Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Re: W. H. Lewis's diary

Expand Messages
  • Grace Monk
    David, I think you have (as usual) hit upon an important distinction. One doesn t have to attribute malice or anything else pernicious to another who has
    Message 1 of 15 , Jun 25, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      David, I think you have (as usual) hit upon an important distinction.
      One doesn't have to attribute malice or anything else pernicious to
      another who has unreliable scholarship. When dealing with inaccuracy
      and unreliability, the "why" doesn't really matter.

      Grace Monk


      On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:26 PM, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
      > Sure, Lynn, absolutely - but the question at hand wasn't the state of
      > Hooper's soul nor the fallibility of his humanity. It was the accuracy of
      > his autobiographical statements and the reliability of his scholarship. On
      > those questions, humans are not equally fallible.
      >
      > DB
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      >>From: Lynn Maudlin <lynnmaudlin@...>
      >>Sent: Jun 24, 2008 11:56 PM
      >>To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
      >>Subject: [mythsoc] Re: W. H. Lewis's diary
      >>
      >>David, I wasn't meaning to attribute any such thoughts or opinions to
      >>you, rather waxing philosophical in general and in particular in
      >>response to an area which has been known to spark significant
      >>differences of opinion among Mythsoc folks. I think we are ALL
      >>variegated humanity, Hooper, WHL, CSL, Bratman, Maudlin, et.al.
      >>
      >>Welcome to the species! {{smooches}}
      >
      >
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      Or, as I like to say, Never attribute to malice that which is sufficiently explained by stupidity. Carl
      Message 2 of 15 , Jun 25, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Or, as I like to say, "Never attribute to malice that which is
        sufficiently explained by stupidity."

        Carl


        On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Grace Monk wrote:

        > David, I think you have (as usual) hit upon an important distinction.
        > One doesn't have to attribute malice or anything else pernicious to
        > another who has unreliable scholarship. When dealing with inaccuracy
        > and unreliability, the "why" doesn't really matter.
        >
        > Grace Monk
        >
        > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:26 PM, David Bratman <dbratman@...
        > > wrote:
        > > Sure, Lynn, absolutely - but the question at hand wasn't the state
        > of
        > > Hooper's soul nor the fallibility of his humanity. It was the
        > accuracy of
        > > his autobiographical statements and the reliability of his
        > scholarship. On
        > > those questions, humans are not equally fallible.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.