Four Models

Post Reply New Topic

This has to be politics - there is nothing of wisdom or truth in it.

Yes, I get the point.

Model 1: Reaction: primary source, one of my professors

Gorm is an enemy. Gorm is a threat. Gorm must be wrong. So, if Gorm says the sea is salty, it cannot be salty. If it seems to be salty, there must be some other reason, like maybe sea water has a lot of dissolved ozone.

Model 2: Loyalty: very prevalent in academia, politics, some religious organizations, but I base this on one particular colleague

The theory nust be right. The theory predicts that speech sounds interact a certain way, and observation shows they do. If after a few years we switch to a different theory, which predict they interarct in a totally different way, BEHOLD! When we reexamine the data they are found to fit the new theory.

Model 3. Solidarity: source my formar chairman and a report from another department, also observed in politicised talk.

Our side is right, The enemy is wrong. If someone on our side is seen to be wrong, we must hush it up - however bad he is, we cannot reject him without looking dumb. If someone on the other side says something true or does something good, we must NOT say so. If asked we must deny it. Admitting the other side has a point is treason.

Model 4: You know the source.

The enemy's cause is evil. Our cause is just. We see that the enemy does bad things and it is because their ideology makes them evil. We see that our side does good things because theu do not have an evil ideology. If one of our people happened to do something bad, it does not reflect on our ideology, because that is good and does not cause evil. If one of the enemy does something good, he does it in spite of his evil ideology, his evil ideology certainly could not inspite him to do good.

-------------------------

So - there may be others but that is asll I can stomach.

Just two questions - is it possible to subscribe to all foue simultaneously, or do you have to pick one?

And how can a thinking person communicate with someone who holds to any of them?

Lamentably, we see these all the time in here--not least from a poster whom I am sure that I need not name. Not only do I think it is possible to subscribe to all four simultaneously, but it is possible to subscribe to more. I will add another model to your list:

Model 5: Gorm supports our enemies. We must therefore demonize Gorm so that, by extension, all things that Gorm does and all things that he supports are proved false. (Referred to in Yes Minister as, "play the man, not the ball."

Monsieur Bougie:

I have rarely poked my nose into the instances of rabbit chicken play and reactive Schweinerei that I have observed you and certain others getting into. Reason being you and certain others I will identify when I please if relevant and not before have tended not to throw it into my fan or dump on topics of concern to me.

But - this IS a topic of concern to me - else why did I start it up? AND you have already pointed the fingerbone of suspicion in my direction.

So I say to you:

Civilized discourse breeds more civilized discourse. Rabid ranting breeds hate and violence and undermines everything that out to distinguish beings capable of reason from certain ones I will not name and the rest of the apes.

Even where there is little possibility of agreement, courteous and productive discussion is possible if we reject paranoid invective. I am always ready for courteous and productive discussion. From what I have seen, the same is true of visagrunt. Will you joins with us and the rest od=f the sane, or are you more at home with Fnord, Vexcalibur, bitl and raml?

Philologos:

Model 2: Loyalty: very prevalent in academia, politics, some religious organizations, but I base this on one particular colleague

The theory nust be right. The theory predicts that speech sounds interact a certain way, and observation shows they do. If after a few years we switch to a different theory, which predict they interarct in a totally different way, BEHOLD! When we reexamine the data they are found to fit the new theory.

iamnotaparakeet:

And instead this: The current theory has such and such predictions and fits the data this well, but a theory in replacement of it would fit the data better.

visagrunt:

I think you are speaking of two different things. Philologos is complaining of the person who rigidly adheres to the old way of thinking because its predictions fit our observations. Even when confronted with a new way of thinking that fits the observations just as well, they continue in their adherence to the old theory.

------------------

I may not have made the problem clear.

visagrunt's formulation - it happens. Two possible solutions, no way to choose between them currently available - but some people will only accept one. How often have I been marked down for a valid answer not on the score sheet!

But not my point.

iamnotaparakeet's formulation - that happens too. If we can make the sky work with epicycles, why fool with going heliocentric just because it is more elegant?

But mine - there is a specific case. He CHANGED THE DATA! Originally, he said in print that THIS is the fact. The Low tone stays level across the sentence. He is not an armchair linguist, he listened.

When his model changed - suddenly the data changed and the low tone lowered. He did not say - oh - new data force me to change the model. The new model changed whsat he said he heard.

Of course we all tend to see and hear what we expect. Basic human psychology. But this was rather blatant. It is not zebra is white on black versus zebra is black on white - it is zebra has three toes versus zebra has one toe.