Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

William Edward Woody (woody@alumni.caltech.edu)
Wed, 07 Aug 1996 12:16:55 -0700

You'll have to excuse me for doing this, but the quotes were a bit
messed up, and for my own purposes I have gone back and found the
original article.

[original article Bryant responded to twice.]

> In article <4u37uc$4jt2@argo.unm.edu>, mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) wrote:
> > William Edward Woody <woody@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <4u0cp0$1vgu@argo.unm.edu>, mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) wrote:
> > >> Wrong. All of these are descriptions of the physical world. Newton's
> > >> observations about gravity may not be described mathematically by WaiWai
> > >> hunters, but they still exhibit caution around waterfalls.
> > >
> > >If you're not willing to listen to the answer, then don't ask the question.
> >
> > This response seems illogical. I listened to the answer, and disagreed
> > with it. How does this make me "unwilling to listen" to her answer? --Bryant
>
> Wrong. Your responce was clearly the sign of someone who was unwilling
> to listen to someone who thought about a question you asked, and then
> responded with what he/she thought was a reasonably good answer.
>
>
> Hmmmmmm....Let's see. Writing style matches. Flat out assertion in
> the first one word sentence is exactly the same. No suggestion of
> "it seems to me" or "I don't think" in the above paragraph. And even
> used a lot of assertions from which there can be no discussion.
>
> Looks like a firm rebuttle to me. And if it walks like a duck and
> quacks like a duck...well, it's probably not a duck-billed platypus.

[first Bryant response, including his quotes of my article]

> William Edward Woody <woody@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >In article <4u37uc$4jt2@argo.unm.edu>, mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) wrote:
> >[Bryant said:]
> >> This response seems illogical. I listened to the answer, and disagreed
> ^^^^
> >[...& William complains in response that I offer:]
> > No suggestion of "it seems to me"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Pay attention, Bill. ;) Bryant

If you look above to the original article you are responding to
(which I have conveniently added to the header) you will see that my
response was directed towards answering your question, that is
"How does this make me 'unwilling to listen' to her answer?"

The response was perhaps a bit sarcastic, and I know sarcasm
doesn't travel well over the Internet.

To suggest that I did not pay attention: that is, to suggest that
somehow through ESP I was able to read your mind and see that
the paragraph

> Wrong. All of these are descriptions of the physical world. Newton's
> observations about gravity may not be described mathematically by WaiWai
> hunters, but they still exhibit caution around waterfalls.

somehow contained the phrase "This response *seemed* illogical" (emphasis
mine) suggests powers of telepathy which I haven't been quite able to get
the knack of.

And I personally do not think it's reasonable to soften your words only
after I called you on it--it's the sign of someone who is not willing
to play fair with your arguments. (I'm not saying this is who you
are or what you're up to; just that the above is one of the warning
signs.)

[second Bryant response, with my response intertwined]

> This response seems illogical. I listened to the answer and disagreed.
> (Sound familiar?)

Frighteningly. Are you sure that your ISP isn't causing my articles
to show up twice?

> All verbage is not valuble, as you (and now, I, by breathing air
> into this dead thread) illustrate.

Ah, I see. First, call me an idiot, by not listening to your quite
reasonable posts, and then cut me off to the quick by declaring the
thread dead.

This is the second warning sign of someone who is not willing to play
fair with their arguments: they resort to personal attacks.

(Note: personal attacks cover more than simply calling someone a jackass.)

> Y'all are extremely adept at the "moving target" strategy of avoiding an
> issue, ainchya? ;)

If by "y'all" you mean *me*, then you haven't been paying attention:
my arguments have been rather consistant in that I believe that
there is cultural bias in science in the questions we ask, the answers
we formulate, and the way we skew the results to match what we
expect to find. (And don't tell me result skewing doesn't happen:
it happens all the damned time, with scientists who believe that the
erroneous measurements are noise or experimental error. It's just
a bit more incidious in that eliminating "experimental error" is often
done subconsciously.)

Second, I believe that there are limits to what science can answer,
and by failing to understand the underlying philosophical underpinnings
of the scientific method, scientists can get into a lot of trouble.
And have gotten into a lot of trouble.

But there are a lot of other people here, who also disagree with you
but who disagree for completely different reasons. Perhaps that's
why it seems like a moving target: because there isn't two different
points of view being shared here, but a dozen.

If you think it's because all of us are ganging up on you, perhaps
you're right: sometimes paranoids _are_ under attack. But don't take
it personally--responding to this thread has just been more
interesting than watching reruns of Highlander on the USA Network.

But if this quote is just another attack, but this time on the
group at large (because somehow our intellectual powers have simply
not risen above the level of the unwashed masses to match yours) well,
it stinks like yet another warning sign to me of someone not wanting
to play fair.

- Bill

Who notes that people who resort to accusing someone of being unclear
by picking at their spelling or grammar is the fourth sign of someone
who is not willing to play fair.

-- 
William Edward Woody | e-mail: woody@alumni.cco.caltech.edu
In Phase Consulting | WWW: http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~woody
1545 Ard Eevin Ave | Fax: (818) 502-1467
Glendale, CA 91202 | ICBM: N:34.15' W:118.25'