*this reply was somehow lost in transit* 10/15/06 12:05 PM ernard D. Tremblay (Ben) wrote: > (I was gratified and relieved to find this a break from the > breathtaking polemic.) > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 at 03:01:54 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> The scholarly rules for resolving disputes [...] each of the parties >> writes one or more [...] and for othe scholars >> in the field to write similar articles or books, often based on one >> position and ignoring the other until a consensus [...] >> develops ... > I would suggest that what's key here is that the processes are > transparent. Although some professionals do not make use of OpenAccess > (some perr-reviewed journals will not publish material that has been > elsewhere released to the net) most material finds its way to the > publich eye by one way or another. > > If a site lets it be known that it will ben "neutral" then the reader > has a chance to understand why the material is peculiarly vanilla. > When a site publishes selectively, selecting material by means of a > series of vetting processes (most of which are invisible) the supposes > that all engaged are naive concerning how power consists of declaring > "truth". > > If a site endeavors to present the state of the art, dealing with > chaos appopriately rather than authoritatively, then that site is > serving the discourse and enabling the dialectic. > >> An attempt to write a definitive secondary discussion can not be done >> while the dispute persists; the attempt in WP produces a list of all >> the points at issue, rather than a resolution. > I'm wondering: isn't it hubris for anyone or any group to set out with > the goal of producing resolution? In all my years in industry (sorry, > no 4 year degree here) I've always thought it my responsibility to set > out what consensus exists alongside dissenting views, depicting chaos > or incoherence as it arises. (Although the system design I've > generated for my own project will produce something that can pretend > to authority it is foundationally different from CZ.) > >> I have always though that, rather than arguing behind the scenes in >> an exchange of comments, the apppropriate way is to have articles, or >> subarticles, written by those representing the major positions. > Hear hear! When I encounter those who set out to discover, produce, or > reveal the "one true view" I find myself wondering if what's at play > is as innocent as naivete or if the prime motive is somewhat darker. > > If justice needs to be seen to be done, surely the same is true for > the exercise of power that is the production of knowledge.
>> I think we have to decide, are we trying a redo of WP with higher >> standards for the debators but in the same manner, or are we trying >> to give the non-academic reader a fair presentation of how matters >> stand as viewed from an academic perspective? The discussions here >> throughout have sometimes assumed one, and sometimes the other. > I'd add something else to this list: is the point to moot all dissent? > to present some unified view? to produce a monolith? > > My own inspiration is "Many sharing deeply about small things" with > the aim of regenerating a sense of participatory deliberation. Perhaps > I'm at odds with some prime directive here. > >> There are 4 types of debate we are likely to find: >> [...] > When I was doing my study of "praxis" (mid-70s) an anecdote I found in > a book by Maritain in-formed my work: he describes a conversation he > overheard at the reception after the United Nations signed the > Declaration of Human Rights. One representative expressed his surprise > that another had signed, and the second asked why that should be > surprising. The first responded by pointing to a couple of the key > clauses, and the second wondered how those could be a problem. The > first replied with entailments that he thought the second would find > unacceptable; the second disagreed that those clauses were problematic > in that way since there was no such entailment. > > When we come to agreement on a text then we can begin to explore how > we disagree on its meanings and implications. Or we can at that point > simply wait to be instructed ... depending on what culture we're > seeking to strengthen. > > ben > _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
