Re: The Need for Debate

On Sunday, December 5, 2004, at 06:20 , Chris Bates wrote:

> Recently there have been more accusations of flames etc on the list.
etc.
[snip]

To a large degree I agree with what Chris has written   :)

There is only one bit I really disagree with and not for any personal
reasons.
>
> I would go further and argue that debate is a good thing. Why was there
> little progress during most of the Middle Ages? Because the Church and
> Governments repressed dissenting voices and prevented debate,
No - there were quite vigorous debates during the Middle ages. The debates
between Scotists and Thomists come to mind immediately. There was in fact
considerable between the 8th & 15th centuries - it was the heady
atmosphere of the Reformation that made dissent so dangerous.

Oddly, in fact, it was the very existence of the medieval tradition of
debate that meant the pope of the day paid so little attention to Luther -
it was regarded as yet another one of these quarrels between different
religious orders; this time between the Augustinians (Luther was an
Augustinian monk at the time) and the Dominicans. By the time it was
realized in Rome that things were a bit more serious, it was too late.

But the idea of stagnant Middle Ages where all debate was suppressed was
part of the post-Reformation anti-Catholic propaganda which grew up in the
UK (alongside other silly myths like "Columbus & the flat-earthers"). It
was the 'history' I was taught at school in the 1950s. I thought things
had improved and history teaching was more enlightened now. But maybe not
    :=(

[snip]
> It is very easy when there is no tone of voice, no facial expressions,
> as in email, to see the worst in what someone has written.
This is certainly part of the problem. Also in face-to-face debate you
know who is who. It is so easy in email debates to lose track - as I did
very recently. There are, as I see it, two other problems:
- these debates tend to split up into different threads and traffic
becomes heavy. It is only too easy to finish up skimming rather than
reading carefully (because time is limited) and simply get confused
between what is being said in one thread and what in other related threads.
- there is a time lapse; someone says something which causes me to raise
my eyebrows, but before I have chance to say "What exactly do you mean?"
several other people have waded in, the debate has moved on and my
perception of the original remark has changed.

This is why IME over the years off-topic debates on politics & religion
have tended to prove unsatisfactory IMO.

[snip]
> unfairly generalized. I'm perfectly happy to accept that there are good
> translations I simply haven't come across, and that the priesthood isn't
> simply happy with the Bible being difficult to interpret. I was wrong
> and I'm perfectly happy to say so. :)
And I was quite out of order in my response to Fr Charlie - a great pity,
I realize now, as I could have said "That does not seem right to me, could
you explain further?"

> I hope no one takes offense at this, since it really isn't meant to
> offend,
I for one have not. I agree with Chris about the usefulness of debate - I
just wonder if the Conlang List is the best forum.

But I'll make a deal with Chris - if you try to be less cynical, I will
try even harder to be less fiery   :-)

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]

Reply