Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)
What a weak argument to end up with sentences such as "move on" and "I win".
Dear Bumper Snippet,
This I want to respond to. I have read all your posts over the last few months and I have to say as a (fellow) scientist, (which you state that you are and you use every now and then to gain weight in arguments) I get somewhat uncomfortable and disquiete in the way a) you approach arguments and b) in the way you cloak your arguments in shrouds of science...
This snippet above (no pun intended) is one of the many examples. I have seen you call other posts "lame" or "weak" etc., and now you even, to use your own words, "dissect" a mail (your post with #5978) to show how "weak" the argument is; while your approach is anything but scientific.
For example: you start your argument by stating, and I am paraphrasing here, "who listen to jason m. anyway?" or something to this effect. Well, if I look at these debates, I would say everyone! (Yes, pun intended). All the OP (Larry) did, is that he/ she gave, on the same scientific premisses that you always seem to use, a psychological perspective on a quote from Jason M. Because Jason is seen as the vocalist of these songs and seems to be part of a great conspiracy (for those are the implications of your arguments), I would think that the statements of Jason M. (and his motives) is of great importance if not all-telling. In this the OP has an extremely important point to make that you cannot simple disregard because you think it is *weak*. (Or the last sentences of his post is weak.) His/ her point is made on the basis of psychological theories of motivation and action. Dissecting every sentence linguistically (for the post was also partly cynical and sarcastic) does not make your argument more "scientific" or "valid". To the contrary; scientific debate is about positions and counter-positions, and more importantly debating *core* arguments. You can "dissect" each sentence (your post with #5978), but if you do not address the core argument, (in this case motivation and action) the scientific value of your counter-arguments is non.
Or in other words: stating that an opinion/ observation is "lame" or "weak", is showing as a matter of fact the weakness of your own arguments.
And this brings me to the core of my disquiet. In the last few weeks I have seen you debate the Cascio songs on basis of your linguistic and scientific knowledge. In your arguments you give the impression that "linguistics" is an *exact science*, but you know that it is not. Even though you have made some valid points, your points are at the same time onesided. I don't see a source, I don't see anything of a theoretical framework and premises you are working from, and I def. don't see (which is very important in scietific debate) an openess to approach counter hypothesis on an equal level. Or in other words: even though I see you go to great lengths to disprove an hypothesis that does not fit your opinion; I do not see you take counter-arguments seriously enough to even weight them as evidence or a possible answer. Counter-arguments against your opinion are burned down as "non-scientific", "weak" and "lame", while the premises of scientific debate is that all answers are open! If someone should open their mind for your arguments, shouldn't you open your mind for theirs? Is that not the only way to go scientifically forward?
For all clarification: to me it is not about if MJ sang or do not sang in these songs. I mean it is important to me, but it is not what I'm trying to get at; what does concern me is the *way you position yourself in the debates* or the *way this debate in general* is handled by those who do not think it is MJ. It seems to me that everyone who claims that this is MJ and they *hear* MJ are either "deaf", "not true fans" or musical, linguistic and scientific illiterate - while this is not the case. If the presumption should be taken that this is not MJ, than the presumption that it is MJ should be considered on equal terms.
And here is where I stall... I see arguments with no scientific credit used as "science", I see "observations" stressed as "facts" while they aren't "facts" and I see "opinions" expressed as valid "scientific" arguments while they aren't scientific - all expressed in shrouds of liguistic mystery... (and yes, this last sentence is sarcastic.) The aim of using "science" in your arguments, seems to me, is not to proof or disprove an opinion or observation; the "science" is used to *exclude*. Too often people are questioned for their "scientific" credibility, while at the same time none is given.
Debate can only occur on equal terms...
