From: LB
To: Editor
Date: 13 Aug 2004
I applaud your curmudgeonly advocacy of reason and clear
thinking! As a Math PhD working in IT, I have found your and Chris Date's
writings very helpful, and your editorials pleasantly spiced.
On the other hand, I would point out that your advocacy of
reason would ring truer if you didn't lace your editorials with political
commentary that was quite so clearly driven by deeply emotional considerations.
To cite only one recent example, you castigated the
discussion of Senator Kerry's record in Vietnam as a "mantra of talking
points"; in reality the claims, right or wrong, are claims concerning
matters of record, and can easily be verified or debunked by consideration of
the factual evidence and the quality of the argument. In addition, outrage at
the topic itself is unwarranted given that Senator Kerry regularly invokes his
military service as a credential supporting his qualification for office. It is
most natural that a logical evaluation of a candidate's fitness for office
would certainly include an examination of the credentials advanced by the
candidate himself.
As a devotee of reason, one would expect you to debunk such
political arguments on logical and factual grounds, rather than on emotional
grounds including, at times, rather torrential ad homina.
PS My personal views are irrelevant to a consideration of my
suggestion above. But since you may be curious, and may be inclined to cite my
supposed views as the basis of an ad hominem to counter my suggestion, I will
admit that I consider both candidates to be distinctly unfit for office. It's a
great pity that there are only two choices, and such dismal ones at that.
From: Fabian Pascal
To: LB
1. As it is labeled "Something Completely Different",
the political section is clearly not part of the debunking, which applies to
data management only. I only link to articles which I find interesting for a
variety of reasons.
2. I certainly do not castigate anything. Neither do I take any position
with respect to the issues raised by the articles. Exactly what reasoning
process has led you to infer any emotional expression on my part?
OTOH, I could argue that in fact, it is your emotional reaction to the
content of a specific article that prompted you to assign me emotions I did
not express. Quite common.
It is certainly part of the reasoning process to disseminate various arguments
and let the reader--in this case you--make up his mind. Since most of these
arguments are nowhere to be found in the mainstream media, just by making them
accessible I advance reason by enabling the reader to consider them, wouldn't
you say?
(Oh, I see that I misread your argument: you referred to my editorials,
not to the political section. However, my mistake was induced by you
using a Kerry example that was not in any of my editorials.)
It is my contention, which I expressed quite often and backed with evidence,
that the US culture is anti-intellectual, and therefore quite dismissive of
knowledge and reason, and that this is intentional insofar as those who own the
country are considered; the socialization system is designed to achieve that
effect.
It is this core characteristic that is also responsible for the sad state of
affairs in the IT industry. Attempts to compartmentalize social phenomena only
exacerbate the problems, because it interferes with the public's ability to
recognize fundamental systemic problems and, thus, to solve them. The notion
that ignorance and inability to reason in the IT industry is somehow separate
than ignorance and inability to reason in the social realm in
general--including politics--is an illusion which only proves my point about
how effective the system's propaganda [and socialization] are.
Ed. Comment: I am
in agreement that neither of the candidates is fit for office, as it is one of
the obvious implications of my contention about the system and its culture. In
fact, I often say that, given this system, anybody who wants office
is automatically suspect in my eyes.
Posted:
09/17/04
