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

RE: Preston on Listservs

This is not my position. 
Since CEDA-L and NDT-L are both archived, I think they are fine for evidence 
(though I can't think why a debater would cite them, given how much I despise 
debate theory evidence)...

As for Preston's reasons not to cite listserves: 

This is really a mischaracterization. Some theory has yet to be published 
anywhere but on the L. Plan-Plan debate theory has no journal publication 
equivalent. Likewise, ideas which are highly time sensitive may reach deep 
discussion on other lists, but never make it to publication due to the archaic 
delays in the peer review process.

Also, technical listserves (sci.nanotech is a good example) may indicate 
breakthroughs and problems which are in the process of being worked on and 
worked out. What people post there is generally pretty much what they think. 

Further, much of the material that currently passes for evidence has little 
relation to well though out scholarly publication. Interviews often catch 
mistakes or revealing comments which help us to find what a thinker REALLY 
believes, not what s/he wants us to think they believe. That's good evidence. 

Also, the intent to be "evidence" is pretty meaningless. Only a handful of 
authors really know how much we malign their work in this activity (Rifkin 
debated in college, so he knows...)...

Now, if one posts "Gee, I don't really know what I think about this, but I was 
thinking that maybe..." to run an idea up a flagpole and see who salutes (as 
Juror #12 said), then that's pretty crappy evidence, considering you have no 
advocate... You have a pondering... And when someone goes back to that 
original source they'll find that... That isn't unique to electronic 
evidence. You can also usually find it in the discussion section or conclusion 
of most any research article... "We think that future research should 
investigate..." or "It is possible that we may find ...... but more 
investigation is needed to..." Little difference.

Now, if someone presents ideas as what they really believe, no qualifiers, and 
they just meant to "test the waters," well, then we should blame them for the 
misinterpretation, not the medium by which they communicated. Seems just as 
likely to happen in published conference papers, interview transcripts, etc.

Just a few thoughts...

Pat Gehrke
CSU Chico
9 days to NDI, do you know where your tape is?
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page