dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/01/86)
I can't possibly respond to all of Tim Maroney's recent 196-line article about Heinlein. But I *do* feel a need to respond to the first paragraph below. I don't give a damn if I am accused of some form of cowardice for responding to such a small part of it. In article <1119@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: >I'd like to thank all the people who responded to my messages about Robert >Heinlein without personally attacking me, whether by calling me a Communist, >claiming that I am constitutionally incapable of perceiving "subtleties", >accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, or any of the other charming >epithets that have been hurled at me during this eminently sensible and >level-headed little discussion. No names come to mind, but I'm sure there >must have been at least one such message. Now, the matter under discussion is the character (or lack thereof) of Robert Heinlein. Nonetheless, people who disagree with one another in public forums like this often argue as if they can prove themselves correct by showing themselves morally superior to their opposition. This is sometimes called "going for the moral high ground", and it appears that this is what Tim is doing here. This only makes sense if people believe that something like "I am morally superior to the people who claim that Robert Heinlein does not want nuclear war, therefore Robert Heinlein wants nuclear war" is a valid argument. It is never expressed this baldly, though, so most people are not aware that their opinions are being swayed in this manner. If they were aware of it, they could question it, and reject it. In blunt and simple words: The Moral High Ground Is Irrelevant. For those who are not convinced, and really care about who has the moral high ground, I will briefly attempt to unseat Tim from his current lofty position. Tim has based his lunge for the high ground on the theory that it is immoral to accuse a person of being a Communist, unable to perceive subtleties, or intellectually dishonest. On the other hand, it is a noble act to accuse a man of wanting nuclear war. Yeah, sure. Now, imagine a scientist trying to understand some aspect of reality. His experimental apparatus has various measuring instruments which provide the scientist, by some means or other, with a report of the values of physical variables involved in the experiment. A full understanding of the meaning of an experiment's results requires having some theory of how the instruments themselves work. By default, the instruments are described by a simple theory that says that they are accurate to within certain tolerances and reliable some large percentage of the time. If all the instruments in an experiment provide readings in agreement with the predictions of theory, except for one, it is time to question the accuracy of the theory, *or* *of* *the* *instrument*. Most of our knowledge about the world comes to us, not from direct observations, but from second-hand, third-hand, and even more remote reports. The evidence of our senses is not the experimental result. The evidence of our senses is a pattern of glowing phosphors on a screen before us, or a pattern of ink on a sheet of paper, which we interpret as a report of some observation. In effect, for somebody trying to understand the world, other people are instruments, and what appears on paper or terminal screens is the readings produced by those instruments. And, in order to interpret those readings, we must have a theory of how those readings got there. Now, I interpret some of the images on my terminal screen as reports from the instrument who calls himself "Tim Maroney", and the variable that Maroney is measuring is some function of the character of the physical system known as "Robert Heinlein". Some of the readings the Maroney instrument has been producing on the character of Robert Heinlein are of some concern, as they directly contradict the previously held theory. Maroney based his original statement that Heinlein wants nuclear war on two quotes taken from Heinlein's works. One I was able to look up, (Pie From the Sky) to find that it misrepresents Heinlein's opinions as expressed in that article. The other (from Farnham's Freehold) I couldn't look up, but the comments of people who have read FF recently enough to remember details bear out the theory that that quote also was taken out of context and misinterpreted. Furthermore, Tim admits to not having read Farnham's Freehold. All the instruments produce readings in agreement with the theory except one -- and that one isn't even attached to the experimental apparatus. Could it be unreliable? And if so, is there really anything wrong with speculating about the mechanism of that instrument's failure? Perhaps the instrument is a Communist, or unable to perceive subtleties, or intellectually dishonest. I have a mildly paranoid idea about all this. Imagine that somebody didn't like some of Heinlein's ideas, and wanted to prevent other people from coming to believe them. What better way than to misrepresent Heinlein as having opinions that are much worse than his actual opinions? If enough people can be convinced that Heinlein is disgusting enough, they'll never read him to find out what he actually thinks. It only takes one person to launch such a lie, then other people who dislike Heinlein will eagerly accept it and spread it, because they are predisposed to believing bad things about him. And once people are convinced that Heinlein is a scum/filth/vermin, they will feel that it is their moral duty not to read anything by him... When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. -- R. A. Heinlein Could all this Heinlein-bashing be nothing more than the practice of censorship as a cottage industry? -- David Canzi
asgard@cpro.UUCP (J.R. Stoner) (10/03/86)
In article <2599@watdcsu.UUCP>, dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: [...] > I have a mildly paranoid idea about all this. Imagine that somebody > didn't like some of Heinlein's ideas, and wanted to prevent other > people from coming to believe them. What better way than to > misrepresent Heinlein as having opinions that are much worse than his > actual opinions? If enough people can be convinced that Heinlein is > disgusting enough, they'll never read him to find out what he actually > thinks. It only takes one person to launch such a lie, then other > people who dislike Heinlein will eagerly accept it and spread it, > because they are predisposed to believing bad things about him. And > once people are convinced that Heinlein is a scum/filth/vermin, they > will feel that it is their moral duty not to read anything by him... > > When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes > to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must > not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is > tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. > -- R. A. Heinlein > > Could all this Heinlein-bashing be nothing more than the practice > of censorship as a cottage industry? > -- > David Canzi This is very interesting. It also occurrs to me that the current DeCamp-bashing on the net is similar to what you say about Heinlein-bashing in the intellectual dishonesty they both share.