At 02:03 PM 2001/06/25 +0100, John Whalley wrote:
>...
>2. With regard to the discussion thread on stress. I'm concerned
>about the volume of traffic that is being generated...
>However, I'm more concerned that the discussion has reach a point of
>very detailed point and counter-point between a handful of protagonists.
>I'd like to suggest that discussion at this level of detail could and
>should be pursued off-list.
Falk issued a public challenge to all ~900 of us with his contention that
some of the principles fundamental to our discipline are wrong. He claims
that these principles are defensible only by authority, and he has
recounted some bitter experience in support of this claim. In my opinion,
all of us have a stake in knowing and in showing that any such principles
are defensible by reasoned argument. Yes there is only a handful of
protagonists, but I would hope that hundreds are scrutinizing the argument
in search of mistakes and/or inconsistencies, and I trust that everyone is
studiously ignoring the lapses into _argumentum ad hominem_.
Dugald Carmichael
|