dear ken,
i agree, it's wise to cool this line of arguing: blaming me in several posts
for incorrect syllogisms, and when i point out that this isn't so, you see
it as an ad hominem attack, complaining about your person ....
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken
Friedman
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 2:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Entailments of History -- [Was: language and fiction]
Dear Klaus,
There are several things going on here. You dispute my views, but you also
dispute views I do not hold while attributing them to me. Part of this post
is an ad hominem attack, complaining about my person, rather than my views.
You take me to task for answering your question on why I saw your syllogism
as incorrect. Nevertheless, you asked me to answer for my views and not for
someone else. This is such a harsh and imbalanced note that I intend to wait
a while before responding.
Part of the point of contemplating alternative perspectives is to examine
things as we see them, rather than simply as others argue we ought to see
them. That's what you do. I don't recall once in any debate where you've
gotten into my viewpoint or anyone else's -- the alternative perspective you
argue always seems to be Klaus Krippendorff's alternative perspective.
Perhaps that's as it should be. There's 1,400 of us and room for more than
one view.
I think you are one of the more distinguished and respected among us.
I am among those who admire and appreciate your contributions. At the same
time, I speak things as I see them, not as you do. If you propose something
as seemingly untenable to me as some of your arguments in this thread, it
would not matter if you were thunder-shielded Zeus himself with lightning
bolts for arguments. I would propose the views that seem reasonable to me.
Yours,
Ken
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>ken,
>
>it's barely worth my time to engage with you in public debates about
>things that may not matter to other participants in this list, but it
>bothers me and i have been told by others as well how you so often
>distort what is being said and justify your singular point with lengthy
>citations from dictionaries, hide your opinions behind objective terms,
>as opposed to let us enjoy contemplating alternative perspectives on
>all too settled concepts
>-- which this list does quite well sometimes. not that everyone is
>always clear, profound, and unquestionable.
>
>in the context of my suggestion that history is not produced by cameras
>but by creative historians who write to be read by other historians and
>interested contemporaries, you judged my syllogism faulty. i am
>quoting you quoting me:
>
>>Your concluding "if" takes the form of an incorrect syllogism: "if
>>fiction
>is created, composed, sorted out and rearranged for others to make
>sense of, as i suggested, history is fiction with the claim that it is
>based on what happened."<
>
>In terms of propositional logic "if" is not concluding anything. it is
>followed by a condition. and "is" signifies an equivalence relationship,
>here by definition.
>
>in terms of logic i said: "if A (fiction) = (is [defined as]) X
>(created, composed, sorted out and rearranged for others to make sense
>of) and as i suggested B (history) entails X, then it follows that B
>(history) = A
>(fiction) with the claim that it is based on what happened.
>
>in reading my assertion you replaced "A = X" by "A entails X " and you
>blamed me for not saying that X is the ONLY entailment of A (and B).
>obviously, i did not say either and in fact i stated the important
>provision that writing history entails the claim that it is based on what
happened.
>
>just be a little careful with your judgments and treat you colleagues
>and people on the list with some respect.
>
>klaus
|