Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 15:52:19 -0400
To: Athena Discuss 
Subject: Re: Otabil and rhetoric

David Meadows wrote:

> >> 2. What is selective scepticism (and am I engaged in that as well?)?
> >
> >What else, at bottom, is "source criticism", when wielded by one
> >who is player, pretending to be unbiased referee?
> Oh give me a break ST! By this logic I have to condemn an entire work
> because I am skeptical of one part of it! By this logic I have to condemn

Perhaps, if you did not insist on staying mired in detail and 
stood back a little and told us what--in the grand synthesis that 
seems awfully long in coming--you make of the *totality* of the 
evidence, I could be persuaded that the charge of selective
scepticism is not valid.  Until then, all I can say is I wasn't
born yesterday.  I'm no cynic, but neither am I a fool, and I will
not be conned by protestations of scholarly rectitude into suspending
the evidence of my senses.

> I notice that you have now been presented with the opportunity three times
> to tell me what that particular paragraph said and that you have preferred
> to hurl accusations of obtuseness at me instead of doing the simple thing
> and telling me what it said.

Here it is again (although I'm sure you'll again say you don't understand):

> > >As I had occasion once to say to Prof. Fisher, we are all entitled to
> >our bias.  What I object to is bias dressed up
> >as objectivity, laying spurious claim to dispassionate Reason.
> >That preciely is the license that Mr. Otabil seeks to deny you in
> >the quotation you pretend not to understand.  

> dm


Contents | Previous | Next