Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

Christopher Palmer wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, vardi wrote:
>
> > In Judaism there is a concept of "gader laTorah" - a fence around the
> > Torah. That means that you don't do act X, not because it itself is
> > forbidden, but because it may well lead to act Y, which is forbidden.
>
> 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. (Maybe I should stress that I'm not at all an observant or
Orthodox Jew; I use examples from my culture because I know them, and
because I am the product of where I come from).


> > Similarly, I think I shy away from arguments, approaches or philosophies
> > which may not be harmful in themselves, but which seem to have the
> > potential to lead on to things that I do see as harmful.
>
> 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. The
point I'm trying to make is that most people, I think, tend to adopt
particular philosophical, religious, political or whatever positions for
complex reasons, including psychological and personal factors. 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. 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. By "shy
away" I don't mean don't want to listen to or consider, but tend not to
adopt.

>
> > Scientific objectivism (when it comes to the cultural/social field as
> > opposed to scientific research as such) seems to me to be an example of
> > this.
>
> Why do you think that cultures and societies cannot or should not be
> studied scientifically? How could learning in a new way *ever* be harmful?
>
> What do you think it means to study something scientifically? Perhaps
> we're using different definitions; that might be the cause of some of my
> confusion.
>
        I'm not so concerned about the method used to STUDY something, but
about the method use to make JUDGMENTS about something. Scientific
observations of complex cultural/social phenomena are a valid approach
but must be examined very, very carefully.

        For years conclusions were made about gay people that were part of
received wisdom --- only now has it been explained that much of this
research was carried out among prisoners known to be gay, since no other
gay population was accessible. Several generations of young gay people
grew up hearing distorted "truths" about themselves. They also heard
bullshit from people with religious or political objections to who they
were - but at least these people made no claim that their position was
rational, detached and impassionate. This is one of many examples.

        I'm sure such inaccuracies occur in scientific research of physicial,
chemical etc. isuses (e.g. yesterday it was suddenly announced that the
effects of global warming in terms of rising sea levels have been
grossly underestimated - thus objective and absolute reality takes
another lurch) - but somehow it seems more dangerous when these
inaccuracies relate to the perception and judgment of nations, peoples,
and countries.

_____________________________________________________________________________
        Shaul Vardi