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

yes but nmjot necessarily wrong. and if they publish someoines speech,
the likelhood that it was given tah way is high - and can be checked
independentlly
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Alan Spector wrote:

> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:52:53 -0500
> From: Alan Spector <spectors@netnitco.net>
> To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
> Subject: Re: WEB INTELLIGENCE # 2 - jULY 23, 2003 (fwd)
> 
> I agree that so-called "reliable sources" are often not reliable and need to
> be "triangulated" by other evidence. But if some sources have a long,
> consistent record of supporting racist, neo-fascist, and even pro-Nazi
> causes, well, those sources are certainly suspect as well.
> 
> Alan Spector
> =======================================
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Leonard" <leonardjp@earthlink.net>
> To: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 5:42 PM
> Subject: Re: WEB INTELLIGENCE # 2 - jULY 23, 2003 (fwd)
> 
> 
> > Yes, Alan, sources do vary by their reliability.
> >
> > But this problem is a sociological one.
> > We are living in what I call an "open totalitarian society."
> > Our culture suffers from self-censorship far more effective than the
> > heavy-handed censorship of closed totalitarian societies, where the masses
> > at least knew what was going on. Our culture is stone-blind to its
> > censorship problem. It's too busy shouting about freedom to notice the
> > heavy chains.
> > Our corporatist structures enjoy incredibly effective and virtually
> > invisible "voluntary" controls over thought and expression, via their
> media
> > cartel, building on generations of patriotic brainwashing instilled in
> > citizens from an early age.
> >
> > In this context, there is a huge problem with the respectable and reliable
> > sources.
> > They remain reliable by taking no chances.
> > Therefore, if one is interested in learning anything outside the
> > comfortable scope that the respectable ones dare to touch, one enters into
> > a sort of very wild intellectual landscape.
> > Some topics are so taboo that one virtually cannot find any half-ways
> > "respectable" source willing to touch them in public.
> > For instance, you can hardly find Dr. Israel Shahak's work anywhere but on
> > "hate sites." Not because he advocated hate, but because Shahak was a true
> > iconoclast, and establishment "thinkers" won't touch him with a 10-foot
> > pole. They're deathly afraid to. 90% of folks won't go near him, whether
> > all or any of his ideas were right or not.
> >
> > So we have another dimension here besides reliability, and that is
> courage.
> > In this pampered environment, the only people who aren't scared to say
> what
> > they think are those who are angry and have nothing to lose. And they are
> > not considered respectable or reliable.
> >
> > In the best of times, the reliability of sources is only a sort of
> > probabilistic filter. It can give no certainty about what is true. In the
> > final analysis, one has to learn to think, clearly, without falling for
> all
> > those fallacies.
> > Clear thinking and open debate is what the defenders of orthodoxy fight
> > against tooth and nail. That is why their arguments make such heavy use of
> > derision and the whole grab bag of psychological tricks. It's
> intimidation.
> >
> > Unfortunately, in worse times, on things like 911 (call me a conspiracy
> > theorist if you like, but i am convinced by the evidence that this was not
> > carried out by cavemen) you can not rely on the reliable sources for
> > independent information in the slightest. Because it takes courage, which
> > they have not one iota of.
> > Only after the cat is out of the bag, they will scramble over each other
> to
> > be first to postulate publicly about it.
> > Which means, unfortunately, that we can not rely on the "reliable sources"
> > to save us, from the tyranny being prepared for us if the truth about the
> > neocons never gets out. Or from the tyranny we already have, for that
> > matter. It put them where they are, after all.
> >
> > QED: Think for yourself - because nobody is always reliable!
> >
> >
> > At 15:55 23.7.03 -0500, you wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> > it's not stuff like exercising more that we lack good sources for
> > your example would be a way of advertising for hitler by wrapping him in
> > the colors of a widely accepted idea
> 
> 
> 




    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

               ANDRE    GUNDER      FRANK

Senior Fellow                                      Residence
World History Center                    One Longfellow Place
Northeastern University                            Apt. 3411
270 Holmes Hall                         Boston, MA 02114 USA
Boston, MA 02115 USA                    Tel:    617-948 2315
Tel: 617 - 373 4060                     Fax:    617-948 2316
Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/     e-mail:franka@fiu.edu

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~