27-08-2013, 08:14 AM
I have now been on DPF for a little over two months. I have learned much from both the public discussions and private conversations with members. But I must confess that what I have witnessed in the past couple of days has left a rather sour aftertaste and filled me with dismay.
As a former academic, I certainly am well versed in the clash of opposing schools of thought and how such positions are never entirely embraced or rejected solely on the basis of their merits, but are inextricably bound up with the conflict of personalities. It is an unfortunate, but all-too-human, collateral effect of what is, in the best of all possible worlds, meant to be a free, open and critical exchange of ideas. I have no illusions about the possibility of achieving such an idealized state of human conduct.
Yet the facility with which one arrives at classifying a newcomer as an infiltrator is, to say the least, disconcerting. Assuredly, I understand the etiology of this behavior. And, as I have said elsewhere, I fully support the exclusionary decisions made by the administrators of this site. I have even lamented the (unintentional) introduction by newcomers of sclerotic labels which I would deem detrimental to intelligent and productive discourse concerning the assassination. But is there not a certain absurdity in jumping to conclusions solely on the basis of how interlocutors choose to formulate their ideas? and, in jumping to them, peremptorily ignoring the way they introduce themselves? I would hazard the guess that one would wish for more prudence in evaluating motives when the motives in question are one's own. Or if one truly suspects a person's "portfolio", why not a more direct approach, like a background check? and refrain from innuendo until something verifiable is in hand?
When a person's response seems not to comply immediately with one's expectations of what is "mete and right" -- be it either in form or in substance -- does this really justify the precipitous waving of an accusatory finger? Are not the tactics of McCarthy abhorrent, whoever may adopt them? If this sermon of mine is a familiar one, please forgive my presumption in believing it may nonetheless bear repeating.
"Science is the belief in the error of the experts." ~Richard Feynman
I agree that argument from authority has no place in a domain which seeks to establish empirically falsifiable claims. It is thus more than appropriate to challenge someone for facts, to demand precision and to call for clear counterarguments and counterexamples: it is expected and necessary. By the same token it is gratuitous to base proof of an argument on credentials. Besides, what means of authentication would there be at one's disposal in this venue, one participant's word against another's? Shall ye not know them, instead, by their fruits?
Perhaps I have no right to speak. I, unlike others in this community, have not been subjected to decades of harassment by the professional contortion artists of history; to tell the truth, I really have no business communing with many of those who contribute to this forum, for to say that my command of the multifarious details comprising the JFK case pales in comparison to theirs is to say little indeed. I state that with no false modesty.
But perhaps the time for me to part company has also arrived.
To those of you with whom I have exchanged what I believe have been friendly and fruitful words, my gratitude.
As a former academic, I certainly am well versed in the clash of opposing schools of thought and how such positions are never entirely embraced or rejected solely on the basis of their merits, but are inextricably bound up with the conflict of personalities. It is an unfortunate, but all-too-human, collateral effect of what is, in the best of all possible worlds, meant to be a free, open and critical exchange of ideas. I have no illusions about the possibility of achieving such an idealized state of human conduct.
Yet the facility with which one arrives at classifying a newcomer as an infiltrator is, to say the least, disconcerting. Assuredly, I understand the etiology of this behavior. And, as I have said elsewhere, I fully support the exclusionary decisions made by the administrators of this site. I have even lamented the (unintentional) introduction by newcomers of sclerotic labels which I would deem detrimental to intelligent and productive discourse concerning the assassination. But is there not a certain absurdity in jumping to conclusions solely on the basis of how interlocutors choose to formulate their ideas? and, in jumping to them, peremptorily ignoring the way they introduce themselves? I would hazard the guess that one would wish for more prudence in evaluating motives when the motives in question are one's own. Or if one truly suspects a person's "portfolio", why not a more direct approach, like a background check? and refrain from innuendo until something verifiable is in hand?
When a person's response seems not to comply immediately with one's expectations of what is "mete and right" -- be it either in form or in substance -- does this really justify the precipitous waving of an accusatory finger? Are not the tactics of McCarthy abhorrent, whoever may adopt them? If this sermon of mine is a familiar one, please forgive my presumption in believing it may nonetheless bear repeating.
"Science is the belief in the error of the experts." ~Richard Feynman
I agree that argument from authority has no place in a domain which seeks to establish empirically falsifiable claims. It is thus more than appropriate to challenge someone for facts, to demand precision and to call for clear counterarguments and counterexamples: it is expected and necessary. By the same token it is gratuitous to base proof of an argument on credentials. Besides, what means of authentication would there be at one's disposal in this venue, one participant's word against another's? Shall ye not know them, instead, by their fruits?
Perhaps I have no right to speak. I, unlike others in this community, have not been subjected to decades of harassment by the professional contortion artists of history; to tell the truth, I really have no business communing with many of those who contribute to this forum, for to say that my command of the multifarious details comprising the JFK case pales in comparison to theirs is to say little indeed. I state that with no false modesty.
But perhaps the time for me to part company has also arrived.
To those of you with whom I have exchanged what I believe have been friendly and fruitful words, my gratitude.