I've been trying to stay out of this, but . . .
IMO, Ingemar's argument about the importance of questioning authorities as a
natural and important part of his own learning experience stands.
While I recognize Frank's distinction between philosophical (or ethical) and
scientific facts, I think that it is very dangerous to set one above the
other--i.e., I think that we need to be careful of ascribing one science a
higher level of authority than the other philosophy. And while I don't
really want to take on physics per se, it is crucial to remember that truth
in physics, like truth in history, biology, zoology is discursive--shifting,
debatable, and under constant revision. Higher learning depends on it. In
any disciplined discussions of truth, questions will and should arise not
simply around the answers but the variables presupposed by the statement of
any mathematical or physical proof/fact.
In this sense I have little understanding of or sympathy for William's need
to be an authority or (as some have called him) a "teacher." In fact,
anyone who feels s/he must not only be an expert but have others submit to
this authority is on pretty shaky ground--with a shaky tripod an OM-1 and a
200/4.
If only there were "simple facts" this photography thing would be easy.
Glen
Ps. How about a little conspiracy theory? William was an infiltrate who's
main purpose was to stir up trouble and to leave a wake of flame wars in
behind him. I've seen it before--albeit on more politically and
philosophically charged lists. Some people just like to get in, cause
trouble and leave--it's an e-list virus of sorts.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank van Lindert <Frank.van.Lindert@xxxxxxx>
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 30, 1999 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] good-bye
>Hello Ingemar.
>
>You explained very well and I understand your point, but we are on
>slightly different wavelengths.
>
>Wisdom and knowledge are different things.
>
>I completely agree with you that doubts (and the consequential
>questions) are not only justified but even mandatory when questionable
>topics are involved.
>They help in shaping your opinion, and contribute to your wisdom.
>
>But when physical or mathematical facts are the main issue and opinion
>is not relevant, you had better trust the person you are consulting.
>Of course he or she may be occasionally wrong, but in that case he
>will be corrected by another expert who is more (or equally)
>knowledgeable. And of course the person who is wrong must accept and
>stand corrected. That is the way it works in science.
>Accepting things taught to you by the person you want to learn from
>contributes to your knowledge.
>
>I will try with a little example to explain.
>A. When you want to form your opinion on a political question, e.g.
>'Is Milosevic a war criminal', you had better read as many newspapers
>as possible on the subject. The more views the better. Your judgement
>will have to do the rest. (And even when you reach the healthy
>conclusion that he is, other people will think differently)
>
>B. But when you want to know which three colours must be added to
>yield white, you take one good textbook on optics and read. No reason
>to doubt the results and compare what other books have to say about
>it. No judgement needed either. (And all people reading all different
>textbooks covering the subject will learn the same fact)
>
>Please don't think I am saying that all questions are either A. or B.
>type. Many are both, unfortunately. But I am sure you will get my
>point.
>
>All the best, Frank.
>
>
>
>On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:07:59 +0200, Ingemar Uvhagen
><ingemar.uvhagen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Frank van Lindert wrote:
>>
>>> But in a few technical discussions William was merely stating correct
>>> physics facts - and these should not be doubted in the way it happened
>>> by people who are obviously less knowledgeable.
>>
>>Frank,
>>I do have another look at this:
>>I think that if a person don't know (have the right knowledge in a certain
area)
>>one have to ask questions and have some doubts. If not, one will believe
just
>>about everything another person says simply because on one's lack of
knowledge.
>>Also, by questioning, one can sort the "truth" out of the "fiction", so to
say.
>>What I mean is that by questioning another person, one can convince
oneself that
>>what the other person says might be right. By questioning and doubting,
one force
>>oneself to think whether a certain thing is right or wrong.
>>Now, if I, for example, would not question another person's words, I would
then
>>be a fool (anyone could say anything to me and I would believe).
>>
>>I don't have much knowledge in photographic-physical-technical issues. I
still
>>have to have that "critical filter" (questions, doubts) turned on to what
people
>>says. But if like fifteen people says one thing, and only one says
another, than
>>my "critical filter" tells me that those fifteen *might* be right. My
"critical
>>filter" are even more likely to believe a thing that one hundred people
against
>>one single person says.
>>
>>Questioning another person is *not* a negative criticism.
>>Doubting another person is *not* the same as one think the other is wrong.
>>
>>I hope I have explained so you all understand what I mean.
>
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|