From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 21:57:09 MDT
At 08:32 PM 8/27/02 -0700, Lee wrote:
>On the one hand, I
>totally agree with Spike that our goal must be careful
>objective reporting. (Commentary not merely expressing
>facts or a factual account of, say, history, must be
>explicitly labeled as such.)
To the extent that this is possible or even meaningful, sure, of course. If
16 zillion Martians were nuked by the Atlanteans, it is important not to
claim erroneously that only 5 zillion were, or that 120 zillion were. But
beyond that kind of quibbling, we know the Atlanteans had no other choice,
don't we, because the Martians are such disgusting slimy creatures;
naturally nobody will mention this perfectly objective value judgement in
their reports to the Proceedings, it's self evident.
>On the other hand, yes, some people will be aghast at the
>way that Burke and others---like people here on this list
>---will calmly describe the raping of the Earth and other
>horrendous deeds without extreme indignation. Perhaps you
>are saying that the mere absence of indignation while
>describing something is itself a political statement?
I'm saying that even putting the matter that way embodies a political
statement. But wait, what is this `raping of the Earth'? Material is being
relocated, modified, marketed. It's just like `raping of a human'. Nothing
to see, folks, move right along. Just the motion of some particles inside
the boundary of some other particles. This is science. Quant suff!
>If so, I don't agree. One should be able to read some
>reports of terrible tragedies---say the Nazi Holocaust
>---without the inevitable sermonizing.
Calling these objective events `terrible' and `tragic' is disgraceful
sermonizing. Let us just count the bones and get on with the proper
business of value-free science.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:27 MST