>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