I conceded your point before you wasted your time arguing it. Past that point, you've really nothing interesting to say.
Sadly, I am more than familiar with the general quality of people's reading comprehension. Perhaps it is too much to expect that someone reads something and understands it before formulating an opinion about it.
By the way, statements like this
Your outrage contradicts findings in research.
are curious as well. My "outrage" (disappointment, really) is a sentiment, not a proposition. Which raises an interesting question--you criticize a metaphor, essentially a parable, by attacking its literal and logical truth, while spouting logical nonsense of your own. I criticize your logic, and you fall back to...what, exactly?
Incidentally, there's no proof either way whether you downvoted me or not, but I will take you at your word and disregard the circumstantial evidence otherwise.
I conceded your point before you wasted
your time arguing it. Past that point,
you've really nothing interesting to say.
My apologies for wasting your time. It wasn't clear to me that you understood the points I was trying to make. It now does seem clear to me that you don't, but since I've already said it as clearly as I can, seems little point in adding to it.
You may choose not to bother reading further.
>> Your outrage contradicts findings in research.
> My "outrage" (disappointment, really) is a
> sentiment, not a proposition.
Sorry, but it seemed to me to be more than simply disappointment. And you may be disappointed, but research says that people form opinions very quickly. To try to take a stance that this should not be the case is a little odd. So I guess I don't understand your point.
> ... spouting logical nonsense of your own.
It's not clear to me what of my writings you think are logical nonsense. It's also not clear what you refer to when you say: "I criticize your logic ..." I've re-read your comments several time, and don't really see a coherent criticism of my logic.
Thank you for taking me at my word when I say I didn't down-vote you. I don't down-vote people for simple disagreements.
But let me finish with this:
Yes, it was an analogy. Yes, he was using it to set the scene to make a valid point. Yes, the article was mildly insightful.
The point I was trying to make - no doubt badly - is that his leading statement just provoked the reaction: Well, that's wrong. As such, as a rhetorical device, it was particularly badly chosen. Some members of his readership were always going to react badly to it because it's possibly wrong.
The points you and I are discussing here are the true bikeshedding. Whether one should interpret such statements logically, literally, or however is not the point. Analogies should be chosen carefully lest they distract from the point, rather than enhance it. This discussion essentially proves that point.
Two hours ago I conceded the analogy was poorly chosen. I'm not sure what else you have to say.
It's not clear to me what you of my writings you think are logical nonsense.
It's the quip about "your outrage contradicts findings in research". A contradiction occurs when it's logically impossible for two propositions to both be true at the same time. My disappointment (not outrage) is a sentiment, not a proposition; it can't contradict anything.
And you may be disappointed, but research says
that people form opinions very quickly. To try
to take a stance that this should not be the
case is a little odd. So I guess I don't
understand your point.
How is it odd, exactly, to be disappointed that people form opinions based on knee-jerk reactions rather than thoughtful consideration?
Ah - I see. Thanks for the clarification. You see, when you wrote:
... you can't be bothered to read more than
five words before formulating an opinion ...
... it sounded a lot like you were annoyed, bordering perhaps on being outraged. To be annoyed, or even simply disappointed, with things that simply are the case seems illogical. Research suggests that rapid formation of opinion is the norm. You were disappointed/annoyed/outraged/whatever. To be so is perhaps reasonable, but certainly counter-indicated.
(BTW - I've taken the opportunity to remove the grammatical error - hope you don't mind.)
Perhaps I shouldn't've used the word "contradiction," but since you were insisting that treating writings as pure logic is wrong, I thought it not inappropriate. "My bad" seems to be the recent vernacular for that.
With regards agreeing that the analogy is poorly chosen, and whether I have anything to say to add to that, you said this:
I agree that Derek's analogy was poorly chosen for
his audience. Clearly, he should have anticipated
that people would be pedantic enough to bikeshed
over whether or not fish actually realize they are
in water.
Then here you say:
Two hours ago I conceded the analogy was
poorly chosen. I'm not sure what else you
have to say.
There is more than one way for an analogy to be poorly chosen.
Let P be the point you want to make. Let A be the situation you want to use as an analogy. Let f be the mapping from A to P. You understand, of course, that I'm using these purely for convenience of expression, and not because I want to be mathematically precise.
Then we have f:A->P. There are several things we want of a good analogy.
The analogy A should be something we are familiar with and agree with, thereby making it easier to see the point that is in it.
The mapping should carry that point into the new situation, thereby forming the necessary association.
Another point is that f should in some sense be "natural" and not excessively tortured.
But to me, above all, A should be true!
So there's more than one aspect of the poor chosenedness of an analogy. One is when it doesn't assist the point. One is when it's too tortured to be effective. And one is when it simply isn't true.
To me, that makes the opening comments more than just bike-shedding.
And that actually brings me to the main reason I wrote this additional comment.
You write:
How is it odd, exactly, to be disappointed that
people form opinions based on knee-jerk reactions
rather than thoughtful consideration?
I don't think it's odd to be disappointed. I think it's perfectly reasonable. It's odd to take a stance that it shouldn't be otherwise. Perhaps you don't.
But in all this my point is that ...
Good writing takes that into account and works with it, not against it.
The analogy was poorly chosen - we agree. That makes using it an example of bad writing. Good communicators need to avoid such mistakes, and understanding the thought and emotional processes inherent in their readers can help.
Your very first comment in this thread was:
It's an analogy, not a logical conditional.
I was trying to demonstrate that that's not really the point. The point is that for many of his expected audience it's actually an actively bad analogy. Giving the author credit and trying to work out how it could be a good analogy - which is what's expected of good authors - is what leads down the never ending, unfulfilling, pointless meanderings about logic versus language, knee-jerk reactions, disappointment that things are the way they are, and so on.
Let's see if we agree on these:
* Good writing is hard.
* Working at it is worth-while.
* Having people point out your mistakes is of value.
* Bad analogies can detract from the effectiveness of a piece.
* Internet debates often get side-tracked down pointless side-issues.
* People form opinions (disappointingly) quickly
* Good writing takes that into account and tries to use it positively.
Sadly, I am more than familiar with the general quality of people's reading comprehension. Perhaps it is too much to expect that someone reads something and understands it before formulating an opinion about it.
By the way, statements like this
are curious as well. My "outrage" (disappointment, really) is a sentiment, not a proposition. Which raises an interesting question--you criticize a metaphor, essentially a parable, by attacking its literal and logical truth, while spouting logical nonsense of your own. I criticize your logic, and you fall back to...what, exactly?Incidentally, there's no proof either way whether you downvoted me or not, but I will take you at your word and disregard the circumstantial evidence otherwise.