On Tue, 22 May 2001, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
> I suggest that we all cease correspondence on this list with the
> person who seems to have an incurable case of Attention Seeker
> Syndrome and displays no intention of engaging in civil discourse.
> Correspondence with this person strikes me as nothing more than a
> waste of time and energy.
I agree that attempts to engage this person in "civil discourse"
are a waste of time and energy, although I don't think that A.S.S.
is the correct diagnosis. (Certainly it's not the relevant diagnosis.)
BUT...I think that this person's contributions to the list provide
us with an excellent opportunity to examine and discuss at least
two important issues: 1) What are the fundamental errors in this
argument? 2) What are the factors that cause this person to behave the
way he does while discussing and/or defending his argument?
Now, at first glance I think these questions appear to be just plain
silly, and as such "nothing more than a waste of time and energy".
Indeed, at first that's what I concluded. But...
With respect to question 1, my initial impression of the argument in
question was that it was uninteresting, not because its conclusion is
manifestly false (which of course it is) but because it was a
meaningless mountain of errors linked by a fantastically fallacious
collection of assertions. While I think this is still an accurate
description of the situation, I wonder if it masks the fact that there
are some *fundamental* errors, upon which the argument is built, that
are not being adequately exposed. Why is it important or even worthwhile
to discuss these errors? Well, perhaps it isn't (:-), and I expect some
of you will vote that way. I propose that these errors are worth
examining because they are all too common, and because the exploitation
of such errors -- and the ignorance that such exploitation assumes --
are the basis for bogus arguments of the kind that are not so
easily dismissed as the work of "cranks". In any case, I am concerned
that at least one contributor to the discussion has wondered why
people seemed to be dismissing the argument (the math in particular,
if I recall correctly) without really examining it.
(By the way, I'm referring here to errors in the arena of factual
knowledge and interpretation, not necessarily in the arena of
philosophy or theology. The idea that "god" is "proved" by
the argument is a spectacular error, but the paragraph in which
it occurs is, I think, made possible by a series of factual errors
which created the reasoning structure in the first place.)
With respect to question 2, again it seems that the behavior of the
theorist in question is at first easily dismissed as the inevitable
output of a "crank". Leaving aside important questions of respect for
the person in question, I would propose that this characterization
leaves unanswered the most interesting question: why does the theorist
in question behave the way he does? I maintain that the relevance
of this question is obvious. Smugness, arrogance, intolerance,
willful ignorance...to dismiss these phenomena as mere manifestations
of the sin nature, or (worse still, IMO) to attribute them to some
form of unique pathology, is a *big mistake*. (IMHO.) These
phenomena are *rampant* in this intellectual arena. Why?
I'm convinced that reflection on these questions, even for a few
moments, can help us avoid the same errors. That's why they're
worth asking, and that's why there's still something worth discussing
with respect to our under-credentialed visitor.
Steve Matheson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 23 2001 - 13:20:09 EDT