gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (09/17/86)
Having vented my spleen, perhaps we can discuss this more calmly.
Perhaps not.
I am cross-posting this to net.philosophy, but directing followups to
net.news.group only. I don't really care about net.singles, but it *is*
the extreme example of just how thetic the reorganization can be.
I have stated some claims that I'd like to see refuted:
o Peano Arithmetic, deontic logic, the ontology of measurable cardinals,
the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, Bayesian vs Fisher-
ian statistics, etc are inherently technical in nature.
o Moderated newsgroups are considered high S/N, high information content
by most netters -- the very antithesis of talk.*.
o Philosophy of science questions will just migrate to the science groups
anyway.
o The decision was made WITHOUT even knowing vaguely what the subject
matter of the group is in the first place! As proof, I cited Rick
Adams' reorganization posting, referring to it as the philosophy of
technology.
Your response has mostly been of three types, all ignoring the above.
First there was the old burden of proof switch:
* Let's see you provide a perfectly agreeable definition of "technical"
and "properly moderated".
Such definitions do not exist, and you know it. There will always be
borderline cases. My claim is that mod.philosophy.tech is not even close
to the border. Peter Ladkin's moderation has led to nothing but inform-
ative exchanges. Similar claims could be made for Herb Lin's group.
Dave Taylor's comment that such a precise definition would be needed
to defend the technical groups to one's bosses can't be right. Bosses
would be concerned with the *relevance* of subject X, and could not really
care if Peano Arithmetic is technical, under any definition.
How do you defend net.singles to your bean counters? By not telling
them how much it costs?
(By the way, Dave, both Matthew and I have worked out in the "real"
world. We know of and respect the difference. You have missed the en-
tire point of my article. Not hard to do, I now realize.)
If a site's bosses can be convinced that sci.* is "relevant" or other-
wise desirable, for whatever reasons, then it should not be that much
harder to convince them that sci.philosophy -- moderated, mind you! -- is
just as "relevant".
Secondly the personal complaint:
* You think you can snow us with your hot stuff?
That effect was unavoidable. I was reciting a litany of topics that
have come up in the past, and which are technical. How else do I prove
that technical discussions have existed?
So you know what Peano Arithmetic is. Good. How, pray tell, do you
find that PA is NOT inherently technical?
Thirdly there was your unanswerable clinching refutation:
* The backbone can do whatever it wants with the net.
Somehow you think I object to this. I do not, and had stated so at the
beginning of my original article. Matthew, by the way, has in the past
posted suggestions even more draconian than the current reorganization.
What I do object to has been summarized in the four points I listed
above. The current criteria for talk group status simply do NOT apply
to mod.{philosophy.tech,politics.arms-d}. The only criterion I have seen
mentioned -- you stated it yourself -- that does apply to these groups is
that the backbone site SAs have decided to stick them there. I presume
that the reason that this version has not been made official is to main-
tain a veneer of democracy and non-arbitrariness.
(I recall a similar business about net.rec.drugs. The argument about
legality seemed highly bogus, but the remarks about nervous bosses were
irrefutable. But why didn't anyone just say so in the first place?)
I have a belief that, despite their great power, the backbone SAs real-
ly *are* interested in being maximally fair across the net, even with the
many silly outbursts on the end users' part. But at the moment, I feel
that the decision about these two groups was made in ignorance. If they
don't change, or at least if my points above are not even addressed, then
that belief -- assuming anybody gives a damn about my opinions -- will
evaporate.
A further myth, that seems to get selectively applied, is that there
is something inherently dubious in a subject matter that cannot boil it-
self down to some nice pithy truths. Thus, philosophy is pointless as it
leads nowhere. This view may suit you (and your bosses), but it misses
the whole point of philosophy, which is to see where our ratiocination can
and cannot lead.
For example, one cannot get agreement on whether System V or BSD 4.3 is
superior -- let's not even mention VMS! -- but one can sure learn a hell of
a lot in debates on these questions. And even steal good ideas from the
other side.
So it goes in the world.
Another version of the talk classification rationale, which I find par-
ticularly irksome, is the verbal bait-and-switch played with the very mean-
ing of the word philosophy itself. I seem to recall talk.* once defined
somewhere as for those groups dedicated to "one's personal philosophies".
Putting philosophy in here is a cheap shot, since the meanings here are
two entirely different things! (And if that surprises you, then, to put
it bluntly, you just don't know what the subject matter of philosophy is.
Period.)
Finally, I should point out that a site that gets sci.* and that does
not want to pay for sci.philosophy can do so. It seems more natural to
pack up the discussions on the philosophy of science per se *with* the
sciences. That to me, seems to be the clincher.
By the way, the "Greggie" business was a side dig at Rich Rosen. There
was a parenthetic remark to that effect. My apologies for trying for too
many flames at once. (It was Matthew's idea anyway. Never mind.)
As to why I flamed in the first place, besides being pissed off, be-
sides having not replied to Oleg in a while, there is the fact that it was
announced that postings would be ignored, so what the hell? Apparently
the same fate has befallen e-mail requests, from what others have told me.
Written with-
ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
This posting was made possible by a grant from the Mobil Corporation