From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Nov 29 2006 - 11:43:13 EST
>At 6:32 -0800 29-11-2006, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: >>>I want to stres that I am very happy of this compromise. I value >>>very much Rakesh's contributions, as well as Jerry's and his role >>>as coordinator. >>> >>>Point 2) seem to me the ABC of the ethics of conversation, but >>>weel, ok, let's repeat it .. >> >>To me that point is more like a a fabulated letter imposed on the >>real alphabet . >> >>To me there are other keys to the ethics of conversation--honest >>use of evidence, avoidance of straw men, open acceptance of the >>persuasive arguments and existence of interlocutors, concern that >>your positions will not needlessly injure in an ad hominem manner >>the deliberative capacities of the more vulnerable, recognition of >>the effects of the social and (in this case) academic field on the >>differential power of the conversants, an attempt to think through >>the very complicated relationship between emotion and logic, the >>provision of actual publically comprehensible reasons for one's >>judgements. >> >>Rakesh > >There is no contradiction in accepting your other keys (though you >forgot to add that in human conversation does not exist any third >party, outside point of view, to judge : hence, in the lists, the >need for rules and moderators, which may be fallible but better than >nothing), and holding to my view. > >I repeat that I am happy you're back, and will leave the >"procedural" discussion here. > >rb >-- Yes questions of ethics are complicated. Here's another example. For a sense of how epistemically bankrupt and politically dangerous is the claim that rape has been observed in non human animals, please see http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:RuDbPqDVldIJ:philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000373/00/Arnold.rtf+%22karen+arnold%22+rape&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4L] compromise Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST