Jonathan-
I noticed you picked up on...
"After all, it's a common rhetorical proof that
>>the source of a message has nothing to do
>>with its accuracy (see ZAMM for details)."
I knew I was going to get into trouble from this the second I hit SEND.
This is just a snippet from an argument I was having with a classmate here
at school. While I agree that the credentials of a speaker having
EVERYTHING to do with how we will perceive the truth of what they say... it
has no direct bearing on it. An astro-physicist can still say things about
astro-physics that are wrong, the same way someone who knows nothing of
physics can say things about it that are right.
The only reason I offered this thought at all was because
of a previous experience I had with a philosophy professor who wouldn't let
me (or any of the class) argue with him or question him because we..."don't
have the knowledge or experience." This very man once said to me, "Once
you have a degree from Harvard, then we can talk." I was naturally
outraged. So when I saw this sort of "who knows more than who" attitude
creep into some posts on the LILA SQUAD, I became slightly concerned. I
would hate to think that the "final word" in this discussion will go to
those with the best credentials rather than those with the best ideas. I
meant nothing more than that.
Rick
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:39 BST