From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Jul 28 2002 - 14:47:10 MDT
Colin writes
> They [Amara and Doug Shrecky] 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.
Yes, that's it exactly! "There's a 'poster brand equity' built up
which you can challenge or not, depending on how your BS detector
is working on a particular issue", if I may paraphrase.
But your apt description applies to all, not just to those who you
think of as "authorities".
> 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.
Here's where we still differ: I do not "attribute levels of authority"
as a step in my thinking. (Your idea of asking a trusted third party---
whose advice you evidently hold in esteem---about a post is of course a
good idea.) Rather, I investigate the qualifications of the speaker only
after---if at all---hearing what he or she has to say. I myself don't
have time to investigate the credentials of each evidently knowledgeable
poster, unless, as you put it, my bullshit detector goes off. Keeping
one's Bogosity Meter well-tuned is indeed the ticket.
But more importantly, I think that you still have here in mind
the cases where the poster is attempting to be merely informative,
and is not putting forth his own slants, interpretations, conjectures,
arguments, or refutations. I described these latter before: they slide
into controversial areas, often tinged with political or philosophical
ideology, and are usually more "self contained" (than, say, someone's
description of medical symptoms or physics). In these controversial
cases, Eliezer's dictum, "trust content, not speakers" fully applies.
In these cases where refutations and controversy, or conjectures
and refutation are present, it is inappropriate to refer to one's
own or anyone else's qualifications to speak, as it becomes
tantamount to arguing from authority. It even has the baleful
effect of inhibiting contributions, as the recent joiner implied
who spoke of his own hesitancy.
> 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.
Yes. Perhaps we entirely agree; after all, were I suffering from MS
and read that post, doubtless I'd examine the credentials of the
person dispensing medical advice before *or* after reading it.
> 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.)
Yes, and we must avoid the temptation to think that it will ever
be different: it's not really possible for any three people to
see something in *exactly* the same way.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:44 MST