Damp Squibs
It’s a very handy thing, having a Fashionable Dictionary and a Rhetoric Guide. Because whenever people who have little or nothing of substance to say, resort to mere abuse instead, it’s useful instead of merely boring and time-wasting. You can just slide it into one or the other and hey presto, your correspondent has done a little work for you.
For instance, there’s ‘Meaningless Sarcasm’. Addressing your opponent (or rather the person you’re attempting to engage, who wandered off in boredom long ago) as ‘little Ms X’ or ‘little Mr Y’. Has the disadvantage of making one sound about seven years old, but if one is delusional enough, it passes for wit.
Or there’s that old favourite, ‘I’m embarrassed for you, frankly.’ That’s a funny one. It’s hard not to wonder why it’s such an old favourite, when it’s so silly. It’s so obviously not true that one would think people would want to do better. Why should anyone feel embarrassed for an opponent who says something foolish? The time to be embarrassed is when we ourselves say something foolish, not when other people do. And that is normally how it works, isn’t it, especially in an argument. It’s quite simple, really. Here we are having a disagreement. I say something clever. Result: feeling of pleasure and triumph for me. I say something stupid. Result: feeling of embarrassment and chagrin. Opponent says something clever. Result: I feel annoyed. Opponent says something stupid. Result: I’m delighted. Where does the embarrassment come in? Sarcasm is all very well, but it has to be good to work.
You are being less than entirely gracious, here, as you did rather win that point hands down. Tut, tut.
I’m embarrassed for you, frankly.
An interesting point about your comments is that you don’t seem to acknowledge that it is you, in your discussion of the sins of relativists, who resort to uninformed sarcasm. Your comments about Evelyn Fox Keller are a prime example. You cite a passage from her which you make no attempt to analyze, assuming that your audience will somehow regard it as self-evidently absurd, and preface it by referring to her as an “anti-science feminist,” which is simply ignorant. If you are going to claim that a woman who teaches science at the best university in the world and who’s a world-famous scholar with a PhD in Physics from Harvard is in league with New Agers, you should at least try to produce an argument to support your claims. Otherwise, it’s, as I said, embarrassing. Have you ever been in an audience when someone giving a speech just completely loses it? The palpable discomfort? That’s what I’m talking about. In your case, a claque is drowning the groans.
Also, if you happened to be referring to the “wrap her little woman’s brain” comment, that was referring to your version of Keller, obviously, not you. This is yet another instance of your failure to read what you’re criticizing.
I know, Armando, but there was this silly email, you see. I just couldn’t help myself.
A fair point, Chun! We certainly do go in for sarcasm. But it is, as I said, at least good sarcasm.
I disagree with the rest of your point, of course. It’s my view that I did produce an argument, along with several quotations by way of evidence. Once again I think your embarrassment is more of a costume than a genuine reaction.
Cross-post; I missed that last one. No, I was not referring to that. The embarrassment quotation – which was a quotation, not a paraphrase – was my only reference to you. This is yet another instance of your making unwarranted and incorrect assumptions and then chastising me on the strength of them.
Jeremy had a point – you do make a bit of a fool of yourself, flailing so wildly.
There’s a very simple thing you can do re the Evelyn Fox Keller quote: show how either a) she is in fact, despite all evidence to the contrary, an “anti-science feminist” (she’s clearly a feminist) and/or b) show how the quote illustrates this.
Here’s the quote: “Recent developments in the history and philosophy of science have led to a re-evaluation that acknowledges that the goals, methods, theories, and even the actual data of science are not written in nature; all are subject to the play of social forces.”
It is truism. You believe in Platonic goals? Methods? Theories? If you do, you exceed the strongest claims of the logical positivists. Data must be communicable and thus is subject to social forces (language, intepretation, and custom at minimum). Keller’s work focuses on gender and science. Is it your contention that gender has not and is not a factor in the practice of science? Does the name McClintock mean anything to you? That anyone who investigates these issues is eo ipso “anti-science?”
I’m also very angry at the foolishness of KellerOB, HardingOB, RossOB, BloorOB, and MarglinOB and think they are indeed practicing a dangerous relativism. But it’s you who are claiming that your version of these thinkers is as good as the real one, which is a bit too strong of a programme for me to follow.
“and even the actual data of science are not written in nature”
So what does this mean Chun?
“you exceed the strongest claims of the logical positivists.”
What claims are you talking about here?
And have you learned who the logical positivists are yet? (Just thought I’d better check!)
“Data must be communicable and thus is subject to social forces (language, intepretation, and custom at minimum).” << Let's also not forget about data's (relative)'fluidity' in our Post-Structuralist analysis. Now that would be embarassing... ;)