informative if submitted anonymously?
No. They are always worth the read. As time goes on there's a kind of
'poster brand equity' built up in the authority, which you can challenge
or not, depending on how your BS detector is behaving on a particular
issue. As you rightly point out - it's your personal stake (= level of
controversy, for you) in the particular matter that determines the level of
validation to apply.
Example: I recently asked a list member off list about the 'content' of
some recent posts here by a third party because I was concerned that
I may be wasting my time attributing the level of authority that the
poster assumed in making the posts. I made a judgement on relative merit
of each authority and acted (did nothing, in this case).
Another case would be the recent recommendations re treatment for MS
symptoms - carefully placed by list members with, it seems, appropriate
background. The level of authority there really matters - more than
just the state of an opinion.
On other occasions it's great to have the 'sword of Damocles' plunge
from the sky in the form of a Lee (or whoever) and point the finger
at a big smelly hole in your thinking.
Like I said - Caveat emptor.
> > Colin Hales
> > *am I qualified to say this? hmmm. I'd better check ;-) *
>
> A joke in extremely bad taste, Colin! If anything ever needs to be
> shouted down, it would be that you or anyone would require credentials
> to make you above statements. Perhaps that was your point :-) I hope
> it was.
>
> Lee
Yeah, it was. Bad taste is a forte of mine!
I try to make points as interesting as I can to ferret out. Email is
quite odd; a conversational medium without all the rest of the communication
that takes place across the top of the coffee cup. It's very easy to
innappropriately attribute a nuance to text. It's why the :-), :P, [8-P))
etc
seem to be needed.
It's interesting to reflect on how we perceive the comments of others. We
each bring our own unique lens to the words and see something different.
(I'm mixing my optical metaphors. Damn.)
Cheers
Colin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:43 MST