[lbo-talk] Terrain of Struggle was O'Reilly vs Churchill

Michael Dawson mdawson at pdx.edu
Sat Feb 19 23:41:25 PST 2005


Miles, you pedant, why don't you read what I wrote? I said arguments always include an analysis of motives. I didn't say that's all they are. And your claim that you've ever dealt with an argument without considering the background motives is, well, pedantic. BS, dude.

And P.S.: Analyzing arguers' motives is inside, not outside, the Enlightenment. You have a "data" fetish. That's its own form of anti-Enlightenment fetish. And it's pretty freakin' weird, coming from a psych prof...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Miles Jackson
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 4:55 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Terrain of Struggle was O'Reilly vs Churchill
>
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Michael Dawson wrote:
>
> > Which two people
> > have ever exchanged differing opinions on any topic without paying
> attention
> > to the opponent's motives? Everybody who's spent 5 serious minutes on
> logic
> > knows that. Why don't you?
>
> Call me a well indoctrinated child of the Enlightenment, but the
> motives of someone who is providing information or a specific argument
> are completely irrelevant to a critical and rational assessment of the
> person's assertions. If you say "Social security funds will be
> completely exhausted by 2042", speculating about your motives is
> a waste of time. Whether you really believe this and are trying to
> spread the truth or you are disseminating lies to further your
> political agenda, the question remains: Is this in fact a valid
> statement?
>
> Knowing your motives doesn't answer that question; only careful
> and rational consideration of the available evidence can do that.
>
> Miles
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list