Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Idiocosmology



I'm sorry to have to drag this out, but Dewey Dykstra's post requires
a reply from me. I feel as strongly about this as I said I did, but I
understand that others may tire of the topic. I won't be at all offended if
those people tune out without reading this very personal item.

I said (somewhat imperfectly):

Is there anything *wrong* with quoting Schroedinger correctly? Are
you sure that you will offend the majority of prople with whom you
communicate if you do so? Is it your impression that Schroedinger's
ideas are yours to misrepresent?

When you append a person's name to something that person didn't say
you exceed the bounds of good scholarship and good taste. When you
do it when you are in possession of a knowledge of what was said it
is even worse.

Leigh

To which Dr. Dykstra replied:

I never suggested that there was anything *wrong* with quoting Schroedinger
using the words printed in the book. It seems to be that it is you who are
so worried.

Worried? I said I found the bowdlerization offensive.

If I were worried about offending someone then I would not have included
the quotation in any form. You seem to assume that I am doing things out
of a desire to adhere to something you call political correctness. There
are other reasons why someone might render the quotation as I have, but
these seem to have escaped you.

My mention of political correctness was meant to be implicitly
pejorative. I did not think it was at all subtle. My explicit
clarification (above) should remove any shadow of doubt about my
meaning, though I do see that my last sentence is still only
suggestive.

Are you suggesting that Schroedinger meant these words to apply only to
*males*? If so, I freely admit to adjusting the words, because I believe
that the REST of Schroedinger's idea DOES apply to all people and that is
the meaning I intend to convey.

Please read carefully what you have just said. I believe it is
both honest and correct. I do not believe it is acceptable scholarly
practice. You may write as much as you wish about what you think
Schroedinger meant, but you may not sign it "Schroedinger". I don't
know what the standards are in your field, but in mine that would
never get past a good editor.

Anyone familiar with conventional practice
would have recognized that not all the words are Schroedinger's from the
inclusion of the square brackets. So the rest of Schroedinger's idea does
NOT apply to females, is that what you are saying?

No. Had I wished to say that I would have said it plainly. I would
not say it, however, because I have no special information regarding
what Schrodinger might have meant. The question of whether it was
meant to apply to females would probably not have arisen had the
quotation been made correctly.

Schroedinger is dead. He was very articulate. See, for example, his
popular book "What is Life?" I can't locate my copy, but I believe
he wrote the original in English, though I'm not at all sure. May I
suggest that his words might well have expressed what he meant them
to express, and that any reasonably informed speaker of the English
language would find no difficulty in understanding what he meant from
what he said?

Apparently "the bounds of good scholarship and good taste" are in the eyes
of the beholder. Since you are apparently only interested in what you
define as scholarly endeavor on your own terms applied to your choice of
subjects:

from your note of Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:55:56 -0800:
Presenting me
with scholarly endeavor in a field I have decided to place a good
bit nearer the instinctive end than the scholars themselves do
will not help. You are adducing evidence where I feel evidence is
less important, less valid, than gut feelings.

What you have just quoted is what I consider to be an honest
acknowledgement of a personal bias which was relevant to the topic
then under discussion. You may recall that I went even further,
saying that I don't put much value in publications that instruct me
on how best to raise children or how best to make love either, and
that I feel instinctive behaviour, if it is not pathological, is
probably the best guide in both cases. I'll amplify that a bit. I
think that sex manuals, parenting books, and books that *prescribe*
teaching methods are all give inferior advice to a participant who
has knowledge of the specific circumstances which apply in his or
her case at hand. Experience helps a great deal, and so does what
is referred to as "common sense" that I am calling "instinct".
Together I feel experience and instinct to be superior to didactic
puffery.

If you have difficulty parsing that last locution, your bowdlerized
Scroedinger quote exemplifies "didactic puffery".

I'll leave you to your own tastes. Meanwhile I'll adhere to mine.

The Romans said something similar.

Meanwhile I'm wondering why "Tradition!" is an excuse for continuing our
contribution to the educational damage this thread has been decrying.

I didn't say it is an excuse; I said it is *the reason*! I oppose
the continuing tradition of teaching the introductory course in what
I characterize as a "prayer wheel mode": run it past their eyes and
count them as having been exposed. Even more strongly, however, I
honor the tradition of responsible scholarship. Your false quotation
clearly crosses the line. It pleases me to think that it is unlikely
to cause any damage in this company, however.

Leigh