From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu
Newsgroups: triangle.politics
Subject: Re: some news
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:02:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov5.232248.21664@rock.concert.net>, barber@jazz.concert.net (Scott Barber) writes...
In article <4NOV199217031974@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (<==anonymous?) writes:
>>Well, to some extent the content of the responses was what I wanted to elicit.

>>The factoid, IMHO, did seem to imply some prejudice with no other facts
>>backing it up. The facts have now been supplied, and I can finally quote the 
>>factoid with confidence.  Thank you all for providing it.

>I've seen only bits of evidence posted regarding racial discrimination in
>the banking industry, and there are a lot more facts out there that
>could weigh in on both sides of the issue.  Why do you now feel
>"confident" to make any conclusions, when there is still so much
>information left unknown?

Reasonable question...
The original posting mentioned just enough statistics to leave the
interperatation wide open.  I trust the people who mentioned NPR (fairly
reliable IMHO) and other sources are not lying.  If I was I worried about
it I'd check their sources.

>>This was just a ".sig" silliness but...
>>Anyone holding Al Gore's book in high esteem might want to do some research.
>>I know there's factual refutation in alt.conspiracy, though there is more
>>somewhere else (wish I could remember).  At any rate, I'll sum up by saying 
>>Gore's use of scientific method (hypothesis==>facts==>logic==>conclusion)
>>is rather suspect.  I propably exaggerated by calling the vice president,
>>I mean future vice president, an idiot.  Not all he says is wrong.

N T  >I appreciate your attempt at retraction, and am confident that you
i o  >mean well on all of this, so please don't interpret my "harrassment"
c u  >in bad spirit.  However, I pointed out your .sig as a way of making
e c  >a point about your own point to the previous article.  
  h

If I wanted to retract what I said I would have.  My point is that Gore's
book is inaccurate.  .sigs are not part of the discussion, so I went ahead
and ragged on gore (idiot) for being inaccurate over such an important issue
by someone who [now] has such an important job.

>As you stated, it is unfair and potentially misleading to make
>statements without "facts" to back them up.  Even in your
>explanation, you offer no "facts" or explanation to help me
>understand why Gore's book lacks credibility.  You leave it up to me
>to go out and do research on my own.  And you say his use of
>scientific method is suspect.  You may be right.  But you give me
>no real reason to think so.  What is left is your opinion. 
         ^^^^^^ 
At least I pointed you to it, and offered to find it myself if there's interest.
I never said all facts must be presented.  
We do need enough to interperate & validate what is said.
The original posting was terribly incomplete.

EXAMPLE:  A TV ad during the campaigns said Clinton raised taxes 25%.
Sounds awful, eh? Well, technically it's true but misleading.  He raised
a sales tax from 3 to 4 cents.  Big deal. The ad failed to mention that's
one of the lower sales taxes.

Another EXAMPLE: I heard the above example from a friend, so I really don't
know if there's any truth to it. (If my friend is right, the above example 
holds; if not this example holds anyway)

>MY point in the previous post is that even if you included an entire
>book of facts and figures (as Gore does), what is left, still, is
>opinion.  It may carry along with it very sophisticated argument,
>rigorously obtained empirical data, and unfailing logic.  But it is
>still, by the very nature of the finiteness of any investigation,
>opinion.  (This is not to say that opinion is of little value, quite
>the contrary.)

Well, yes, some would argue the only think we can be sure of is our own
existence.

>Geez, I'm getting really disgustingly pedantic.  Sorry, y'all.

That's okay.  Apparently I do it too!

>The point is to encourage humility in all of our claims, and be
>patient with the finite medium through which we must all communicate.
>Namely, language.

Yeah, I was trying to cut out rhetoric and replace it with fact.

Your points are valid and so are mine.  Shall we stop beating the dead
horse?  (feel free to have last word, since I went "first")
Newsgroups: triangle.politics