Re: WEB INTELLIGENCE # 2 - jULY 23, 2003 (fwd)

A true (or perhaps, put more modestly, a "more accurate") statement is "true
or not true" depending on the facts and not on the person making that
assertion......in that sense A.G. and John Leonard are correct. Even GWBush
might make a true statement! ..........I guess....

But on the other hand, the reliability of a source can be a legitimate part
of the discussion. While one cannot completely discount the veracity of a
statement based on the speaker/writer, one certainly can, and ought to,
raise the question that the evidence is tainted. Raising a question is not
the same as dogmatically asserting its falsehood. The source is a legitimate
point of discussion.

Furthermore, even if a statement from a tainted source is true, it is
generally a good idea to find that same statement from another source. For
example, if I say to my students during a lecture: "You should exercise
more, because according to Hitler, exercise promotes good health"........one
might suggest that perhaps I should quote someone else who made that point
rather than appear in any way to be acknowledging Hitler.

I first read A.G. Frank's work back in the 1960's when he challenged the
"modernity is always good" theories that were prevalent even among some
leftists, and pointed out the destructive nature of capitalism (or whatever
he would call it!). One of his articles was reprinted thousands of times and
distributed across hundreds of campuses during the anti-Vietnam war
struggle.  Even when I have not agreed with aspects of his analysis, I have
always valued his broad historical scope, his resolute anti-racism, and the
thorough, principled way that he presents his case. In that sense, I can see
why someone might suggest that with his reputation, it is better to distance
oneself from pro-fascists and other right-wingers when citing sources, and
if possible find other sources for that same info.

But, of course, the bottom line remains that a statement's accuracy depends
on the facts and not on the person making the statement, so in that sense,
information even from dubious sources should not automatically be
discounted.

best,
Alan Spector

====================================================================


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Leonard" <leonardjp@earthlink.net>
To: <debsian@pacbell.net>; "Tim Jones" <deforest@austin.rr.com>; "Andre
Gunder Frank" <franka@fiu.edu>
Cc: "Michael Albert" <sysop@zmag.org>; "Jay Moore" <pieinsky@igc.org>;
<wsn@csf.colorado.edu>; "Martha Gimenez" <gimenez@csf.colorado.edu>;
"Michael Perelman" <michael@ecst.csuchico.edu>; "Michel Chossudovsky"
<chossudovsky@videotron.ca>; "D Shniad" <shniad@sfu.ca>; "Peter G Spengler"
<peter.g.spengler@t-online.de>; "tom hall" <thall@depauw.edu>; "Michael
Ratner" <mratner@igc.org>; "Mark Ritchie" <mritchie@iatp.org>;
<franka@fiu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: WEB INTELLIGENCE # 2 - jULY 23, 2003 (fwd)


> more of the usual epithets and lack of tolerance for intellectual
pluralism
> from the orthodox conformist
>
> what ever happened to the rules of rhetoric?
> your posting is sheer ad hominem fallacy from start to finish
>
> to reclaim your free thinking capacities, i strongly recommend reading
this
> great catalog of tricks and fallacies:
>
> "Propaganda Techniques," based on "Psychological Operations Field Manual
> No.33-1" published by Headquarters; Department of the Army, at
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/546409/posts
>
> of course, to the sacrosanct orthodox, this is double anathema - it
> originated with the US Army and is posted at the Free Republic!
>
> Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum): Get the message, don't shoot the
messenger
>
> or in other words, a true statement is true when it is true. not when it
is
> sponsored by a household name. we got to use our heads - and let others
use
> theirs, too.
>
> At 09:07 23.7.03 -0700, Michael Pugliese wrote:
> >   More far right wingnut junk published by Chossudovsky in Global
> > Research. Why, when there is much of value there, like the Samir Amin,
> > for example, muddy the waters w/ right-wing crap?
>