RE: [tips] HH Goddard

[Aubyn Fulton]

Aubyn wrote.... While I also agree that it is crucial to take historical context and standards into account, the mere fact (assuming it is indeed fact) that re-touching photos for publication to reinforce a point was common does not necessarily legitimate or excuse the practice. Christopher wrote... If the practices of a particular time and place don't set the parameters for "good" and "bad" behavior, then what would? Certainly one's own intuitions (conditioned as they are by one's own time and place) don't serve as better guidelines. Aubyn writes... I do agree with your second sentence above. But I do not think that we can just conclude that whatever most people do at any particular point in history must be taken as "good". It may be that, given the state of photography and publishing in the first half of the 20th century, photographs were routinely re-touched to emphasize whatever point was being illustrated with them, that this was a well understood practice, and that no deception was intended or, for the most part, perpetrated. However it may also be that powerful interests controlled the processes of photography and publication, and routinely and deliberately falsified photographs; if that were the case, then the mere fact that it was common would not make it "right" (and of course it may be some combination of these two).   "Right" obviously can be a loaded term, but I think in this case it is relatively straightforward. There is a pretty clear difference between saying something like: "Goddard's use of photographs was consistent with the practice of publishing in his day, and was not intended or regarded as deliberately deceptive at the time" and saying "Goddard, like most of the elite of his day who had rather privileged access to technology and publication, deliberately faked his photographs to advance his case, and had his audience at the time known about it they would have been outraged". I am perfectly willing to accept that the former statement is closer to the truth (though I need to learn more about this) but I don't think the latter statement, if properly supported, would be particularly Whiggish. Aubyn had written... I look forward to reading your colleague Fancher’s AP article, but I don’t think that it would be Whig history to accuse people of long ago of lying just because a lot of them were doing it.   Christopher wrote... Well, your use of the term "lying" presupposes the answer to the question. But "lying" is not easily defined (SNIP) The question here is whether retouching was considered "lying" or, rather, a legitimate way of enhancing an image  (SNIP) What is "Whiggish" is to automatically assume that we've made "progress" and thus that past practices must be "inferior" to ours and, therefore, that the people of the past are somehow blameworthy for their "defective" practices.   Aubyn writes... No doubt. I intended my use of "lying" as an example of a clear case of a common historical practice that could be judged "wrong" by those of us in the present, not as a pre-judgment of poor Dr. Goddard. If Goddard was lying, then it doesn't matter how many other people were doing it too, but yes, the question here is whether or not what he was doing would have been considered dishonest (by Goddard himself, but also by the audience who read or were influenced by his work).   It may be that, by the standard of the next century, the current practice of re-shooting a pre-taped public communication to eliminate goofs and misstatements will be considered dishonest, but it would be a bit unfair for them to think of all of us who do that now as a bunch of liars. OTOH, if most of our major contemporary  politicians actually had trained look-alike actors make their televised speeches, and used technology to fool us into thinking it was them, I think we could call them dishonest even if most of them engaged in the practice. As of right now, I am not sure which of these two analogies comes closer to Goddard's practice.   And thanks for your ideas about resources for helping students with a more nuanced view of the material in Gould - I have already cribbed some of these from you last year on Burt, which has been quite helpful.         **************************************************** Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Chair, Behavioral Science Department Pacific Union College Angwin, CA 94508 Office: 707-965-6536 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****************************************************   --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]