Classics (was Re: Approval and Condemnation: Must they be bas ed on Morality?)

Archer.Todd at ic.gc.ca Archer.Todd at ic.gc.ca
Thu May 17 07:22:22 PDT 2001


Carrol wrote:

Just bending the stick a little. But did you ever try gently to persuade a bright and fairly well educated "creationist" that she was making a mistake. Or did you ever try to persuade a bright and aggressive marxist that he was making a mistake when he threw out the whole of modern neurology and psychiatry to ride with some kook from the '50s? All forms of knowledge get distorted under capitalism -- and we can take for granted that there are at present great errors and/or lacunae in all the sciences because of the the pressures of capitalist ideology. BUT the errors in neurology are going to be discovered and corrected _inside_ neurology. (The utter amateur who makes astounding discoveries the experts have overlooked is more a part of modern folklore without much basis.)

Yes, I agree with what you've said here, and it's in line with what you've indicated before (more or less directly) about "picking your targets" and not wasting time/effort on pointless activity. But what I was trying to point out is that there must be bright and aggressive Marxists/Creationists/whoever who would be receptive to having an error pointed out to them and would reflect on it. Why not at least try to point out the error once; if the errant individual doesn't listen, then drop the "lesson." Obviously, I'm not arguing for Marxists to pull a Jehovah's Witness scene and go door to door; I just think less experienced Marxists could get helped out of mistakes or omissions created by their own ignorance while they are in the process of learning from more experience/learned Marxists.

Todd



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list