Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.
From: | Christopher Palmer <reid@...> |
Date: | Tuesday, October 20, 1998, 3:44 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, vardi wrote:
> > But what if act X might also lead to act Z, which is the right thing to
> > do?
>
> Then of course you do it. To stay with the example I gave, if you need
> the pen to open a hole in someone's throat to stop them choking, then it
> is not only permissible but mandatory to use it, on Sabbath as at any
> other time.
That's easy to say, but if your mindset is one of closure to certain
activities, it may be more difficult to act out.
> > What's it like, being afraid of ideas? I've never known the feeling.
>
> I don't think that's really a fair or useful comment Christopher.
Well, you did say "shy away from".
> I don't think Tom Wier (whose contributions to this debate I've enjoyed
> reading, even tho' I don't always agree) or myself have sat down, read
> everything about this issue, weighed it up impassionately and come to
> our positions; I certainly haven't.
Speak for yourself. I did, in fact I have changed my position since I came
to know more about natural language, and I did so rationally and
impassionately. It's called 'science', and people are more or less capable
of it.
> Rather I think we have a tendency to a given position, for whatever
> reasons, and thus we are more receptive to research or positions that
> reinforce or develop that position.
That would be 'bad science'.
> I'm not so concerned about the method used to STUDY something, but about
> the method use to make JUDGMENTS about something.
If your studies, whether scientific or otherwise, give you no way to make
judgements about things in your life and environment, what good are they?
> Scientific observations of complex cultural/social phenomena are a valid
> approach but must be examined very, very carefully.
Of course. Close examination is part of what makes them scientific --
hypotheses are not accepted on faith, they're accepted or rejected by a
process of falsification and repeatability, and therefore far more
trustworthy.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Christopher Reid Palmer : reid@pconline.com : www.pconline.com/~reid/