англ. чтиво: попытка словотворчества

[avva]

Ричарду Докинзу, Даниэлю Деннетту и некоторым другим известным и знаменитым своей популяризаторской деятельностью учёным очень не нравится, что слово "атеист" и понятие атеизма во многих местах среди "простого народа" считаются чем-то неправильным, нехорошим, зазорным.

Как они решили это исправить? Они решили придумать и ввести в обиход новое, позитивное слово. Чтобы обеспечить его позитивность, они взяли очень "положительное" прилагательное английского языка: bright (светлый, умный, смышлёный итп.) и решили превратить его в существительное: a bright. По их замыслу, a bright должно обозначать человека, не верящего в различные суеверия, типа там Санта Клауса или Бога. И они призывают всех единомышленников вводить это новое "слово" явочным порядком, просто используя его где только можно.

(в общем, я упростил немного, сама идея была не Докинза с Деннеттом, но они её с огромным энтузиазмом подхватили и раструбили)

Поразмыслив, должен со всей ответственностью заявить, что более идиотской идеи я давно уже не встречал.

А вот и чтиво по этому поводу. Статья Докинза для англичан. Статья Деннетта для американцев. Сайт движения The Brights' Movement. Забавная запись в каком-то веблоге на эту тему.

Статья Докинза, как всегда, в полной мере демонстрирует его интеллектуальную заносчивость вкупе с тягой к нудной бессмыслице. Тем, кто использует фразу consciousness-raising мне вообще хочется что-то страшное сделать, во-первых. А во-вторых, очень смешно, как Докинз выказывает полную свою неосведомлённость, рассуждая о том, как он хочет превратить это новое слово "bright" в столь же положительное, каким стало "gay": " Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults". Ясно, что Докинз ничего не знает о новом весьма отрицательном значении слова "gay" в американском сленге; но как он великолепно этим подставляется, и сам же опровергает собственный тезис! Красота.

Comments

[watertank.livejournal.com]

Look, when I asked you for specifics you didn't provide any and said you didn't read the book. Then you started a discussion based on what the book could be.
In response, I simply listed the facts: a)you didn't read the book and b) you pass a negative judgment ("silly") based on what the book could be, not what it is. Therefore, c) your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

EOT

[avva.livejournal.com]

Look, when I asked you for specifics you didn't provide any

You asked me to be more specific than "it's a silly book", and I was.

Then you started a discussion based on what the book could be.

That's a lie (can't be a misreading, since I explained my use of the words "could be" in my previous comment).

b) you pass a negative judgment ("silly") based on what the book could be, not what it is.

Also a lie.

[watertank.livejournal.com]

Albright, this is my last comment in this journal, I’m not going to waste any more of my time on it. But before leaving, I would like to provide an unbiased reader with an illustration of the character and the structure of your approach to a science related discussion in LJ.

Let’s start with the simplest case – the Dennett’s book recommendation. First, lublu happened to disagree with your opinion with regards to Dawkins’ style. I recommended to her “Darwin’s dangerous idea” by Dennett and provided her with a reference so that she could form her own opinion based on the available materials. Then you replied to my comment and volunteered your own opinion, I quote: “Yeah. It's pretty silly, unfortunately.”
That’s normal. People are entitled to their opinions, so no harm done. All I wanted to do is to figure out the factual basis for your opinion. This is a common practice in any discussion, when people start with expressing there feelings and opinions, but then, in order to understand the issue they transition to establishing a set of underlying facts. Therefore, I asked you to elaborate. You replied here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/avva/854057.html?thread=10877737#t10877737

In the very first sentence you said that you skimmed the book rather than read it, because you didn’t have the time for it. This is a fact, not an opinion.
Then you, as usual, expressed a number of opinions, based on whatever impressions you managed to pick up from the book. No quotes. All argumentation is provided from the position of your own authority. As soon as one doesn’t accept you authority, your arguments fail.

In the second paragraph you tried to reinforce your previous opinions with another set of more arrogant and personal opinions about Dennett’s style and his intended reader.
By the way, you started your second paragraph with the statement “The whole book could be ….”, which is consistent with what you said earlier about skimming the book.

In general, I gathered that you did look through the first chapters and found Dennett’s venture into algorithms unsatisfying. No wonder, his book is not for mathematicians, it’s for readers like lublu, who probably want to understand some general implications of the evolution theory. This is exactly what the book says in its Preface. Dennett does what he promised to do. You criticize him for not doing something he neither promised nor intended to do.

In my reply I summarized the facts in your comment: a), b), and made a conclusion c). i.e. that based on the facts, your opinion on the matter can’t be taken seriously.

Your follow up explanations consisted of another set of opinions, now directed at me personally. It didn’t enter your mind that expressing your own opinion is not enough of an argument in a subject matter discussion.

Therefore I reiterated the facts in the simplest possible form, trying to get your attention to the factual side of you arguments.

In your reply you conveniently skipped point a) which stated the fact that you didn’t read the book. Then you stuck to your position that providing more of your opinion means being more specific, which is not in any meaningful discussion about facts. Then you called a lie my statement that you pass a judgment based on just a cursory browsing of a book without any factual proof of your position. Please keep in mind that you criticized the book for what it explicitly was not intended to be; without any references or quotes.

At this point I find it useless to continue the discussion taking your opinions as facts.

To highlight your style I would like to point out to another comment,
http://www.livejournal.com/users/avva/854057.html?thread=10885929#t10885929
where a_bugaev quotes unsubstantiated declarative opinions of a third person, based on yet another set of opinions of another person, whose works we can’t see, because they are not popularized yet. Interestingly enough, you accept those opinions immediately, without any discussion, probably because they fit your own opinions.

The lack of facts with regards to the subject matter doesn’t bother your at all. You accept this authority at face value without questioning.

Therefore, goodbye.

Re:

[avva.livejournal.com]

Saying "X could be A if it weren't for B" is just another way, perhaps stylistically colored, of saying "X is A together with B". It is a way of stating opinion about X. It's a pretty straightforward English construction.

You have twice repeated the lie that I called Dennett's book silly based on what it could be rather than on what it is. Compared to that, your continued attempts to distort my words (as evidenced e.g. by your insistence that I didn't read the book - a half-truth, since, as I wrote, I skimmed it rather than read it, and mentioning only the "didn't read" part without the "skimmed" part makes it look as though I was getting my views on the book from second-hand sources, which is untrue) are trivial. The second time you repeated that lie was after I carefully explained why it isn't true, having given you the benefit of the doubt that it might have been a misreading on your part.

Until you retract that lie and apologize, your words don't carry any weight with me. Your latest pronouncements are about as silly as your earlier efforts, but I won't waste any time of them before you acknowledge and retract your lie.