paul@phs.UUCP (Paul C. Dolber) (02/07/85)
In a recent note from Mike Huybensz (...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh) to net.origins entitled "Re: Harper's" was the following: [Quote from Richard Carnes, including: ] "If this sort of thing is finding its way into such publications as *Harper's*, now is not the time for complacency among evolutionary biologists. If you guessed that Bethell is a journalist, not a biologist, you guessed right." [Longer quote from Paul Dubois in rebuttal to Carnes' piece: which I summarize as saying that (1) Richard was taking an unjustified shot at Bethell, and (2) it seems that Richard would have us think ill of the article without saying anything about its contents.] Then, Mike's reply [in part]: H Carnes' message is meant to inform people of like opinions U (evolutionary biologists) of something of concern to them. It is an Y informative summary, not an argument. B E The principle of charity is a standard of courtesy in argument where when N an opposing statement can have more than one interpretation, you select S the one that makes the best argument. If that interpretation is wrong, you Z have little to lose, and your opponent has more to lose. Now, I'm all for charity in argument. However, Richard wrote: "If this sort of thing is finding its way into such publications as *Harper's*..." Now, what could he have meant? (1) If this good sort of thing is finding its way into such bad publications as Harper's...; (2) If this bad sort of thing is finding its way into such good publications as Harper's...; (3) If this good sort of thing is finding its way into such good publications as Harper's...; or (4) If this bad sort of thing is finding its way into such bad publications as Harper's... (Did I miss any?) I assume, given that Richard has shown by his previous postings that he is "pro-evolution" that he meant (2) above. I can't see how any other interpretation could possibly make sense. Second, having come to the conclusion that Richard found it to be a bad article (no, wait: maybe a good article which said bad things?), the further note that "If you guessed that Bethell is a journalist, not a biologist, you guessed right" would seem to me to indicate that Richard is making the conclusion for us that "of course, that it's a bad article can be assumed in the context of the author's ignorance." Finally, how might Richard have informed us less biasedly that an article of interest appeared in Harper's? Well, how about "In the February issue of Harper's there is an article, basically taking an anti-evolution position. That an anti-evolution article appeared in a journal with the prestige enjoyed by Harper's suggests that those who believe in evolution check it out." Now seriously, Mike, do you think that Richard's original paragraph had solely the intent of the last paragraph? Or do you have any doubt that what he meant was "Ill-informed opinion is making it into respectable journals. To the barricades!"? Perhaps Paul Dubois (gosh, I thought it was Paul Dubuc; this Paul D*b* stuff is so confusing) and I, in making the interpretation we did, made the wrong interpretation, but I think that, charity or no, it is the only plausible interpretation. Perhaps Richard will let us know, or will have already by the time this issue hits the stands. Charitably and courteously yours, Paul Dolber (...duke!phs!paul).