Klarinet Archive - Posting 000120.txt from 2003/07

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: RE: [kl] Anons
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:24:14 -0400

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 00:53:01 GMT, kf6mna@-----.com said:

> I have been somewhat following this thread, particularly the last few
> posts. This may have been said before, but I'll say it in case it
> hasn't.
>
> I think the relevance of knowing the source depends very much upon the
> context. If the person considering the validity of a given statement
> has the knowledge to judge its truth, then the source does not matter.
> However, if the person considering a statement is a novice in the
> discipline or was not present at an event, then knowledge of the
> authority/reliability of the source _may_ aid in deciding whether the
> statement is correct. If the source is not familiar, then I don't see
> how knowing it helps judge a statement.

Hi Jennifer, really nice to see you back.

I want to reformulate what you said.

I think that the opinions/statements of no matter who, aren't
particularly interesting. Even very eminent people sometimes have
strange opinions, and make strange statements.

On the other hand, the *arguments* they may make, as opposed to their
statements or opinions, stand independently of their source.

> Other than establishing a record of reliability for "NoName", I don't
> see why it is necessary to give a name. Heck, it seems "NoName" could
> serve just fine as a pseudonym.

Actually, he always had a name: 'NoName'. (Hence my joke about the
alien called 'Anon' who did better when she spelt it backwards, and
became 'Nona'.)

The thing about NoName's post was that his *argument* was unimpeachable.

(Sorry, Tony.)

But, I suggest that what Tony objected to wasn't NoName's argument that
Tony was claiming too much for Martin's disc.

Clearly, NoName was right in that, because Tony *was* claiming too much.
Tony's original post claimed, in passing, complete accord on the
excellence of Martin's disc on the part of everyone who'd heard it. H
couldn't possibly have known that that was so.

So, what Tony Wakefield objected to about NoName's post *wasn't NoName's
argument*. Tony's objection was rather to what he saw as the
*implication* of NoName's argument -- what he saw as NoName's *opinion*.

To recapitulate:

The argument as advanced by NoName: Tony was claiming too much for
Martin's disc.

The implication as drawn by Tony: NoName's opinion is 'I claimed too
much'; that's equivalent to 'according to him there is less to claim';
that's equivalent to 'according to him the disc isn't so good'.

*Then* the seeming anonymity of NoName, plus the lack of argument as to
*why* the disc might not be so good, takes hold. It becomes merely
'NoName's opinion is that the disc isn't so good', unsubstantiated by
either authority or argument.

So the way to think about it is, that it all came about because Tony
thought NoName's *argument* was an *opinion*.

But it wasn't.

Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE http://classicalplus.gmn.com/artists
tel/fax 01865 553339

... Unable to locate coffee - operator halted

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/