Skip to main content

Signed, X

KBJ writes at The Anal Philosopher:
Imagine a world in which there were no anonymous utterances. It would force people to be civil, fair, and charitable; to be responsive to the facts; and to be logically consistent—for the absence of any of these things would constitute a black mark on one’s record. Anonymity all but ensures incivility, unfairness, uncharitableness, factual recklessness, and logical inconsistency. Perhaps we bloggers should do everything we can to prevent anonymous blogging, posting, and commenting. If we care about the long-term health and integrity of the blogosphere, we will.
It's a nice thought, with more than a little truth to back it up. In my short blogging experience, the level of debate in blogs is a lot higher than it ever was in Usenet newsgroups. I think a major reason for this is that most of us put our names to our thoughts. I know that makes me think carefully about my phrasing - sometimes quite a lot. Bloggers can also disallow anonymous comments and even delete comments they really take issue with (I try not to do this and can only recall one person I felt I had to do that to). So Jackson is right, there is a degree of accountability that comes with signing your name. If some blogs are volatile, it's because the people who go there like slinging mud. I think he takes this too far, however. If one blogger makes a good post and another takes him to task for it but does so in a sloppy, emotional manner, the odds are not too bad that someone out there will have the same emotive response and be willing to overlook the chopped logic or simply be unable to make a fair distinction based on merit. Man on the street interviews have a lot of that. "Sir, what do you think about so and so's speech in the house on topic X yesterday?" "He's a $#@!" Odds are pretty good someone will second that. Which means, incidentally, politicians have to sell ideas they think are right even when polls are against. Are you listening, Mr. Dithers? In the end I don't think there is any escape from poor blog comments, aside from deleting them or not allowing any comments, simply because not everyone is running at the same speed, thought wise, and it has to be given that some people are just emotional (in a way that most philosophers are not). In the end, when differences can't be reconciled, we have to find a way to agree to disagree. It's frustrating as all get out sometimes, but it's not always about winning the point. Sometimes it's about learning to get along. I like hearing from my readers. I gives me the illusion that I'm not operating in a huge echo chamber, and I need to be on my toes.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi