From: sjane@bmers248.bnr.ca (sjs)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: Responsibilities of Artists (was Re: Pornography and Playboy)
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:16:58 GMT
Organization: Irrelevant, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Jul26.214129.12173@midway.uchicago.edu>  kwhyte@dent.uchicago.edu (Kevin Whyte) 
writes:
>        [...]             I don't consider
>it wrong to try to convince anybody of anything.  Society seems to have
>given up the idea that people can think for themselves; it is just taken
>as given that a good ad campaign can convince people of anything.  Why?
 
and 

In article  <1992Jul26.232450.14901@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
writes:
>      [...]             I believe people can think for
>themselves.  I also think they can be influenced by what they see and
>do.  I don't know where environment stops and free will begins, but I
>believe that both exercise influences-- after all, most people can
>identify reasons for believing as they do, and those reasons generally
>go back to something they read, something they experienced, something
>they were told, someone who was important to them.  They then, one
>hopes, used their own judgment and made their own decisions, [...]

Wow, you folks are optomistic!  Me, I believe that people must be taught how
to reason, how to think logically, how to separate propaganda from facts.
I furthermore believe that our society does not succeed, in many cases, with
the first and does not attempt the latter.  

There is a story that a professor in England wrote a book on how to defend
oneself agains propaganda and further, how to teach others to see through
it.  The story continues that this was near the time of the 2nd world war
and the government suppressed the book.  I cannot say whether or not this
story is true, but I do think that it is likely.  A populace which can be
easily swayed it much more useful to a government at war than one which 
can think and reason.  

And yes, I think a good ad compaign can convince the ignorant of anything.
If you know nothing about a subject, how can you tell if an ad is portraying
the truth or not?  If you do not know how to reason logically, how can you
see through faulty arguments, how can you separate mere assertions from 
logical deductions?

And no, I do not think that most people know their own reasons for doing
or believing something.  Yes, most people at Callahans likely do -- we
all are somewhat introspective or we wouldn't be in this group, but what
about your basic man-on-the-street?  (Nope, I don't have facts to back
up my belief here, just vague memories of asking people why they did/thought
something and getting, 'I dunno' as an answer.)

Now, all this doesn't mean that I'm in favour of censoring, but rather
that I'm in favour of teaching, really teaching, how to think logically,
how to see through rhetoric and how to see through propaganda.  I think
this should be taught *early* on in school so that little kids can disect
ads & laugh at their proposals instead of being swayed by them.  And I
think it should be repeated later so that young adults can spot
a politician's or a lawyer's debating tricks.

Once you have done that and done it thoroughly, it doesn't matter quite
so much if one person (artist or not) tries to convince another to do
something wrong.  The other can then think the argument through & decide for
himself.
--
It's not irrelevant; it's a hippopotamus.   sjane@BNR.CA
Newsgroups: alt.callahans