Stardate 20021014.2015

(Captain's log): In response to my article below about the process by which I create articles for this site, Kent writes as follows:

>Steve: You misunderstand the point of my site. Do you think this is
>some sort of scholarly journal?
>
>It's a place for me to explain why I think certain things.

I see I'm not the first to be handed this justification.

I should point out that it really doesn't matter why you think certain things if what you think can be demonstrated to be empirically wrong. In such cases, by persisting in putting forth what _you_ think, in direct contradiction to what is demonstrably true, you merely prove yourself a fool.

(Harsh, yeah, but what other word is there?)

Naturally enough. But I do not deny evidence when people mail it to me; often I post it as an update which includes a correction.

On the other hand, when someone tells me that they disagree with me on a matter of opinion, and from that conclude that my opinion is wrong and tell me I should withdraw it and apologize, I generally ignore them.

The research issue is important because, evidently, a significant fraction of what's in your mental storehouse is either incomplete or outright wrong (I _know_ this to be true based on what I've seen of your science, and I think it increasingly likely to be lurking in your politics). Anything you do based on it is therefore likely to be deeply flawed in some way (yes, having read a few other blogs, Demosthenes' among others, the holes in your attack-Iraq argument are becoming more evident to me). What is the value in writing if the argument the writing is making falls apart when closely examined?

1. I enjoy writing it.
2. Others enjoy reading it.
3. Even if I'm wrong, reading it forces people to consider the issues and to evaluate critically their own thoughts about it. Through the process of determining that I am wrong, they will come to understand their own position better.
4. Several people have written to tell me that reading my site has caused them to become more methodical in their own thought processes, and have thanked me for that. Disciplined thought is to a great extent a matter of practice, and following my arguments apparently is an opportunity for such practice.

The fact that Kent thinks that most of what I've been writing is deeply flawed doesn't make it true. He is entitled to his opinion, and if he thinks what I write is a waste of time then he should seek out other reading matter. But I am also entitled to my opinion, and it isn't against the law to be incorrect about something.

Engineers learn very early that anyone who fears to make mistakes will accomplish little of value. In this case, I am one small voice participating in the marketplace of ideas. If I say things which are wrong, others can then contribute their voices saying so and explaining why. If I learn of it and if their argument is even slightly worthwhile, I will link to them. Readers can then evaluate my position, evaluate the opposition opinion, and try to determine which of us makes a better case (or that we're both equally wrong). I don't doubt in the slightest that I make mistakes; that's the price of using induction on large problems.

But I do not see "correctness" to be an important criterion in whether something gets posted here, if it is even a meaningful evaluation to make, since much of what gets posted here is opinion and philosophy and that is not subject to proof (though it can sometimes be subject to disproof).

The most direct conclusion I can draw is that your writing is an honest reflection of your thinking (this seems to be what you're saying yourself) and that therefore your thinking is highly illogical and often wrong. This is merely human. What isn't, what is very regrettable, and somewhat pitiable, is that you refuse to correct these highly visible errors when made aware of them.

"errare humanum est" and so on.

It is indeed intended to be a reflection of my thought processes, and when I try to make an argument I always try to present the reasons why rather than just to present the bald conclusion I've come to ex cathedra. The entire point is to permit readers to evaluate my argument so that they can decide for themselves whether I've made a convincing case.

However, I do not see any basis for Kent's conclusion from this that as a result it must necessarily be the case that my thinking is "highly illogical and often wrong".

And even if that were true, why is it important?

Why is it too late in your life to keep learning? Why are you no longer able to adjust your patterns of thought to clear out the mistakes that creep into _anyone's_ thinking? Are you THAT ready to die?

That is why it's important. Kent opposes the war, and I support it. Since supporting the war is wrong, then all the arguments and evidence I mount must be deeply flawed. He is attempting to use an epistemological argument to accomplish the political goal of silencing a voice whose message he dislikes, which he doesn't want anyone else to read for fear that they, in their ignorant and foolish way, may be deceived by it. Kent himself has already decided that I'm wrong, but he believes that none of you are smart enough to see all the mistakes I make, and may actually conclude that