finn said, re the value of anecdotal evidence or hearsay evidence...
Quote:In formulating one's opinions, empiricle evidence as well as anecdotal "heresay" from trusted sources constitute a reasonable foundation.
It is, at best, pedantic to invoke The Requirement in an internet forum such as A2K, and, at worst, an intellectual dodge.
What does it matter what the forum might be? The reason anecdotal or hearsay evidence is granted little credence in more formal circumstances is only because such evidence is not dependable, too often leading to conclusions which are false. A Lada sold out of a Lubbock trailer park will go no further nor longer than if it were sold out of a Manhattan Lexus dealership.
It matters quite a deal, as you should well know. On the rare occassion that I speak with someone, outside of business, on the phone, I hardly hold them to the rules of evidence or the scientific method. If you do, then please never give me your phone number.
Perhaps you wish to apply loftier standards to A2K than are applied to phone chats, but I can't imagine why. You might as well try to enforce hygiene at an orgy.
Quote:I said... But let's say that each of your children had three experiences of the sort you imply. How many experiences/interactions have they had with their professors in total? Do we end up with a ratio of something like 3 to Thousands?
finn answered... Toxins are typically measured in parts per million. Academic bullying and racisim are toxins. Perhaps Baltham's Law of Societal Ratios needs further consideration.
(Note: still no specifics on your kids' experiences...perhaps later in your response)...
If I thought you were actually curious, I might provide the details but as it appears you are merely engaged in a churlish challenge, I think not.
This is a very mixed up response, finn.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Again, a simple logical point. We consider a 'social wrong' relevant or important enough to address with legislation (or informally, with some organized social movement) where it exists in significant frequency or where the nature of the 'wrong' is egregious. We have laws specifically prohibiting murder, but there are no laws specifically prohibiting breaking someone else's bingo chip in half. Legislation prohibiting opium arose with the increased frequency of opium use at the turn of the century. Previously, it didn't occur often enough to be seen as a problem.
So if murder were a rare happenstance, it would fly below the radar of society? A few minutes of research on the internet is likely to reveal a large number of arcane laws that address infrequent crimes. On the other hand there has been only two instances, throughout all of history, when a nuclear device has been detonated above a city, and yet the vast majority of people on this planet would view a repeat performance as a notable tragedy, if not a crime. Tell me how your "simple logic" addresses these points.
You create an analogy between academic bullying (without defining it again) and environmental toxins. It is not a helpful analogy. What wouldn't constitute a 'toxin'? But the central illogic of your analogy here is that you are supporting the claim that higher education is too 'liberal' (hoping for definition further along), saying that university is now 'poisoned' by but a few instances out of millions.
Let's recall your argument that even if my children experience a handful of legitimate instances of academic bullying (Do I really need to define it? If so, just ask.), they were a mere drop in the bucket of the totality of academic experiences. I will be happy to abide by this measurement of relevance if you will. On A2K, you are one of the champions of the slippery slope admonition. "Yes these insidious incursions upon our freedoms are infrequent at present, but if allowed to stand they will prosper and we will be in chains!"
Again, assuming I am not lying about my kids' experiences simply to make a point on an internet forum, are you really OK with the idea that three individual students at three different institutions have experienced Liberal bullying? If I were African-American and relating that my children experienced instances of racism would you be as dismissive? Somehow I think not. I'm afraid that you are applying a quite selective logic to this issue.
Quote: I am here (Dallas) most often. I am in my home town (New York) far less frequently (amazingly enough there is quite a lot of money to be made in red states), however should I find myself in need of travelling to The Big Apple, I will let you know. Similarly, I hope that you will let me know when you are next in The Big D.
You got it.
Good
Quote:finn...Yes, by all means, let's take a poll. That will certainly deliver to us the truth!
blatham...You've snuck out of the salient logical point here, replacing it with a strawman.
I'll assume that your business there in Dallas includes board meetings. Let's say we have two groups, the first being the individuals who have actually attended those board meetings, and a second group of Dallas tree-huggers who have not attended any. Who ought we to logically conclude has more or better 'knowledge' regarding what goes on in those meetings?
finn...Now who is contructing strawmen? Surely you must realize that any poll conducted on A2K is woefully unscientific.
Nah, no strawman in what I've said, finn. I've simply presented you with a comparable situation, but you aren't willing to engage it.
Nah, blatham you have advanced a specious comparison. If you insist that I engage: In your scenario, of course one would rely upon the testimony of those who actually attended the meeting. Of course this presumes that one knows these individuals actually attended the meeting. Asking a bunch of anonymous posters on A2K to confirm one or the other premise through a poll is hardly comparable. I would no more rely upon the results if they supported my position than if they supported yours.
Sometimes, people do not know what they are talking about..."That book is a terrible horrid book...why, no, I haven't read it...but I heard about it." We commonly inquire as to a person's experience to find out whether they will be qualified to do a task or as to whether they have sufficient and real knowledge to answer a question (one doesn't ask a tourist for directions, one asks a local). If we want dependable information on whether the food at a restaurant is good, we ask someone who has been there. But I'll leave it at that.
I don't think you will address this point with integrity.
Oh you don't? How about addressing it with a $@%& You, you supercilious twit?
I've given the primary basis for my opinion on this topic. If you doubt my veracity, don't follow my direction, don't read, the book, and don't eat at the restaurant. Oh and by the way $@%& You too.
Definitions!! At last. But my god, what definitions. You start with some reference to dictionary definitions, but selective, then you head into the definitions you consider apply and you do it in a manner quite similar to how Horowitz or Coulter would insist on defining it. You have entered the territory which is the subject of a book I've just begun, as it happens.
What????
Did you, this Christmas, sit around the television with family and watch Jimmy Stewart in "It's a Good Life"? Or perhaps "Scrooge" or the wonderful modern version "Scrooged" with Bill Murray? They are both stories about liberal economic ideas and liberal values. Have you read Lincoln's speeches? Horowitz and Coulter would NOT approve of much of the content of those speeches today. And the things some of your constitution writers have said...well, they sometimes sound like atheistic commies. Heck, some of them were even humping blacks.
Your differentiation of liberal and Liberal isn't helpful, as you tend to throw all real people into the more negative group in any case.
This blather isn't helpful either.
Quote:So you and Strauss do not consider Neo-con policy as liberal...BFD.
The mere fact that it has stepped outside of the box of conventional policy makes it liberal, only the fact that it was advanced by Conservatives makes it something other than Liberal.
What was the Liberal response to Saddam? Containment. Oh, now that is liberal thinking at its best!
The Neo-cons, not the Liberals, are those in Washington with a truly liberal world view.
How much from or about these fellow have you read, finn? Here, you fall to defining liberal as doing something different from what came earlier. Containment was traditional or conservative, shock and awe warfare (and fibbing about why you wanted to do it) was liberal. If you want to define liberal simply as newish, then ok, but you put the neocons directly beside Karl Marx or Huxley's 'Brave New World' or interracial anal sex in that case. Not very helpful.
Arguing with you is fun but not, in any way productive.
I didn't define "liberal" as "newish." If "liberal" isn't breaking with traditional thought, what is it?
I understand you have had tongue in cheek in much of the above, but I understand also where you haven't written in that tone.
Terms are often plastic. Definitions can change, can become confused, can become understood in a sense directly contradictory to what they once meant. Political discourse often seeks such an end in order to further some particular agenda.
I'm going to end off here on this thread and, for the most part, in yakking with friends like yourself as I have a lot of work to do. This book won't be easy, if I'm to be careful and honest and clear of head and voice.
What book?
All the best.
And to you as well, although I do mean $@%& You, you supercilious twit.
:wink:
