Investigating a Murder Versus Getting Someone Convicted for a Murder

By -
I want to make clearer my distinction between research and advocacy: It is similar to the difference between investigating a murder and trying to convict a particular of a murder.

The murder investigation may still go wrong, of course, and arrest an innocent man. And the person trying to get a defendant convicted may be absolutely correct in their conviction that the accused really is guilty. And we may all be happy if they get the conviction, and, say, a serial killer is put away.

Still, the distinction is important to keep in mind. And it is important to remember that in advocacy, people are not searching for the truth: they are promoting a point of view. (They may be promoting it because they think it is true, or they may not.)

Comments

  1. Unknown12:48 AM

    This seems to be very analogous to the problem of theory versus practice in ethics, Gene! Especially relevant is this: 'in advocacy, people are not searching for the truth: they are promoting a point of view. (They may be promoting it because they think it is true, or they may not)' !

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more