A question about Fawn Brodie

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I thought it was brilliant. As was his bio of Einstein.

But if you're so naïve as to think that our life experiences, our worldview, our religious ideas or lack thereof, our political philosophy (especially in a Franklin bio), play no roll whatsoever in the creation of a book, you're mistaken. These things will always color the way an individual will interpret information or facts. Always. We may be able to limit these effects to a degree, but we cannot escape them.

I think your wrong.

Silly Rabbit!

Lamanite

Nonsense..

Wiki:
Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective.[1] The term biased is used to describe an action, judgment, or other outcome influenced by a prejudged perspective. It is also used to refer to a person or body of people whose actions or judgments exhibit bias.

You have not shown where Isaacson showed a "tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology"..

You are way over-reaching the term .. Your premise implys that everybody is incapable of conveying any accurate information. That notion may be useful to those who wish to cover their eyes and ears to anything that challenges them however.

You don't think an implicit worldview of the historian had any part to play in the book? (I haven't read it, I am asking your opinion.)

[_Mercury]

I'm 3 pages into Chomsky and can't help but suspect you just picked the article due to the title rather than the actual contents. It doesn't present a "pattern of objectivity." If anything, it argues (by example) exactly what I have been detailing in this thread. Chomsky begins by saying:

If it is plausible that ideology will in general serve as a mask for self-interest, then it is a natural presumption that intellectuals, in interpreting history or formulating policy, will tend to adopt an elitist position, condemning popular movements and mass participation in decision-making, and emphasizing rather the necessity for supervision by those who possess the knowledge and understanding that is required (so they claim) to manage society and control social change.

Indeed, the paper goes on to argue that "privileged elites" manifest opposition, or "antagonism," to mass movements whose potential to bring about social change (using examples like the Bolsheviks, Communism, etc.). This opposition is based on the possible loss of control by said elites if the mass movement gets a following. Using a specific case in American history as an example, then, Chomsky shows how ideology can permeate the work of historians- even those who think they are "objective."


So what on earth am I supposed to read this Chomsky thing for? How does it outline your "pattern of objectivity" that differs in any way from my own views on objectivity? Again, it almost seems you just saw a title and thought it would pertain.

Such content is itself why I recommended the piece, as I thought you could relate to the discussion of things such as you have mentioned. I think Mormonism and subsequently exmormonism is not large enough for this to apply though. The critical mass of Mormonism is too small to apply in the occasional occurrence Chomsky mentioned.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Such content is itself why I recommended the piece, as I thought you could relate to the discussion of things such as you have mentioned. I think Mormonism and subsequently exmormonism is not large enough for this to apply though. The critical mass of Mormonism is too small to apply in the occasional occurrence Chomsky mentioned.

Can you explain the parallel, and again, you have yet to explain your "pattern of objectivity."

[_Mercury]

Such content is itself why I recommended the piece, as I thought you could relate to the discussion of things such as you have mentioned. I think Mormonism and subsequently exmormonism is not large enough for this to apply though. The critical mass of Mormonism is too small to apply in the occasional occurrence Chomsky mentioned.

Can you explain the parallel, and again, you have yet to explain your "pattern of objectivity."

As a general rule Objectivity is made evident when the negative is neither downplayed or trumped up. One can be more objective than another but at the core of it objectivity comes from telling the whole story and omitting (reasonably) nothing.

[_Mercury]

I'm not forgetting any "factor of scale," unless this is a scale you are just now introducing into a discussion originally about the nature of objectivity, which you still haven't defined.In that case, it isn't an issue of memory but of shifting goalposts and acting the ass. [By the way, aside from the "rape" allegation, you also note there were 14 year old girls, plural. How many and what were their names?]

But this tantrum you have thrown still doesn't get you off the hook for referring me to an article that doesn't contain what you supposedly think it does, nor for refusing to provide your definition for a "pattern of objectivity" while accusing us of not getting it.

Merc, this is the lamest of the lame, I have to admit. When backed into a corner you will shout "rape!" Seriously? What utter nonsense, smoke, mirrors, and futile insults rather than discussion.

Still waiting for that "pattern" you spoke of. I suspect you have already run the victory flag up the pole, though.

This is clear evidence you really don't get it. Joseph Smith raped HMK. I don't know what you would call it...a night on the town maybe? How about "happy fun time with the prophet"? But this is beside the point.

And quit with your "mercs not being fair" tantrum. You have continued to play the fool during this discussion and my comments have neither been vague or out of bounds. Instead you continue to demand clarification after clarification to stuff you should have picked up on when I originally posted it.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

As a general rule Objectivity is made evident when the negative is neither downplayed or trumped up. One can be more objective than another but at the core of it objectivity comes from telling the whole story and omitting (reasonably) nothing.

Again, your notion of "objectivity" appears to center on whether something is negative or not. Odd definition, that. And you got that out of the Chomsky piece? Can you point out wherein he makes this argument? Or shall we consider this definition all the more reason to believe you haven't actually read it. I think this is twice you've done this. Kuhn then Chomsky. Any other recommendations of things you haven't read?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

This is clear evidence you really don't get it. Joseph Smith raped HMK. I don't know what you would call it...a night on the town maybe? How about "happy fun time with the prophet"? But this is beside the point.

And quit with your "mercs not being fair" tantrum. You have continued to play the fool during this discussion and my comments have neither been vague or out of bounds. Instead you continue to demand clarification after clarification to stuff you should have picked up on when I originally posted it.

More nonsense.

I'm asking for girls. You said 14 year old girls. Who are they?

[_Gadianton]

Kuhn then Chomsky. Any other recommendations of things you haven't read?

Fantistic. Since you have not yet read Kuhn yourself, only a book by someone who builds his own religious philosophy that he feels is influenced by Kuhn.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Kuhn then Chomsky. Any other recommendations of things you haven't read?

Fantistic. Since you have not yet read Kuhn yourself, only a book by someone who builds his own religious philosophy that he feels is influenced by Kuhn.

Correction. I haven't read all of Kuhn. When I'm done (I have it in hand as we speak, along with several other books I am working on) I can come back and show how you missed Kuhn's point.

[_Lamanite]

...

First- Wiki is always right
Second- I think your logic is flawed