Making Man in Reason's Image


Recommended Posts

. . . book recommendations unsupported by more than 'take my word for it' -- even by an 'expert' -- tend to be unpersuasive.

To whom?

In any case, the answer doesn't matter, since George wasn't recommending a book, and I personally find lecture recommendations unsupported by more than "take my word for it" - especially by an expert - extremely persuasive.

PS, this, by the way, is a perfect example of why I get angry at the "Snark Pack" on OL:

You are frequently unwilling to acknowledge the smallest valid point of your enemies or intellectual adversaries -- whether it be me or ARI people.

And you vilify or ridicule your adversaries.

That is a mistake, I'll admit. I've always believed that a combination of vilification and ridicule is most effective. Not one or the other. Both.

You should all be ashamed.

I for one am deeply ashamed. It took me way too long to realize that this is merely another in a long series of incidents in which

(1) Someone does something.

(2) Instead of treating whatever it was with "a sense of justice," Phil criticizes it for not having been done his way.

(3) When no one hops on his bandwagon (because they dare to believe that there is more than one way to do something and that Phil's way is not always by definition the best way?), Phil becomes offended.

It is a bit tiresome, isn't it?

JR

Edited by Jeff Riggenbach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Another thread that could have been interesting, but immediately became all about Phil.

GHS: James Schmidt has another audio program called Enlightenment: Reason, Tolerance, and Humanity, have you tried that one? It’s available from Audible.com, which is a good deal, plus you don’t have to deal with CD’s. It runs about 8 hours, the one you’re recommending is on 8 CD’s, so they’re probably about the same length.

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Scholar-Enlightenment-Tolerance-Humanity/dp/B001K56OYA/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300371542&sr=1-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> it's not reasonable to demand that he spend a second more.

It's reasonable to request (not 'demand') that he give concrete examples which is what I did. Politely and civilly.

It's also reasonable to point out that book recommendations unsupported by more than 'take my word for it' -- even by an 'expert' -- tend to be unpersuasive.

Anyone want to argue with those two points?

You wrote: "You'd need to give us at least one or two reasons."

If you don't see the demand here, or at least an appearance of being demanding, I don't know what else to say.

You are frequently unwilling to acknowledge the smallest valid point of your enemies or intellectual adversaries -- whether it be me or ARI people.

That's because they're wrong. Sucks to be them.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also amazed that not a single person outside the Snark Pack who reads/posts on Objectivist Living has had the courage or sense of fair play to stand up to George and say:

"Phil made a reasonable request for more information. George was off-base in attacking him for it."

You didn't request more information; if you had, I would have provided it. Instead, you wrote, "You'd need to give us at least one or two reasons."

This is the language of a finger-wagging schoolmarm. Is it possible that you are really as blind to the nuances of language as you appear to be?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> it's not reasonable to demand that he spend a second more.

It's reasonable to request (not 'demand') that he give concrete examples which is what I did. Politely and civilly.

It's also reasonable to point out that book recommendations unsupported by more than 'take my word for it' -- even by an 'expert' -- tend to be unpersuasive.

Anyone want to argue with those two points?

Yup. I already commented on your first point, and I will now comment on the second.

We are talking about Amazon here, not the Paris Review or the New York Times Review of Books. Comments on Amazon range from full-blown reviews to brief comments like "I recommend this book." My comments fall somewhere in between these two poles. I would describe it as a promo blurb.

I originally planned to post the blurb on OL, but I decided to post it on Amazon because I wanted to send a link to various friends (especially members of a local skeptics club to which I belong) who might enjoy these lectures. Such people know my background. and they know that I do not recommend books and audio presentations lightly.

In short, I tailored my comments to the audience I wished to reach. If the set were still in print, I might have written a more extensive review, but since Amazon only lists four used sets at reasonable prices (i.e., under $25), I saw no need for this.

If you wanted more details, you should have asked. But I don't think you were interested in additional details at all. You were playing your little game of one-upsmanship.

If you rewrite your comment so that it expresses a genuine interest in my reasons instead of finger wagging, I will happily provide some.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> If you rewrite your comment so that it expresses a genuine interest in my reasons instead of finger wagging, I will happily provide some. [GHS]

All right, I'll go over and do that right now: I don't remember my wording but if it's a "You'd need to" that upset you I'll change it to "Could you".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> If you rewrite your comment so that it expresses a genuine interest in my reasons instead of finger wagging, I will happily provide some. [GHS]

All right, I'll go over and do that right now: I don't remember my wording but if it's a "You'd need to" that upset you I'll change it to "Could you".

What have you done with the real Phil?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y304TgVLia8&feature=related

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> If you rewrite your comment so that it expresses a genuine interest in my reasons instead of finger wagging, I will happily provide some. [GHS]

All right, I'll go over and do that right now: I don't remember my wording but if it's a "You'd need to" that upset you I'll change it to "Could you".

I appreciate the gesture. Thank you.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Correcting a bunch of misstatements

> Another thread that could have been interesting, but immediately became all about Phil. [ND]

Actually, it was George who brought up the subject in post #2.

> It's reasonable to request (not 'demand') that he give concrete examples which is what I did. Politely and civilly. [Phil]

> We are talking about Amazon here, not the Paris Review or the New York Times Review of Books. Comments on Amazon range from full-blown reviews to brief comments like "I recommend this book." [GHS]

Very true: And if you read Amazon comments frequently (as I do), you'll find that the reviews found helpful ("102 of 108 people found the following review helpful") are virtually 100% the longer ones someone took some time to write which are rich in detail.

> It's also reasonable to point out that book recommendations unsupported by more than 'take my word for it' -- even by an 'expert' -- tend to be unpersuasive. [Phil]

> To whom? JR]

To the normal reader.

> George wasn't recommending a book [JR]

You're quibbling or trying to find fault about something unimportant: audio book, recorded lectures

> I personally find lecture recommendations unsupported by more than "take my word for it" - especially by an expert - extremely persuasive. [JR]

Jeff, most people are aware there are all sorts of experts out there with all sorts of differing viewpoints. Since one can't read everything, one tends to give more weight when reasons are given.

> [snark pack] are frequently unwilling to acknowledge the smallest valid point of your enemies or intellectual adversaries [Phil]

JR: No real answer. Sarcasm instead.

> Phil criticizes it for not having been done his way..there is more than one way to do something. [JR]

Ignoring whether or not 'his way' is valid or well-reasoned in this case, and treating it as if it were subjective or a whim.

> "You'd need to give us at least one or two reasons." [There is a] demand here, or at least an appearance of being demanding [shayne]

> This is the language of a finger-wagging schoolmarm.

You are focusing on a minnor word choice here in an informal, speedily written comment which had no insult or 'demand' intended. Most people don't normally take offense if someone says "you need to tell us" instead of "tell us" or "why did you not tell us?" or "we need to understand x if we are to be persuaded".

> [snarky posters here] are frequently unwilling to acknowledge the smallest valid point of your enemies or intellectual adversaries -- whether it be me or ARI people. [Phil]

> That's because they're wrong. [shayne]

There not -always- wrong. That's my point.

> I tailored my comments to the audience I wished to reach [GHS]

Fair enough. I was in effect pointing out that I and most readers of amazon would need more info to be persuaded; you're free to disagree or not want to spend the time. It's not really a big deal one way or the other in my view. (From time to time I may post something that is short and could be helped by more detail, but I'm not going to have a cow over it if someone points that out.)

> You were playing your little game of one-upsmanship. [GHS]

Actually, no I wasn't. (And you're psychologizing again about my motivations.)

> the impression to Amazon readers that Phil knows more than you. [MSK]

And you're (implicitly, sarcastically) chiming in to support George's psychologizing about one-upsmanship being my motivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> [snarky posters here] are frequently unwilling to acknowledge the smallest valid point of your enemies or intellectual adversaries -- whether it be me or ARI people. [Phil]

> That's because they're wrong. [shayne]

There not -always- wrong. That's my point.

Hitler wasn't always wrong either. No one is always wrong. What's your point?

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think Hitler is a good comparison for the people associated with ARI (or me)?

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think Hitler is a good comparison for the people associated with ARI (or me)?

Whether he is or isn't is completely beside the point.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thread that could have been interesting, but immediately became all about Phil.

GHS: James Schmidt has another audio program called Enlightenment: Reason, Tolerance, and Humanity, have you tried that one? It’s available from Audible.com, which is a good deal, plus you don’t have to deal with CD’s. It runs about 8 hours, the one you’re recommending is on 8 CD’s, so they’re probably about the same length.

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Scholar-Enlightenment-Tolerance-Humanity/dp/B001K56OYA/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300371542&sr=1-1

Thanks. I'm not familiar with these lectures, but they probably contain a good deal of the same information.

I purchased Schmidt's lectures at the local Barnes and Noble over two years ago, along with Richard Freedman's course, More Than Mozart: Listening to and Appreciating Classical Music. I was disappointed with Freedman's course and put it away after four lectures. And since I experienced varying degrees of disappointment with other Barnes and Noble Audio courses that I had checked out from the city library, I didn't even listen to Schmidt, because I assumed it would follow suit. Indeed, I forgot I even had the set until I happened across it in a dusty bookcase a couple weeks ago. The box had never been opened.

I don't normally purchase introductory courses on subjects that I already know in considerable detail. I made an exception in the case of Schmidt because of the syllabus, posted here . The following caught my eye:

Two lectures on "the public sphere" cover academies, coffeehouses, and salons. The significance of these institutions for the Enlightenment has long been known, but the fact that Schmidt devotes two entire lectures to them in an introductory course indicated a certain perspective and emphasis that appealed to me.

This is especially true of coffeehouses, which became an extremely important means for the spread of information and radical opinions among the masses. They were, in effect, the 18th century version of the Internet.

Coffeehouses sprang up by the hundreds in hubs of the Enlightenment, such as Paris, London, and Edinburgh; and in order to compete they stocked copies of newspapers and political pamphlets (and even books) that could be read free of charge by customers who could not afford to purchase them. Moreover, these coffeehouses would frequently have public readings of pamphlets for the benefit of the illiterate.

Thomas Paine somewhere mentions the essential role played by these public readings for the spread of his ideas. Ever wonder why Common Sense and other pamphlets by Paine sound so good when read aloud? They were meant to be read aloud, that's why.

Ever wonder why government officials and political conservatives expressed such great concern for the public health when they published attacks on the evils of coffee and called for the suppression of coffeehouses? Because coffeehouses were the major centers for the dissemination of revolutionary views, that's why. Government officials and conservatives didn't give a shit about the public health, but for some reason jazzed-up coffee drinkers went out looking for trouble with the authorities. :blink:

Charles II banned coffeehouses in the following proclamation (1675), which could be subtitled Coffee Madness:

By the King

A PROCLAMATION

FOR THE

Suppression of Coffee-Houses.

CHARLES R.

Whereas it is most apparent, that the Multitude of Coffee-Houses of late years set up and kept within the Kingdom, the Dominion of Wales, and the Town of Berwick on Tweed, and the great resort of Idle and disaffected persons to them, have produced very evil and dangerous effects; as well for that many Tradesmen and others, do therein mis-spend much of their time, which might and probably would otherwise by imployed in and about their Lawful Callings and Affairs; but also, for that in such houses, and by occasion of the meetings of such persons therein, diverse False, Malitious and Scandalous Reports are devised and spread abroad, to the Defamation of His Majesties Government, and to the Disturbance of the Peace and Quiet of the Realm; his Majesty hath thought it fit and necessary, That the said Coffee-houses be (for the future) put down and supressed, and doth (with the Advice of his Privy council) by this Royal Proclamation, Strictly Charge and Command all manner of persons, That they or any of them do not presume from and after the Tenth Day of January next ensuing, to keep any Publick Coffee-house, or to Utter or sell by retail, in his, her, or their house or houses (to be spent or consumed within the same) any Coffee, Chocolet, Sherbett or Tea, as they will answer the contrary at their utmost perils....

I don't recall offhand all the details covered by Schmidt -- I would have to listen to the lecture again -- but I do recall being very pleased with his rather lengthy treatment of coffeehouses. Indeed, he mentions some things that I hadn't heard before.

I will continue these comments in a subsequent post.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off Subject: ND which version of 'Invasion' do you prefer, the original with Kevin McCarthy or the excerpt you posted with Donald Sutherland (I like the original btw)?

It's been quite a while since I saw either, but I recall preferring the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When doing a preliminary assessment of a book on intellectual history, I have certain tests I run to to indicate the author's perspective and the care he has taken when dealing with certain controversial ideas and thinkers.

A test I have used for decades is to locate a discussion of Herbert Spencer and then see how it presents his views on "survival of the fittest." If it gives the conventional and outrageously inaccurate interpretation that Spencer wanted the "unfit" poor and sickly to die out, then I know the book must be read with extreme caution.

In a book that covers 17th century political thought, I check the discussion of Hobbes to see if it follows the conventional interpretation, according to which Hobbes, along with Locke, was a founding father of liberal individualism. If this is what I find, it doesn't necessarily indicate carelessness, but it does suggest that the author works from a political perspective that I categorically reject.

A similar test for the 18th century is difficult to come by, except in highly specialized areas, such as the attribution of authorship to controversial books. For example, the English editions of Superstition in All Ages claim that it is an excerpt from the Testament of Jean Meslier, a renegade French priest. Well, Meslier did write a Testament, and it is a criticism of religion, but it has nothing to do with the book that goes by the name Superstition in All Ages. This is in fact an excerpt from the System of Nature, the great treatise on atheism and materialism written by the German aristocrat and patron of the philosophes, Baron d'Holbach (with the assistance of Diderot and other Paris freethinkers). Ironically, in an effort to conceal the true author, System of Nature was originally presented as the work of a dead French writer, Mirabeau. Mistakes in these technical matters are still fairly common and don't mean much, but if an author gets these details right, then you are probably dealing with an unusually meticulous scholar.

Although I didn't have a specific test in mind when listening to Schmidt's lectures on the Enlightenment, my ears perked up when he began talking about the relationship between Mandeville (the notorious Dutch author of Fable of the Bees) and Adam Smith. Without going into the details about this complex matter, suffice it to say that Schmidt got it exactly right, even though he slipped a little later on and veered slightly off course. Even so, I was very impressed not only by his accuracy in this matter but also by his accuracy on some other commonly misunderstood points. This guy really knows what he is talking about.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> the impression to Amazon readers that Phil knows more than you. [MSK]

And you're (implicitly, sarcastically) chiming in to support George's psychologizing about one-upsmanship being my motivation.

Actually, Phil, I was talking about the impression your posting style has on Amazon readers (ones not familiar with George's work).

The implicit part is that I believe you know what that impression is.

You're not stupid.

Why you do that is up to you (which would be psycholozing, strictly speaking, were I to speculate on that), but I firmly believe you know what impression is conveyed in your own words. And I firmly believe you do it that way on purpose.

I'll leave the why to others wiser than me.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> the impression to Amazon readers that Phil knows more than you.

> Actually, Phil, I was talking about the impression your posting style has on Amazon readers (ones not familiar with George's work).

Michael, you're being completely illogical.

When someone posts asking for more details that indicates not that he knows more but *exactly the opposite*: That he expects that the person he is asking may know things he doesn't and is asking what they might be.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> the impression to Amazon readers that Phil knows more than you.

> Actually, Phil, I was talking about the impression your posting style has on Amazon readers (ones not familiar with George's work).

Michael, you're being completely illogical.

When someone posts asking for more details that indicates not that he knows more but *exactly the opposite*: That he expects that the person he is asking may know things he doesn't and is asking what they might be.

Or perhaps he wants to make it perfectly clear that he knows ever so much more than the writer he is querying about how a review ought to be written. There are several of us on this list who have published far more than you ever have, Phil, but we've all learned the hard way that you know much more about writing and how it ought to be done than any of us do.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> he wants to make it perfectly clear that he knows ever so much more than the writer he is querying about how a review ought to be written. [Jeff R]

How does that emerge from a simple request for more details or examples in an Amazon comment?

> There are several of us on this list who have published far more than you ever have, Phil, but we've all learned the hard way that you know much more about writing and how it ought to be done than any of us do.

Same question as above, but you've added the implication of an argument from authority: "the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant". In this case, the implication that if you've published more than I have you (or George or Paul Krugman or Barack Obama who has written several best-sellers) are -the- expert on issues of writing.

You do see that is the implication above, don't you? That I can't ask for more details (politely and civilly) because I haven't published enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> he wants to make it perfectly clear that he knows ever so much more than the writer he is querying about how a review ought to be written. [Jeff R]

How does that emerge from a simple request for more details or examples in an Amazon comment?

> There are several of us on this list who have published far more than you ever have, Phil, but we've all learned the hard way that you know much more about writing and how it ought to be done than any of us do.

Same question as above, but you've added the implication of an argument from authority: "the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant". In this case, the implication that if you've published more than I have you (or George or Paul Krugman or Barack Obama who has written several best-sellers) are -the- expert on issues of writing.

You do see that is the implication above, don't you? That I can't ask for more details (politely and civilly) because I haven't published enough?

I do think that a person who has done something professionally for decades and earned all or part of his living by doing it during that time period is likely to know a bit more about the subject (the subject of what he does professionally) than somebody who has done professional work in the same field maybe half a dozen times over a period of 30 or 40 years but endlessly pontificates on the subject as though he were some sort of expert on it. I'm sure this seems far-fetched to you.

"You'd need to provide us with a few examples," is not a polite request for further information. It is an instruction from a teacher.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> "You'd need to provide us with a few examples," is not a polite request for further information. It is an instruction from a teacher.

Way too thin-skinned on an informal word choice. It means you'd need to in order to be persuasive.

Plus I already said I'd change those first three words to "could you". And I did so, so why are you trying to beat me about the head and shoulders about this minor, trivial issue of word choice????

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I do think that a person who has done something professionally for decades and earned all or part of his living by doing it during that time period is likely to know a bit more about the subject (the subject of what he does professionally) than somebody who has done professional work in the same field maybe half a dozen times over a period of 30 or 40 years but endlessly pontificates on the subject as though he were some sort of expert on it.

In both cases, you just go by the facts. Does the person offer a reasonable case? I don't think you get upset because he seems "out of his depth" if he doesn't. Is there a reason why he might think why he does, if he's clearly wrong. That's all. You don't say that the person with more years always knows more -- or shouldn't be challenged. Or try to put the newbie or relative rookie down because you have more years doing X. Sometimes someone with fewer years or new or fresh can have insights that were missed.

It's not always the sage elder statesmen (if that even applies here) who are right.

I'm sure that seems far-fetched to you. B)

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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