|
Each of us intelligent
And each of us stupid
Nobody is wisely all-knowing.
It is diffcult to judge a human being as an
absolutely intelligent or unintelligent. For any person possesses two sides:
smart and stupid. The same soul may be stupid, dull, dense, dim, slow, foolish,
annoying or boring in one respect, in special fields, or in certain
situations but alert, brainy and bright in some other respect, knowledge
field or situation.
Again, it is hard to say that all smartness is
always better than all stupidity. Shrewdness (practical hardheaded
intelligence) as craftiness (in politics, science, business) is
socially more harmful than simple-mindedness and naiveness.
As for Paola, she has a beautiful mind open
for fundamental learning and deep inquiry. Here is one impressive sample:
''When we
model reality in its depth and complexity, and look beyond systems
boundaries, we realize that everything in the known universe is
related to everything else, and that a few common elements constitute its substance
, and a few universal axioms,
determine the behavior of everything.''
Everybody, especially the formal logician,
must pay formal respects to women, which are few in the listing. Also I
call formal logicians to avoid making such professional faults as the
nastiest fallacy of relevance: the ad hominem argument (against the man, here
nice intelligent woman, instead of attacking the issue itself).
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:28
AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Tighter
control of ontolog forum?
On Jan 27, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Tolk, Andreas wrote:
Paola and
all,
I think that someone
who "deliberately and gratuitously insults other forum members" or
"openly insult others'" violates not only the code of ethics but also the
principles for professional conduct. Unfortunately, the level of education
and the rank in academic institutions does not imply social or ethical
maturity. I am quite sure that I am myself guilty of having insulted someone
with my statements (maybe currently even am in the process of doing so), but
the "deliberately and gratuitously" is what raises my concern.
It is OK to openly discuss ideas, and
there should be no limiting factor. If an idea is stupid or not of interest
it will simply dry out over time. It is also OK to say - or better prove -
that someone is wrong. No-one is served by something that is wrong. The open
discussion has been the core of academic progress, and academic disputes are
healthy for the discipline. However, it is not OK to attack others in an unprofessional way and
to personally attack someone.
Of course not. However, if someone is clearly ignorant of the
topic on which they are tirelessly communicating, and reacts to explanatory
messages which are intended to inform with reactions which only demonstrate
even deeper ignorance, without apparently being able or willing to admit to
said evident ignorance, is it unprofessional to point out this ignorance, even
in a public forum? I do not believe so. In fact, to the contrary. While there
must be, in an interdisciplinary forum such as this, a willingness by all
parties to reach across disciplinary boundaries, for example by trying to
analyze divergent uses of technical terminology, such mutual processes of
education will succeed only if all parties are willing to adopt a professional
attitude to the discussion. Paula has, I regret to have to say, not yet
exhibited any significant level of proficiency in any technical area relevant
to ontologies, in any of her postings to the forum that I have read. I do not
say this to insult her, but simply as a statement of fact. I am not alone in
finding her presence here to be almost entirely disruptive and
counterproductive. This is not a question of openness of discussion, or
academic debate. For there to be debate, there must first be content to be
debated. Of course it is OK to openly discuss ideas. Part of this openness,
however, is to be able and indeed willing to observe, when someone apparently
fails to grasp an idea, that they have failed to grasp it, and to have the
maturity to react to such observations without making vague threats of libel
suits. I would note, in passing, that in order to be libelous a statement must
first be false. If anyone can show that my assertions about Paula, above, are
false, I will withdraw them and apologize immediately.
Pat Hayes
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC
(850)434 8903
or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416
office
Pensacola
(850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502
(850)291 0667 mobile
_________________________________________________________________
Message
Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config
Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To
Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|