Pike's ghost

James Wynn · 29 Nov 2011, 16:12 · from 2011-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:12:50 -0600
Subject: (urth) Pike's ghost
In-Reply-To: <4ED4293C.2010906 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W32DE1E1E63A572375FA831CFB20 at phx.gbl>	<70C71EDFDC3B4AEBA0FD38FD41FB8551@Rover>	<4ED39725.9090804 at gmail.com>	<4ED3ABE8.8060807 at verizon.net>	<4ED3BEAA.1080107 at gmail.com>	<4ED3CB92.40502 at verizon.net>	<4ED3D4DC.3000409 at gmail.com>	<4ED3DFF2.8050208 at verizon.net>	<4ED3F57B.8050104 at gmail.com>	<4ED40796.8030108 at verizon.net>	<4ED41277.9040204 at gmail.com>	<4ED41B0E.6050507 at gmail.com>
	<4ED41F91.1020906 at gmail.com> <4ED4276E.8040608 at gmail.com>
	<4ED4293C.2010906 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ED50482.8030804 at gmail.com>

On 11/28/2011 6:37 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
>>> This isn't about theories. This is about when something looks like
>>> a duck and quacks like a duck.
>>
>> If it is you own theory, it always quacks.
>
> If this really is you talking, James, and the odds are it is, I'm 
> beginning to understand you a lot better.

It is a logical error that people fall into. They argue from authority 
based on what they consider is "most likely true" or "the consensus". 
This liberates them from having to explain WHY what they believe is 
"most likely true". They have generously yielded to THEMSELVES the 
default position. MY description of events (whoever the pronoun refers 
to)  is always the one that is obviously true because it is so obviously 
true to me. Maybe it is obviously true because I read irony into the 
event or because I rigorously choose not to in this case. Maybe I am 
remembering a /single/ statement by someone that provoked me when I read 
it or maybe I see the author following a genre of literature or 
historical philosophy that I happen to be very familiar with.

I can handle kooky theories. I can ignore them or explore them until I 
have built a case (in my own mind) that the obstacles against the theory 
are just to great (until more and contravening information is 
available). What I'm really annoyed by is /smugness/. It makes me want 
to take the opposite position just to see how it plays out. I think the 
smug aren't really thinking because they have afforded themselves the 
right not to.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net