o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Re: https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2006-October/000532.html
Larry & All,
I have always been a "one idea (at a time)" kind of thinker,
so I will have to comment on your last message bit by bit.
JA: We should not have to make up new rules for resolving disputes,
as the norms that seasoned researchers and responsible scholars
already observe in practice will serve us as well as any maxims.
Larry: Well, I'm wondering what norms, in particular, you're referring to.
We do have a practical problem to solve, namely, what to do when two
or more editors (I mean people with Editor privileges, as opposed to
Author privileges) disagree and can't be reconciled. It doesn't help
to say "follow the old norms". Well, what are the old norms, and what
process would those norms have us follow? And notice that it's not a
matter of making up new *rules* but instead making up a *procedure*.
The *rules or norms* might be in various ways the same as old ones;
but we still need a clear decisionmaking *process* in any case.
So what's the procedure (new *or* old)?
One of the norms of rational inquiry is to describe the situation accurately.
If there is a situation where "two or more editors ... disagree and can't be
reconciled", then we describe that situation by saying "two or more editors ...
disagree and can't be reconciled".
To extract the more general rule: When there is a situation in the literature
or
in society where several "populations of interpreters" (POI's) have differences
of interpretation or opinion that appear to be irreconcilable at a given
moment in time, then we describe the situation in so many words, and we
say that POI_1 has interpretation 1, POI_2 has interpretation 2, etc.
You don't have to be a philosophical pluralist, much less a relativist,
to see the sense of doing this. It is simply a matter of describing
the current state of dissensus accurately.
It's not really our job to fashion the consensus, much less fake it.
Though a certain amount of fresh analysis may help to clarify the
situation and maybe even point the way forward, there's no sense
expecting that kind of luck all the time.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
citizendium development forums: http://smf.citizendium.org
http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Jon_Awbrey
wikinfo: http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=User:Jon_Awbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
_______________________________________________
Citizendium-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
