> At around 1/11/06 1:29 pm, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> > Ravi:
> >
> > Every selection is arbitrary in what sense?
> >
> > [WS:] In the sense that the perceiving subjects have a choice between
> > different alternatives, as opposed to being compelled one of these
> > alternatives on the pain of being at odds with the facts. Of course,
> > individual choices may be also constrained by collective norms, but that
> > does not mean that collective norms are not arbitrary in the sense I
just
> > mentioned - that they are not contradicted by objective facts.
> >
>
> Well, the burden remains on you to show that the editors have to operate
> either entirely arbitrarily, or using collective norms that are to their
> knowledge contradicted by objective fact. I will even make it simple for
> you and permit that facts can be obtained and described in such a way as
> to make this feasible.
>
>
> > To apply this to our discussion of the media - media outlets are
arbitrary
> > because they choose to report different facts based on their political
or
> > cultural preferences, rather than because something objectively happened
or
> > did not happen in a particular way.
>
>
> Then, as per your last part, there seems to be an objective way to
> describe something that happened. So one does have a non-arbitrary (in
> the sense in which you use that word) way to report. Perhaps the dataset
> would be prohibitive. There is a need for a filter. Well, this is a
> standard problem in empirical efforts (including sciences) and hence the
> reference to norms that help in this process. One can further examine
> and evaluate these norms.
>
>
> > Their reporting reflects two things:
> > what actually happened (which can be objectively verified or falsified)
and
> > how this fits into their larger outlook or "weltanschauung."
>
>
> And these outlooks need not of necessity be arbitrary.
>
>
> > Now if you want to debate the virtues of science, "objectivism"
> > "essentialism" and the assorted word salad that pomo logorrhea managed
to
> > produce,...
>
>
> I could ("the virtues of science" that is -- not interested in Ayn
> Randian philosophy or the pomo anxieties in your head), but judging by
> your lack of response on my thoughts on your two or three previous
> attempts, you seemingly don't want to. ;-)
>
>
> > I suggest proceeding as follows: let's start with walking up to the
> > tenth floor of an apartment building, jumping from a window, and then
> > discussing the objectivity of the laws of applicable science
(thermodynamics
> > in this case.)
>
>
> Or the objectivity of the common sense notion that you are liable to
> lose your life if you jump off the 10th floor. You don't need
> thermodynamics to tell you that.
>
>
> > Since it is you who seem to doubt that objectivity, may I
> > suggest that you volunteer to perform the jumping part? It should not
> > matter if it's all arbitrary and subjective, no?
>
>
> Ah, when you can't win 'em, you kill 'em, is it? As noted above, I need
> believe nothing about the laws of physics to choose not to jump off a
> building. But hey, why deny you your desire to have physical harm befall
> me. I will be quite glad to oblige you for the small cost of about
> $10000. Perhaps even cheaper (I will present you with a bill <= $10000
> shortly after the jump). Should I carry out the jump, would you then be
> bound to accept the claim (NOT MINE) that runs counter to the idea of
> the objectivity of the laws of science? Methinks it would be silly to do
> so, from a purely formal logic POV (modus tollens and all that), but who
> knows what arbitrary selection you use for your logic!
>
> Note that "arbitrary" is the term introduced by you. I am the one who
> believes that editors can use non-arbitrary criteria/methods to select
> what to report. Most of them probably actually think that they are being
> objective in their selection process.
>
> --ravi
>
>
> P.S: Clue #2: I am a PKF-fanboy, not an out and out relativist.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk