My first method of reducing senseless babble, undecipherable or self contradictory comments, and comments that have nothing to do with the piece in question and aren’t interesting anyways, was, up to this moment in time, to simply ignore such voicings completely. Today I am conducting an experiment. I will actually respond to every criticism against me made here, that I do not think is valid, in hopes of bringing this discussion back on a track that it never was upon, and perhaps serving as an example of “reading carefully, examining logic and ascertaining whether or not the facts support it”. What I hope will not occur is that there will be a further inundation of senseless babble.
We begin now.
“Perhaps you should have read the article a little more slowly my friend, you’ve mostly just glazed over the content and infused your own ideas.”
First, I read the article extremely carefully to be sure I wasn’t about to make a fool of myself. As far as I know, we’re not friends. Furthermore, my “own idea” I provided as an example of “what Parenti’s argument has in common with that very “orthodox” view he is railing against. Namely, the dissociation of argument with meaning. I did not actually use it to interpret it thusly.
“Parenti doesn’t say that the dissenting view is automatically more “reasonable” than mainstream views” he says they are looked at as less reasonable automatically, almost the opposite, even though they might be supported by facts (which mainstream views often are not, but sometimes they are).”
A more accurate depiction of what Parenti says is: “Can we ever think that one subjective, imperfect opinion is better than another? Yes, we can…”
“He says they [dissenting views] are looked at [by what I assume are the ignorant masses] as less reasonable automatically.”
Wow. I’ll keep that in mind.
“Almost the opposite, even though they might be supported by facts (which mainstream views often are not, but sometimes they are.”
I know what you mean when you say these three phrases in the same sentence, and so I’ll only critique what you mean; however, this sentence really doesn’t make any sense; for instance: ‘he says the opposite of what he doesn’t say’.
You play a very dangerous game by associating yourself with dissenting views in general. First, you haven’t actually presented what the orthodox view is you are dissenting from. Second, Nazism, for instance, seems to be a dissenting view. I’m sure if I was a Nazi I would encounter opposition to my views all the time, and so my arguments would become more refined. Likewise, the idea that everyone must die is a dissenting view. So is the opinion that our thoughts are controlled by aliens or the “CIA”. I of course could go on and on. And if allow yourself to simply dismiss these views, why can I not as easily dismiss yours.
“Next, you go on to say that there are an infinit number of alternative view points. Here you are also mistaken. If you choose to dismiss viewpoints that are not attached to any facts whatsoever, your range narrows a lot very quickly.”
It requires a reasoning framework to establish what the ‘facts’ are. There is just as much argument over ‘facts’ as there is over what to do about them. For instance, that ‘I perceive the things I perceive’ is ‘factual’ to me. That this perception represents some sort of “thing” independent from my perception of it, is not factual. There are people that would disagree with this. If one chooses to simply ignore such ‘dissenting from the orthodox’ and one does not establish exactly why you assume there is an external reality, then it is quite possible one will have no foundation for one’s thinking; and so, one becomes in danger of simply ‘thinking’ almost arbitrarily.
“Is there anyone saying that North Korea founded Al Queda? maybe a couple quacks.”
So, if I am to understand you. The orthodox is not allowed to dismiss your view based on the fact that fewer people agree with you, but you are allowed to dismiss the views of people that dissent even with your views because … too few people agree with them.
“Are there facts supporting the claim that the U.S. founded it? Ample facts, mostly from the horse’s mouth (past U.S. administrations) itself. Is there anyone who says that aliens control our media? Maybe a few, but will we be convinced without facts? No. Are their facts supporting the view that the media is very narrow in their representations of what constitutes “culture” so that they can mold it and control it in the future. Tons.”
I don’t see what your trying to prove here. Presenting a few examples generally does little in a general argument. Furthermore, why do you assume that the people who control the mass media do not control the independent media, to cover their backs, in some even more fiendish scheme.
“It’s good that you’re sceptical about Parenti, it should be the automatic reflex to any new info, shouldn’t it?”
What “facts” do you have that suggest I am a slave to the corporate consciousness.
“But scepticism doesn’t involve infusing your own meanings or opinions or interpretations, it means reading carefully, examining logic and ascertaining whether or not the facts support it.”
Again you refer to your facts. Where are these facts? Furthermore, what is your definition of logic? I have studied logic and mathematics for nearly my entire life, I am surprised that you so easily dismiss my capabilities. Are you so powerful a logician that you need not even present your arguments in an understandable fashion? Am I such an unsophisticated reasoning organism that you do not even see a point in attempting to correct my waywardness? Am I so far from your genius that nothing you can say will ever bridge the chasm between our states of awareness.
“He isn©t saying we should think that one subjective, imperfect opinion is better than another”
Ahhhh: “Can we ever think that one subjective, imperfect opinion is better than another? Yes…”
Can I at least be granted this man said what he has said in writing, that I can read, which hasn’t changed sinced it was first posted here. He continues to say that we can to some degree think one subjective, imperfect opinion is better than another, and I say we cannot based upon the reasoning he goes on to present. I, personally, would say, that a consistent (as in lacking contradiction) theory more complete (as in establishing more propositions, in this case details) with respect to what one should do next would be a better imperfect subjective opinion. I would not measure “betterness” of thought in any way based upon what anyone else thinks at all. This is where my position differs with that of Parenti on this issue. Please ask if more clarification is needed.
“only that we often do. We often dismiss opinions that are not reliant on the dominant paradigm out of hand, or at the least challenge them more vigorously.”
Who is ‘we’. I’ve met a lot of people that dismiss opinions precisely because they are reliant on the dominant paradigm.
“What he’s talking about, and this isn’t obscure, is that it is harder to convince people of dissident world views because orthodoxy is a crutch that makes conventional understanding of reality easy to understand and accept.”
I’m pretty sure you’re beginning to infuse your own idea into your analysis of this particular argument. And this particular sentence doesn’t even make any sense. Conventional understanding is the definition of orthodox. I for one wouldn’t state that it’s its own crutch. Furthermore, I would not say “conventional understanding” is easier to understand and accept in and of itself. At differing points in history and or differing places on the globe there have been all sorts of orthodoxies very different from each other, which would lead us to conclude that people do not abide by the orthodox because the orthodox is inherently easier to understand and accept (for the orthodox is not constant) but because they were raised surrounded by such views, and there then continued to be social pressure to abide by these views.
“He’s not saying ANYTHING about what is more reasonable, that’s what I was talking about, reason involves facts, and Parenti hasn’t made any allusions or arguments regarding whether one is more “reasonable” or not.”
Clearly, he is implying that the argument he is presenting is more reasonable than the alternatives. The “facts” Parenti is alluding to is that there is in ‘fact’ an orthodox view out there to dissent from. I do not see any other useful interpretation of “this view is better than that view” than that it could also be construed as “this view is more reasonable than that view”. What could possibly make a view better than another but for it’s reasonableness.
“He’s simply talking what happens to people when a significant majority of the information they get from the world is mediated by the orthodoxy mills: massive media corporations.”
If that’s what he’s simply talking about, then why doesn’t he say: “I am simply talking what happens to people when a significant majority of the information they get from the world is mediated by the orthodoxy mills: massive media corporations.”
“Parenti’s “rule of thumb” not only works, there are examples of that every day.”
Where does it work. Orthodox: the world is round, gravity can attract, George Bush is the president of the United States, cars run on fossil fuel, humans need oxygen to live, tomatoes may or may not be a vegetable, most birds fly, the Beatles were a rock and roll band, Kant was a philosopher, the earth is filled with ‘magma’, dinosaurs once roamed the earth, electricity has something to do with electrons, atoms are very tiny, pianos can be used to make musical sound, a computer ‘computes’, and so on and so forth. When you say “dissenting view”, you really mean a “small modification to the orthodox”. I would assume what you really dissagree with the some “orthodox” view of American foreign policy. First, I don’t even know what this orthodox view is exactly, so at least you’re way ahead of me on that one. But I do know that your dissenting view probably has a lot in common with the orthodox view. You probably both agree that all US ballistic missiles should not be launched over as much of the earths surface as possible, or that the US should not invade Great Britain, or that the US should protect it’s sovereignty, or that the US should promote world peace, or the US constitution is good, or that the US military should try to prevent terrorism. Specifically, I am going to wager that you disagree on how exactly the US should prevent terrorism, how exactly it should promote world peace, and so on and so forth.
“There is a very significant number of people in the states that still believe that Saddam has connections to Al Queda, which has been disproven publically. Telling them they are wrong, you would look like an unpatriotic idiot, because the audience invested in the orthodox worldview they get from Fox and CNN would view the information that “it was disproved publically” with scepticism, and naturally, as it would be foreign to them, and in opposition to what they think they “know.” Why that is diffifult for you to understand is beyond me, maybe its too unorthodox for you two. Does it mean only one imperfect subjective opinion is right? We’re not even talking about that… anyways…”
To be sure, I don’t know what you’re talking about. What I was talking about was that this review contained an argument that was an insufficient basis for it’s conclusion. By voicing this criticism, I thought maybe someone who is more familiar with Parenti’s thoughts may provide an explanation of why he purposefully presented a flawed argument (for affect maybe), or would rigorously defend the position, and a debate would ensue (which may have actually been resolved by the link neverknwo generously provided, the video of which I am unable to view on this particular computer, so I’ll have to decide later). But to a much greater degree I was presented with the position that Parenti is absolutely correct as long as you interpret what he says in a radically different way than the English language would suggest.
I also don’t know what underlining paradigms he’s talking about, but one of the bigger one’s I personally disagree with, is automatically accepting any support from someone who concludes more or less the same thing, or is against more or less the same thing, regardless of their actual arguments. This idea that “as long as I collect enough examples of people who think the same way as I do, I am more secure in my position”, which is what my imperfect subjective opinion is concluding right now.
“That was great. I don’t see any issue with what he said. The dissenting opinion is usually more heavily tested than the common opinion. People tend to take what is “known” to be fact because most people believe it…it’s circular, but true.”
I’m not even sure that I agree that the dissenting opinion is more heavily tested. Maybe the “popular” dissenting opinion, but then the argument no longer really says anything. And even if it was, it would still fail to endow the dissenting opinion with any more reasonableness. First, as I already stated, the orthodox view can be argued to be tested and refined by time, where the dissenting view is not. Furthermore, for an argument to be refined through criticism one needs ‘valid criticism’. In this light, the argument makes even less sense, for you are going to the very people you say are unreasonable to form, what I assume would be reasonable, criticism of you thoughts. Among other things, I assume you would accuse the orthodox of not being able to form arguments, so why would you seek them out the argue against you. For instance, I’m sure I could find someone who will disagree with everything I say but I’m pretty sure that the arguments that would ensue would not make my opinions any better.
This whole dissenting views are more heavily tested is just wish full thinking.
“It is like the old “world is flat” thing. And what I mean is that people often say that until not long ago (1492?) people thought the world was flat, but the truth is that during the middle ages almost everyone knew the world was round.
With this you seem to disproving your own claim. Yes, most people thought the world was flat (but it wasn’t) in “1492?”. And so, now, because everyone thinks the world is round are you suggesting that the world must be flat.
“People peddle this real flat earth myth as if it is true and the idea is propagated and not examined by most people because they assume since it is out there and oft repeated, it must be true.”
However, this sentence is written in the present tense, and seems to say that that the “real flat earth” is a myth that people peddle and that most people assume it is true. Well, at least you’re consistent with the idea you presented in the previous sentence, but in doing so you’ve now claimed that the world is flat, so I don’t see what ground you’ve made.
Rebuttal complete.
However, while I’m here. “To understand a society we need to understand the problem of culture as well as that of power.” doesn’t make any sense. “There are inherent problems in culture and power” maybe; and if that’s his argument then this statement does make a bit of sense though is misleading, otherwise the words culture and power are generally just nouns, as in things. And so this is a lot like saying we must understand the problem of chair. “The problem of chair” ... what? How to build a chair, how to sit on it? Or the problem of world. The problems the world presents? ... which we would first have to understand the world to not only form solutions but identify the problems. I have the strong feeling that what he means is “To understand a society we need to understand culture as well as power.” and that further analysis would reveal that his definition of society is implicitly if not explicitly built, at least partly, possibly exclusively, upon his definition of culture and power.
Discussion continued.
Forum : Media
Related Article
