Joined: Aug. 2006
|Quote (keiths @ July 07 2009,14:44)|
|KF explains, in 856 words, why he can't be brief:|
|Jerry (And JT and Nakshima-San):|
Pardon a few follow-up points.
I appreciate the well-meant advice on in effect arguing based on synopses and executive summaries. I do note that the executives who ask for such generally have trusted admin assistants who are tasked to look into details and render a verdict. IN THE END, NO-ONE TRUSTS SYNOPSES, A FEW POWERPOINT SLIDES OR TWO-MINUTE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES TO PRESENT AN ADEQUATE VIEW OF A SERIOUS MATTER, though such may give at least a vague idea of what is going on.
At least, if they are wise.
[Socrates moans again]
(And, in their correct situations, I can and do produce such for documents that need them. However, I find that we now live in an age of sound-bites that despises substantial exposition and warranting of the objective truth on serious matters. But, from my youth in Jamaica where our nation tried to live on a diet of political slogans, I long ago learned that it is substance, not style that counts in the end. So, to the merits, to the merits, to the merits we must go . . . or we will end up doing the equivalent of wondering why water refuses to flow uphill as we desire or even expect.)
I have, unfortunately, found out from long experience that one faces a “heads I win, tails you lose” fallacy on this when dealing with those who insist on the pattern of argument by distraction, distortion, demonisation and dismissal that I have addressed above:
1 –> If a remark is short or simply points to a link, it will be dismissed or ignored a la Wilson’s cynical recommendation in The Arte of Rhetorique. (ESPECIALLY if the substance in the link is substantial and decisive; e.g. cf my remarks and citations on Weasel circa 1986. And, SB’s fate on using summaries.)
[Socrates begins whimpering]
2 –> If one instead brings up a fair but fairly brief degree of details, one faces argument by tangential distractions and distortions, requiring exact statements and detailed point by point responses (or anticipations); i.e. more details, but in a context that will often suggest that you did not really understand or think through what you had to say at he first. [Indeed, observe onlookers, how this exchange is on a tangent to the issue at stake, and how I am trying to pull it back into focus.]
3 –> In neither case (on long experience, ~ 4 years on ID topics for me) will one see on the part of Darwinian advocates a serious engagement on substantial facts and issues.
4 –> Indeed, the weak argument correctives and ID glossary above are for several months now, standing testimony to the need for a fairly substantial response: in EVERY case where a FAQ was put up for discussion, the issue came down to “needing” more — not less — details. (In the back-story discussions, a strong restraint on the length of the responses was that they should not be overly long, not overly numerous. The harshest critiques have come up on matters that were deliberately compressed for brevity.)
[Socrates gouges out his immaterial eyes]
5 –> So, it is rather like the story of the man, the boy and the donkey: whatever you do, someone will find fault with it. (And, far too often, not on substance but on style or distortions and distractions, frequently laced with ad hominems. [I trust BTW, that the above of earlier today will suffice to show that contrary to the one-sentence assertion cited above, I do know what an ad hominem is, and have used the term in ways that are fundamentally correct.])
6 –> So, I have concluded that it makes sense to simply bear with the sniping [which far too often becomes nastily personal, up to and including the sorts of vulgarities Mrs O'Leary has been subjected to], and present enough substance on select points that across time and topics, serious onlookers will be able to find out for themselves where the real balance on the merits is.
7 –> the alternative being to allow a determined agenda of distraction, distortion, demonisation ands dismissal to win by default, I have chosen to take time to provide a fair degree of substance on select threads, as I judge required, and to provide a more substantial presentation accessible by all. 9One hopes that at length, someone will actually follow up on the Weasel appendix to my always linked and let us know why I am confident that it is targetted search that cannot reflect cumulative selection by incremental improvement in function . . . instead of the cycle of studious ignoring of a linked discussion with evidence, and presentation of a caricature complete with the insinuation that I am afraid of the truth. [Those who actually know me will readily tell you that I have put my life -- not just my career -- on the line on matters of the momentous truth; so the grotesque insult that is implicit in above ill-informed, thoughtless and disrespectful remarks should be plain.])
[Socrates drinks some immaterial hemlock and dies a second time]
I trust that gives a little of why I am coming from where I am coming from.
GEM of TKI
KF, you dumbass, other people argue 100 times more effectively using 1/100 as many words as you do. They don't answer every objection ahead of time. They make their case succinctly, and then answer objections as they come up.
He is writing the Summa Tardalogica.