Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Lou expressed my thought better than I did. I would only add that in these debates nobody seems to learn anything from anybody else -- at least, you can pretty well predict what the few participants in such debates will write. On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:25:32AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: In much of the discussion here, we get conclusions without the supporting facts. This has been true of the Vandana Shiva thread as well as the liberalism/expertise thread. Unfortunately, in the latter case the rules of participation would almost exclude facts, etc. because the context is preeminently philosophical. When the discussion revolves around the individual versus society, etc., you are entering the vaporous realm of political philosophy. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Michael writes: I would only add that in these debates nobody seems to learn anything from anybody else -- at least, you can pretty well predict what the few participants in such debates will write. To be sure, most postings in most PEN-L debates appear as predictable rehearsals of existing positions. But for what it's worth, that doesn't mean that no learning is going on, despite the occasionally frustrating lack of anything that looks like progress or meetings of minds. Among the things I've gotten from past PEN-L debates in which I've participated are: finding out the range of possible arguments against a given position (and possible responses); references to relevant literature (particularly useful); and offline correspondences that often *do* end up going somewhere. On the first point, for those who enter given debates seriously and in good faith, positions and counterpositions can be developed much more rapidly than via the traditional route of published exchanges in journals. I think that's been a real contribution of this medium, despite its drawbacks. Gil
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28996] Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism Louis writes: I know this is an onerous burden to place on pen-l'ers, but you should search for ways to impart some kind of concrete information whenever you post. That's good, but I like a weaker standard, since not all discussions are about issues where there is new empirical information that can be presented. I don't think we want to limit the scope of the discussion the way that's implied by Louis' criterion. My weaker standard is that whenever an abstraction is applied some effort should be made to present a concrete example or exemplar to illustrate or explain the meaning of that abstraction. Rather than simply talking about democracy, for example, it's good to keep in mind what that means in practice in a specific place and time, if only to understand the contrast between the theoretical concept and the reality. Maybe we can talk about _hypothetical_ examples, but still that's better than simply throwing abstract words around such as democracy without an effort to concretize them. That is, we should try to avoid rhetorical and totally abstract assertions, such as freedom is good. This is useless, especially since one can define both terms so that the statement is always true. There's a stronger standard, which I doubt that we can live up to but is still good to keep in mind: on some theoretical difference, what are the implications for political practice or economic policy. (The latter is not something I see as very useful, but the best policy is often a useful thing to understand precisely because the government doesn't pursue it.) There are all sorts of issues -- such as that chestnut the class nature of the old USSR -- where certain ranges of opinion imply no differences in terms of practice. Within one of those ranges, we can avoid needless argument by realizing that potential practical unity. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
I would disagree. It seems to me that maillists are primarily conversational, and attempts to make them replace printed journals are mostly wishful thinking. I my only rarely either read or write posts much longer than 4 or 5 screens. Moreover, issues that really do depend on large amounts of empirical data simply do not belong on e-mail lists. The information given is _always_ highly selective, and hence rarely contributes to the argument. In the few cases when it appears that information offered is really crucial to the argument, it is necessary to consider more sources in any case before trusting the data. An endless rain of information (_highly selective and hard to judge_) on most ecological questions is simply pointless -- all of it is almost always obviously true-- and also obviously irrelevant to anything until one can place it in a political context. I think someone should do a dissertation on empirical arguments on maillists. Such a study would show, I believe, that in nearly all cases _everyone_ involved was (mostly unintentionally) cheating. That is, the evidence offered always fits into a strictly linear line of thought. Let's see if I can explain this. Someone argues: A causes B. Then gives endless evidence to support that proposition. But that evidence turns out to be irrelevant, because while it is perfectly true that A causes B and B is a desirable end, it is also possibly or probably true, that A ALSO causes C, D, E, F. That F in turn causes B, but only under circustances where it also causes G, which is destructive of B. And this means that anyone who continues to heap up evidence for the proposition that A causes B becomes obscurantist, however good his/her intentions may be. Moreover, there is usually at least two persons in the discussion who suffer seriously from the fetishism of facts -- i.e., who believe that facts explain themselves (and of course the explanation the facts give of themselves is always the explanation that the fetishist has actually assumed from the beginning). Such fetishists will see any attempt to point out other factors involved, or any attempt to challenge the obvious point of the facts, is deliberately changing the subject. And when there are two of them with opposing understandings of the issue, they will go on endlessly adding fact to fact with not the slightest awareness that it is not facts but clarification of the multiple issues involved that needs to be pursued. And maillists _may_ clarify issues (both for the writers and for the large number of lurkers on every list). Clarification is _not_ of course a conclusion -- why should it be? And moreover, sometimes it is in the late stages of a discussion that seems merely to go round and round that questions that have been implicit or blurred become explicit. The best any mail list can do is to clarify issues, open up new questions, and provide a forum for trying out ideas. Serious polemics or information belong in printed journals. I learn quite a bit on the run from pen-l because I have no formal training in econ. How important that is I do not know. Carrol Michael Perelman wrote: Lou expressed my thought better than I did. I would only add that in these debates nobody seems to learn anything from anybody else -- at least, you can pretty well predict what the few participants in such debates will write. On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:25:32AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: In much of the discussion here, we get conclusions without the supporting facts. This has been true of the Vandana Shiva thread as well as the liberalism/expertise thread. Unfortunately, in the latter case the rules of participation would almost exclude facts, etc. because the context is preeminently philosophical. When the discussion revolves around the individual versus society, etc., you are entering the vaporous realm of political philosophy. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
