----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:58 PM Subject: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babbletheory, and comments))
> On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote way too much on the > topic of disclaimers: > > > Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? "In my opinion, > > this > > thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to > > discussion on the topic" ... kind of wordy if we can *presume* that the > > statement "this thing is invalid" is already an opinion and all the > > other verbiage associated therewith is understood to be applicable in > > all cases. > > I started this drift. I never intended that anyone lard their statements > of opinion with disclaimers. > > "This thing is invalid" differs from "I cannot see the validity in this > thing" in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent. > > With "this thing is invalid," the speaker draws a line in the sand and > throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking "this thing is valid" > believers. > > "I cannot see the validity in this thing" expresses the speaker's state > in trying to understand this thing and invites others to agree, disagree > or leave the speaker with his or her doubts. I agree with your assessment. As an addition, I will note that one tends to see a significant variance in the frequency of use of each of these statements in various forums. When I was trained in experimental particle physics, we were strongly encouraged to use the "I cannot see" variation. If the former was used, then one would have to defend one's absolute proof of one's statement against all comers....including very talented professors. If it is the latter, one is opening up a discussion that is usually fruitful for all. I've seen this when I've taken a graduate seminar in ancient history/literature. The same techniques of scholarship that I used applied there. Good technique is good technique, sloppy technique is next to worthless. Making statements of fact that are not a long term general consensus is considered a prime example of bad technique. My ancient history prof told us that when we read two books in the first week of class that we should have known one wasn't very good (he bought a first run because a previous book by the author was good..and apologized for the book he had us buy). We should have known, even thought it was our first reading in the area of study, because the technique was bad. So, for the most part, one finds this technique associated with good scholarship (there is of course of the guy with low EQ who is tolerated because he actually has some good work and a Feynman who actually might know more than everyone else put together. :-) ) The other technique (I'm right and y'all are wrong) is common in Usenet forums, particularly those frequented by teenage boys. I tend to prefer scholarship over teenage boy macho. Dan M. I'm not sure about your fields, but in experimental particle physics, claims of experimental results often had 1, 2, or 3 bottles of wine beside them....indicating how strongly the speaker felt about each idea. I've also known that, in historical studies, the same is true. From reading a book on technique _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
