tabula rasa (again)

["Mark R. Whitney" <mrwhitne@mailbox.syr.edu>]

     Lately the discussion about tabula rasa has reared its head once 
more.  Based on a couple of the comments, I can't resist again.  Tabula 
rasa advocates are saying that since they recognize that they can't be 
unbiased, it's ok to go ahead and be tabula rasa. I would still advocate 
that if you recognize that you can't fly, you don't jump off of a 
building anyway.  All of this is based on a post discussing the 
negativity of grouping people's responses and having a blanket reply.  I 
feel the same thing is occurring with our reservations about the tabula 
rasa paradigm.  I (and others) brought forth many shortcommings to the TR 
philosophy, but the responses all seem to concentrate on "well, we 
recognize that we're biased, so it's ok."  I can only speak for the 
positions I put out, but I'm still waiting for answerts to some other 
things I brought up.  Like:

- Tabula rasa shifts the burden of proof.  No longer does the advocate 
have to prove their position (to the same degree), now the opponent has 
to disprove it.

- This shift allows for some extremely low probability scenarios to be 
taken too seriously.

- Tabula rasa allows for less depth in argumentation by rewarding long 
lists of one or two word responses.  If it isn't covered, it can win.

- The simple fact that this activity is based in language, combined with 
the nature of language itself, makes the TR paradigm unrealistic.

- There is peer pressure to be TR.  Look at the judging philosophy book 
from nationals.  If you dare say you aren't TR, often (certainly not 
always) you are considered less qualified.  But many of the people who 
put the words tabula rasa on their philosophy don't even remotely 
approach the philosophy.

-  I mentioned that not being tabula rasa does not make you any more 
interventionist than anyone else.  There are some very interventionist 
tabula rasa judges, and there are some very interventionist nontabula 
rasa judges.  But the interventionist label is being used very liberally 
and pejoratively to non tabula rasa people.

   These were brought up in addition to the standard complaints about the 
fact that humans can't be unbiased.  In terms of this, I brought up the 
nature of the subconscious and how it will affect a TR judge.  This was 
not addressed.  Just because you can admit you are biased, does not mean 
you can fairly deal with that bias - even if you consciously try.

   So, like I said, I'd still like to hear some replies to these, rather 
than being grouped into a radical anti tabula rasa group of which I am 
not a member.   I never said people who claim to be tabula rasa are bad 
judges.  Some of the very best judges I can think of claim to be tabula 
rasa. I wonder how much better they could be if they explored other options?


                    Mark Whitney

---

• Prev by Date: chatslam
• Next by Date: Election and Voting Results
• Prev by thread: chatslam
• Next by thread: Election and Voting Results
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page