Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, cuchulain said:

What bothered me was he kept insisting we had all made the assumption he was a creationist.  Am I the only one who sees on his profile that he appreciates 
"God's creation"?  Doesn't that make him a...creationist?  Out of his own mouth?

 

At the time, I thought he was a Creationist.  According to meredog, I had jumped to an incorrect conclusion, due to faulty reasoning on my part. The explosion of resentment caught me off guard.   Most people would have corrected my mistake and let me apologize.  This fellow can carry a grudge.  Then again, any excuse in the service of hostility, would have done just as well.  Such fierce belligerence is rare.  

Share this post


Link to post
mererdog   
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

What kind of proof would you like?  

Why would I put any effort into verifying your identity? Just as it doesn't effect me whether or not he is honest about his degree, it does not effect me if you are honest about your name. It does me no danger to assume you are telling the truth, because it honestly doesn't matter to me either way. Its not like I'm going to date you or hire him.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Why would I put any effort into verifying your identity? Just as it doesn't effect me whether or not he is honest about his degree, it does not effect me if you are honest about your name. It does me no danger to assume you are telling the truth, because it honestly doesn't matter to me either way. Its not like I'm going to date you or hire him.

 

I thought you were making a point.  It's alright.  Sometimes I miss the nuances.       :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
mererdog   
5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I thought you were making a point. 

I was. Your earlier assertion I was replying to was-

"Said academic snot was afraid to use his real name.  Look to the left of these words.  I am using my real name.  Who has the courage of his convictions?"

My point is that claiming to use your real name is not evidence of courage, any more than claiming to have a degree is evidence of authority.

I am not anonymous because I am a coward. I am anonymous because my identity is irrelevant. It would do you no good to know my real name, just as it does me no good to know yours. In exactly the same way, it would do you no good to know my educational background, my work history, or my mailing address. 

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/31/2017 at 7:29 PM, mererdog said:

I consider that to be one of the benefits of anonymity in dialogue. It acts as a sort of social equalizer. What matters is not your credentials, your age, or your economic status. All that matters is what you say. 

 

“There is a cult of ignorance in [he said "the US" back then, but I would argue: "modern society"], and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov

Share this post


Link to post
mererdog   
4 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

Anti-intellectualism is a bad thing. Worse, I think, are the authoritarianism and elitism that lead people to think that a plumber can't have knowledge of physics or that a doctor is more likely to be right than a nurse. The mistaken conflation of "uneducated" and "ignorant" that goes along with the conflation of "poor" and "uneduated."

Share this post


Link to post
RevTom   
On 8/31/2017 at 9:22 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I don't know who said it.  "If you can't dazzle them with logic, baffle them with **."             :D   

 

I think that's a paraphrase? :)

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, RevTom said:

I think that's a paraphrase? :)

 

 

Quite possibly.  My memory plays tricks.  

 

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance"   ?  

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Quite possibly.  My memory plays tricks.  

My memory plays practical jokes, I think...but I am not certain, as I can't remember.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

My memory plays practical jokes, I think...but I am not certain, as I can't remember.

 

 

They do say that the memory is the first thing to go.  What was the question?             :whist:

Share this post


Link to post
RevTom   
6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Quite possibly.  My memory plays tricks.  

 

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance"   ?  

 

 

 

The one I have always been told is "If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with ** Probably a lot more base and crass than our purposes call for here. I like your selection anyway...

Edited by edcrain
typos, word filter

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, RevTom said:

The one I have always been told is "If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with ** Probably a lot more base and crass than our purposes call for here. I like your selection anyway...

 

My first encounter with this saying, was at my job.  It was about forty years ago when I was a civil service clerk.  People would put little placards up on their walls.  Placards like -- You want it when???

 

Searching my memory, I think it was -- If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull **.  In the context of a civil service job, nobody talked about diamonds.  

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
RevTom   
11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

My first encounter with this saying, was at my job.  It was about forty years ago when I was a civil service clerk.  People would put little placards up on their walls.  Placards like -- You want it when???

 

Searching my memory, I think it was -- If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull **.  In the context of a civil service job, nobody talked about diamonds.  

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

Ah, yes. I researched it. The original quote was "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with ** by W.C. Fields. Somewhere down the line, someone morphed it to "If you can't dazzle them with diamonds...". it was on Twitter (the latter morph) in 2011. All things considered, I guess the original by W.C. Fields is more highbrow without resorting to vulgarism. It is strange that I had never heard the quote by W.C. Fields, as I am a fan of his. My early career is factory jobs: I at the time didn't hold my college education in very high regard. Thanks for your interesting input and for having taught me once again, something new.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/2/2017 at 8:35 PM, mererdog said:

Anti-intellectualism is a bad thing. Worse, I think, are the authoritarianism and elitism that lead people to think that a plumber can't have knowledge of physics or that a doctor is more likely to be right than a nurse. The mistaken conflation of "uneducated" and "ignorant" that goes along with the conflation of "poor" and "uneduated."

 

As a big fan of Aristotle I'm inclined to say the truth is somewhere in the middle; of course there are "exceptions to the rule", but I remember the time I needed some blood drawn and the nurse sat next to me to do it while the doctor stood there watching. He saw my quizzing face looking up at him and just said: "trust me, you want her to do it..."

Edited by RevBogovac

Share this post


Link to post
mererdog   
3 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

As a big fan of Aristotle I'm inclined to say the truth is somewhere in the middle; of course there are "exceptions to the rule", 

The argument from authority and the argument against the person are both informal fallacies of relevance. The truth of a claim simply cannot be determined by examining the qualities of the person who made the claim. No one always lies and no one always speaks the truth.

A healthy respect for expertise is necesssarily coupled with a willingness to get second opinions and do our own research. A healthy suspicion of authority is necessarily coupled with a willingness to listen to the people who may know something we don't... which is basically everyone...

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, RevTom said:

Ah, yes. I researched it. The original quote was "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with ** by W.C. Fields. Somewhere down the line, someone morphed it to "If you can't dazzle them with diamonds...". it was on Twitter (the latter morph) in 2011. All things considered, I guess the original by W.C. Fields is more highbrow without resorting to vulgarism. It is strange that I had never heard the quote by W.C. Fields, as I am a fan of his. My early career is factory jobs: I at the time didn't hold my college education in very high regard. Thanks for your interesting input and for having taught me once again, something new.

 

 

Since you liked that, I have something else for you.  One of the first things I learned in civil service.  A parable for our times.  This thread is about authority.

 

The story of the Elephant and the Butterfly

 

An elephant fell madly in love with a butterfly.  Because he wasn't a complete fool, he thought there might be a few problems with the relationship.  So he went to the wise old owl for advice.

 

The wise old owl looked down from his perch and said -- "The answer is simple.  You must become a butterfly."

 

The elephant was very happy with this and went tripping off across the meadow.  Then he started thinking about his advice.  "Become a butterfly."  What does that mean?  "Become a butterfly."  WHAT???

 

So, the elephant went back to the wise old owl for clarification.  Again, the wise old owl looked down from his perch and said -- "I only set policy.  I don't implement."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

As a big fan of Aristotle I'm inclined to say the truth is somewhere in the middle; of course there are "exceptions to the rule", but I remember the time I needed some blood drawn and the nurse sat next to me to do it while the doctor stood there watching. He saw my quizzing face looking up at him and just said: "trust me, you want her to do it..."

 

When an expert tells me that someone else is more skilled -- I'm inclined to go with it.   :whist:

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now