> >Knowing your motives doesn't answer that question;
> only careful
> >and rational consideration of the available
> evidence can do that.
>
> So it isn't important to know who is making a claim,
> disclosure of
> any potential conflict of interest is unnecessary?
It is important to have as much *objective* knowledge of the source of a claim as possible. This, imo, falls well within the realm of rational (and reasonable) debate. For instance, we can objectively refute the validity of Bush's claims about Social Security a) on the strict basis of his "facts", and then support that argument b) on the basis of his connections to industry and interests, which are well-documented. In a class society, the capitalist's material interests can be empirically determined. The ways capitalists behave in the political arena aren't modus operandi, they're what capitalists do to ensure the survival of their class base. To relegate this sort of activity to behavior phenomena or motives, is to confine the debate to the realm of individual agency and moralistic swagger.
What bugs me, to further the example, is when folks begin to make speculative, subjective, often pseudo-psychoanalytic claims about Bush to make arguments against his policies, e.g., he's a dummy who uses words funny, he puts his faith in the Lord, he's greedy and doesn't care about people, he's an alcoholic and therefore fiscally irresponsible, he wants to "avenge" his father in Iraq, etc. Whenever mainstream liberals do this they are seized on by their conservative counterparts, and responded to with even worse demagoguery. The former then shrink back into their corner, and we've entirely forgotten about what Social Security is.
--adx
===== "Mary Poppins is alive and well in Argentina, she sends her regards." - Rod McKuen, The Mud Kids
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com