[lit-ideas] Re: The end?
- From: Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 22:34:50 -0500 (EST)
That's where the hard sciences are distinguishable from the soft sciences.
While I had no strict proof, the gist of my argument was correct. Strict
demands for proof are certainly useful in the non-hard sciences, and absolutely
necessary in the law, but they're also easily manipulated, as by the tobacco
industry, the oil industry viz-a-viz global warming, etc. It's ironic that
strict proof was demanded of me, yet Fox broadcasts virtual nonstop opinion and
out and out fiction as news with absolute impunity. So does the paper I was
allegedly impugning, although they are factual some of the time.
Yellow journalism isn't new; the news has always been corrupt, but now it seems
so universally corrupt. There are so few countervailing voices. We do have
the Internet to compensate for Fox and the NYT with sites such as FAIR, the
anti-war sites and others, but they're dwarfed into insignificance by the
mainstream. The satire news outlets are useful in exposing absurdities like
starting wars, but they are nowhere near enough, and they can never compensate
for facts, which obviously the 20% of the population (mostly under 30) that
depends on satire for its news doesn't seem to much care about.
I hear too (strict hearsay) that a lot of papers will be closing their overseas
desks and relying exclusively on stringers. That will further limit
perspective. The NYT will be keeping their desks open. The reason for closing
them down appears to be the ubiquity of blogs written by citizens. Still,
bloggers aren't reporters. They can say anything (but so can the NYT and Fox,
so what's the difference). They're staying open probably more for prestige
than anything else.
The news is basically changing pretty drastically, with newspapers shutting
down for lack of readership and reporting going elsewhere. That might explain
why the NYT puts shareholders above facts, except they were at it during
Tonkin, way before the Internet. All this is probably (my opinion) connected
to the general dumbing down of the country, with libraries no longer carrying
classics and the like. Technology no doubt is driving a lot of it, nonstop
entertainment...
-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Feb 4, 2007 5:18 PM
>To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The end?
>
>Paul Stone wrote:
>
>> No I don't know. I admit I don't know. And without speaking for him, as
>> Robert said [paraphrasing of course] earlier today... just because I'm
>> not with you, doesn't mean I'm against you.
>
>I'm always happy to have people speak for me but in this case,
>although I agree with the principle Paul sets out above, my earlier
>point was that someone who asks for evidence that x, need not believe
>not-x. That was all.
>
>If this were not so, the explanations ('evidence') given to
>schoolchildren in beginning science classes (e.g., that metals were
>good conductors of electricity, or that sodium chloride was soluble in
>water) would be aimed at presumed sceptics--which may be true, but I
>think seldom is, even though schoolchildren can be quite sceptical.
>And with good reason.
>
>Carry on.
>
>Robert Paul
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
