[eDebate] the esteemed qualification problem
Tue May 12 15:44:26 CDT 2009
well, i know nothing about the particularities of this specific case, and
wasn't commenting on what may be properly considered 'indefensible'.
also, the reason what russell wrote wasn't a contradiction was because in
the first instance he was discussing 'evidence production' in the sense of
'cutting cards' and in the latter he was discussing it in the sense of 'writing
articles'. clearly different standards can be applied to these two activities,
but i knowingly ran the two senses together in jest - hence the smiley face.
though russell and most others accept the right of debate coaches to publish
and the legitimacy of debaters' quotation of them, there's still a couple issues
left on the table:
(1) is publishing under a pen-name always "academically dishonest"? is lying
about one's qualifications the line not to be crossed here, or are we asking
for no pseudonyms whatsoever? (should debaters not be able to quote from
the anonymous c.i.a. analyst's book, 'imperial hubris: why the west is losing
the war on terror' (2004), for example?)
(2) to what extent does weighing evidential above analytic argumentation
contribute to attempts to blur the line on evidence fabrication?
let's say i find myself making a similar set of claims at the ends of my 2n.r.
against solar-powered satellites: i concede that the project is worthwhile,
but argue that a counter-plan of formal d.o.d. agreement is preferable given
the tight-budgeted state of the u.s. economy. and let's say i get the bright
idea to type up what i find myself saying every last rebuttal, publish it to a
blog, and read that in the 1n.c. instead. i might fancy myself ahead of the
game, only my 1n.c. 'evidence', written under my own name, is likely to be
dismissed, even if there's nothing dubious about the set of claims i advance,
due to 'poor qualifications'. therefore, i write it under a fake name and give
myself some made-up certifications...
obviously that's lying, which i don't condone, but what am i trying to gain
with this lie except to have my claims taken as seriously as the claims of any
staff writer at the san antonio express-news? i mean, i don't care if you have
degrees in political science and history: if you quote one-line in a report from
1978 to demonstrate an immediate budgetary trade-off, you're being ridiculous.
'quals' won't save us from the ridiculous - only well-articulated reasons can.
one further refutation of the infamous article in question:
"With the economy closer to the abyss of complete economic Armageddon
than it has been at any point since, perhaps, the Great Depression, the
thing we need is to start throwing money hand over fist at a
might end up being nothing more than a pie in the sky
fantasy. ...The danger
in making large investments into SBSP while the economy is
reeling is that
there is only so much money to go around. As such,
there is a danger that
scarce investment dollars will be siphoned way
from more immediately viable
and beneficial programs such as
terrestrial based green energy programs."
...actually, if we're good keynesians, this is precisely the kind of crisis which
calls for massive government expenditure, not penny-pinching: we need to
throw more money on long-shots like solar-powered satellites. but don't take
my word for it...
Hotmail? goes with you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman