tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post8794121323201529504..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Jerry Coyne on courtesy and posting behaviourRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-69957370981242828122012-07-28T23:53:29.016+10:002012-07-28T23:53:29.016+10:00Gee, thanks Russell, and the photo of the kitty is...Gee, thanks Russell, and the photo of the kitty is much appreciated. I'm proud to be your friend, too!<br /><br />Cheers, mate.Jerry Coynehttp://www.whyevolutionistrue.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54730917542896626972012-07-28T01:18:40.859+10:002012-07-28T01:18:40.859+10:00We? I'd say it's you and me. :)
(It'...We? I'd say it's you and me. :) <br /><br />(It's a way of speaking after all, not something to take literally - I may have readers who totally do <i>not</i> want civil discussion, etc.)Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-30968325192498332762012-07-28T00:48:26.847+10:002012-07-28T00:48:26.847+10:00Groan - I meant "WHO are these we?"
Not...Groan - I meant "WHO are these we?"<br /><br />Not exactly demonstrating my ability to post today.latsotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-81610132128233667702012-07-28T00:46:39.072+10:002012-07-28T00:46:39.072+10:00Whoops, I didn't mean to be anonymous. Careles...Whoops, I didn't mean to be anonymous. Carelessness.latsotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-53070634679430146202012-07-28T00:44:50.119+10:002012-07-28T00:44:50.119+10:00"a fine example of the sort of discourse that..."a fine example of the sort of discourse that we want."<br /><br />I like Jerry's guidelines and the discourse on his site, but are these 'we'?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73763793651192385572012-07-28T00:07:56.688+10:002012-07-28T00:07:56.688+10:00Yes, there's a lot to be learned from Popper r...Yes, there's a lot to be learned from Popper relating to this.<br /><br />Part of the trouble is that the internet is an immature technology. Its participants are having to relearn lessons that were, at least to some extent, learned by other participants in public conversation a long time ago. Not that shock jock radio (and increasingly shock jock TV) is any better - it's not <i>just</i> the internet.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-16481529020563235452012-07-27T19:49:09.848+10:002012-07-27T19:49:09.848+10:00It would be nice if we all saw the internet as a p...<i>It would be nice if we all saw the internet as a place for respectful discussions aimed at making intellectual progress…</i><br /><br />Exactly. And since this is a philosophically informed place, let me add two thoughts that expand on this theme:<br /><br />» “Serious critical discussions are always difficult. Non-rational human elements such as personal problems always enter. Many participants in a rational, that is, a critical, discussion find it particularly difficult that they have to unlearn what their instincts seem to teach them (and what they are taught, incidentally, by every debating society): that is, to win. For what they have to learn is that victory in a debate is nothing, while even the slightest clarification of one’s problem – even the smallest contribution made towards a clearer understanding of one’s own position or that of one’s opponent – is a great success.” (Popper, <i>The Myth of the Framework</i>)<br /><br />» “The aim in an open society is not to put up with ideas with which we disagree. It is to take them seriously and to criticize them—not necessarily as a way of condemning them, but as a way of trying to understand them, and of testing whether or not they are true, and learning from them, even if learning from them means learning how and where they go wrong. This is what Popper meant when he said that open society is ‘based on the idea of not merely tolerating dissenting opinions but respecting them.’” (Mark Notturno, <i>Science and the Open Society</i>)<br /><br /><i>… rather than, say, a site for war, or for imposition of our own ideas through whatever tactics appear necessary.</i><br /><br />Yeah, but <i>what if you just know you’re right</i>? Then it almost becomes your solemn duty, in the interest of rationality, to make others fall in line. Which is exactly why Popper’s <i>critical</i> rationalism, based on a pervasive fallibilism and mindful of the fact that there can be no <i>certain</i> knowledge (and thus no “justification”), is so helpful for analysing and improving public discourse.Peter Beattienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-25972560860934635572012-07-27T12:33:51.015+10:002012-07-27T12:33:51.015+10:00That is a much-needed example of how to do things....That is a much-needed example of how to do things. Thanks to Jerry.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com