[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Giraffes and Critiques (fwd)

"Jah Kingdom come I say!  Babylon your kingdom fall down!" The Twinkle Bros.
Maxwell Schnurer, Elena Cattaneo and Boo! Wake Debate. "Love is the law, 
and I'll be damned anyway" Into Another. *Also Shao-Lin and Wu-Tang Swords*

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:20:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maxwell D. Schnorer <schnomd5@wfu.edu>
To: Eric Morris <erm892f@nic.smsu.edu>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list NDT-L <NDT-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Giraffes and Critiques

	Ermo, I guess I was thinking about this in kinda a different 
manner.  Um.  My claim (although made in a roundabout way. . . ) was that 
if we really 
care about evolution then we shouldn't base our knowledge about it on 
folklore, it is too easy to dismiss.  
	But that policy making should evaluate the foundations of 
policy.  
On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Eric Morris wrote:

> 1. Does the Giraffe problem mean we should not buy the textbook, 
> regardless of its merits on other issues? What if there is no alternative 
> textbook, as the example states?	
	I guess Foucault would argue that localized resistance is the 
best option.  You should do what you can to change the ideas around this 
falsehood.  If you think not buying the bio text books is the right idea 
go right ahead.   Because of our non-questioning nature about the hard 
sciences, this is kinda a difficult question to answer.  If I did really 
suggest not buying the text book because of the tainted knowledge, people 
everywhere would gasp at the rejection of essential science.  That is 
Foucault's main point, that where controversy about ideas is the lowest 
it is the most effective.  We should questions issues like this because 
what the hell gives the textbook companies the *power* to produce and 
reproduce falsehood. 
	But lemmee give ya another idea.  Ermo, Dallas, and Maxwell are 
gonna order some pizza.  Maxwell suggests dominos Pizza.  Dallas says, 
well I'd rather not because a percentage of the profits go to prolife 
organizations.  Ermo and max agree and head over to Origanum to eat some 
brown rice and tofu.  In this case the critical knowledge is upsetting 
enough to us the get us to change behavior.  The decision is localized.  
It depends on the juice of the critiquer, and  the problem being 
critiqued. As it should be.

> 
> 2. Does the Giraffe problem invalidate the other ideas in the textbook, 
> through ad hominem or otherwise? Should it? Does it even invalidate the 
> following ideas on evolution? Should it?
> 
	See above.

> 3. Does resolving the Giraffe problem represent an important academic 
> advance, or does it merely resolve someone's pet peeve while encouraging 
> us all to be more suspicious of received knowledge?
> 
	Both in a way.  Ask Gould about the first one, but definately be 
suspicsious about knowledge.

> 4. Would the best solution to the Giraffe problem involve the abandonment 
> of knowledge that might be considered tainted by this reasoning error? 
> What if that knowledge, despite imperfection, is the best available?
> 
	Master, I have grown powerful in  my Shaolin Style! And your evil 
crane style can no longer contain me!  Well Ermo, I kinda liked the 
giraffe example because it points and a powerful fact.  Current knowledge 
that is passed around is a bastardized stepchild of the original.  When I 
reread these passages from Darwin and found out that what most people 
assume is his idea of evolution is actually not that )) It hit kinda 
hard.  
	All it makes me wonder is should we look harder at assumed 
knowlede. I think the answer is yep.  

> 	I doubt many anti-critiquer authors intend that individual 
> arguments escape truth-testing (although some may object to 
> value-testing). They rather argue that the implication of the truth 
> testing is less than the voting issue of the critique usually claims. 
> This pro-critique example offers an excellent illustration of some of the 
> compelling anti-critique argument.
	> 
	I think the critique CAN be important enough, but it has to be 
persuasive, like any other debate arg.  But it is also constructive.  
which was my primary point. 

	Roots, Maxwell 

> Eric Morris
> SW Missouri State U.
> 

"Jah Kingdom come I say!  Babylon your kingdom fall down!" The Twinkle Bros.
Maxwell Schnurer, Elena Cattaneo and Boo! Wake Debate. "Love is the law, 
and I'll be damned anyway" Into Another. *Also Shao-Lin and Wu-Tang Swords*
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page