[lbo-talk] What are you reading now?

Tayssir John Gabbour tayssir.john at googlemail.com
Fri Sep 14 05:53:14 PDT 2007


On 9/14/07, Eubulides <paraconsistent at comcast.net> wrote:
> Well, does Tufte present any evidence that presentation of evidence is a
> moral act? How does he avoid circularity in his claim? I don't
> understand how questioning what he's asserting has anything to with
> so-called morality.


>From his chapter entitled "Corruption in Evidence Presentations:
Effects Without Causes, Cherry-Picking, Overreaching, Chartjunk and the Rage to Conclude":

"Making a presentation is a moral act as well as an intellectual

activity. The use of corrupt manipulations and blatant rhetorical

ploys in a report or presentation -- outright lying, flagwaving,

personal attacks, setting up phony alternatives, misdirection,

jargon-mongering, evading key issues, feigning disinterested

objectivity, willful misunderstanding of other points of view --

suggests that the presenter lacks both credibility and

evidence. To maintain standards of quality, relevance, and

integrity for evidence, consumers of presentations should insist

that presenters be held intellecutally and ethically responsible

for what they show and tell. Thus /consuming/ a presentation is

also an intellectual and moral activity."

He offers concrete examples throughout his books.


> A silly way of looking at evidence. To say one consumes a
> work/presentation of algebra or biochemistry or political economy is
> incoherent.

The consumer/producer relationship is clear to me. Unfortunately I can't evaluate your claim why it's incoherent, since you haven't offered your reasoning to me.

Incidentally, this is an important issue concerning intellectual property -- there's effort and some sacrifice when someone gives talks, or writes books. How do we compensate people for these costs, but also have freedom from intellectual property enforcement?

Tayssir



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list