4 ms·

I do not see how those two quotes imply a particular opinion of how the enlightenment happened - as far as I can tell, they merely say that the enlightenment (h

I do not see how those two quotes imply a particular opinion of how the enlightenment happened - as far as I can tell, they merely say that the enlightenment (however it occurred) has benefitted a lot of people, yet some of beneficiaries can't stop complaining about it. As for the hostile mistranslators, if they cannot find the presumed dangerous subtext within the work, they should honestly recognize that they cannot find it (which would not prevent them from stating their concerns, just as Aaronson stated his pessimism), rather than pretend that it is there. Ultimately, doing the latter merely reflects badly on both their critical analysis skills, and, to a degree, their ethics.

thraway180306 9y ago
If I were to make a mathematical argument sloppy enough to be open to hostile mistranslators and then on top of that address reviewer's psychology instead of holes she might tried to poke, text would get outright desk rejection on resubmission. In science the odium lies on the philosopher to put forward his idea robustly. Not on the reviewers to understand it in the most favourable light and then... believe?
- mannykannot 9y ago
  The scope of mistranslations is boundless, so this will not work - and what principle absolves the willful mistranslators of this obligation, anyway?
  - thraway180306 9y ago
    So you advise to scope on the reviewer hypothetical beliefs and personality next time? That is bound to succeed and show my analytical prowess? Even in uncharitable (and possibly mistranslated by me being critiqued!) case her points are baseless and manufactured?
    - mannykannot 9y ago
      Too much willful misinterpretation defeats the purpose of critical analysis, and where would that leave the humanities? - it would leave them wallowing in irrelevant self-referentiality, where everyone is talking past everyone else.
      - thraway180306 9y ago
        You are sidestepping the question, engaging in practice of irrelevance you highlight. Is debating the mistranslator a becoming reply? Moreover you said them making a case somehow casts shadow on the critic's analytical powers, where in fact starting debates around their intents bypassing the issue put forward points the exact opposite.
        mannykannot 9y ago
        On the contrary, you are sidestepping the issue. There is a difference between, on the one hand, discussing what troubles you about a work, and on the other, attributing that which troubles you to that work (and its author), without justification. On the subject of sidestepping the question, you have still not explained why responders are absolved from the burden of precision that you have put on the creators of original works.
        thraway180306 9y ago
        I didn't notice you posing this problem. Frankly I don't understand the difference you announced you'd be trying to make. 1) Discussing a critique, 2) attributing critique to a work being criticized and its author without justification? What was your point? About the equal standards. You would be shaken to discover reviewers are not held to the them by the journals and this is by design. Because, as I first said, the burden of making the argument robust is on the original work, not on the critics to robustly scrutinize beyond all doubt. I think you ignored what I started with, and then mistranslated me sidestepping anything.
        9y ago
- sethrin 9y ago
  I'm sure that "odium" isn't too far wrong, but I believe the word you intended was "onus". One should probably not conflate mathematical proofs and empirical evidence in this context. Mathematics allows for certain proofs, where no belief is required, but this is not true for any empirical science. I wouldn't recommend ever betting against the laws of thermodynamics, but at some point you have to take a leap of induction, if not of faith.
jedharris 9y ago
Thanks for that way of putting it. It articulates my feeling when I couldn't do it for myself. ALSO note that what you propose is an "enlightenment compliant" way of proceeding. Unfortunately much argument (especially in the less analytical disciplines) shirks this level of responsibility -- and is allowed to shirk it by the relevant professional community.

thraway180306 9y ago

If I were to make a mathematical argument sloppy enough to be open to hostile mistranslators and then on top of that address reviewer's psychology instead of holes she might tried to poke, text would get outright desk rejection on resubmission. In science the odium lies on the philosopher to put forward his idea robustly. Not on the reviewers to understand it in the most favourable light and then... believe?

mannykannot 9y ago
The scope of mistranslations is boundless, so this will not work - and what principle absolves the willful mistranslators of this obligation, anyway?
- thraway180306 9y ago
  So you advise to scope on the reviewer hypothetical beliefs and personality next time? That is bound to succeed and show my analytical prowess? Even in uncharitable (and possibly mistranslated by me being critiqued!) case her points are baseless and manufactured?
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    Too much willful misinterpretation defeats the purpose of critical analysis, and where would that leave the humanities? - it would leave them wallowing in irrelevant self-referentiality, where everyone is talking past everyone else.
    - thraway180306 9y ago
      You are sidestepping the question, engaging in practice of irrelevance you highlight. Is debating the mistranslator a becoming reply? Moreover you said them making a case somehow casts shadow on the critic's analytical powers, where in fact starting debates around their intents bypassing the issue put forward points the exact opposite.
      - mannykannot 9y ago
        On the contrary, you are sidestepping the issue. There is a difference between, on the one hand, discussing what troubles you about a work, and on the other, attributing that which troubles you to that work (and its author), without justification. On the subject of sidestepping the question, you have still not explained why responders are absolved from the burden of precision that you have put on the creators of original works.
        thraway180306 9y ago
        I didn't notice you posing this problem. Frankly I don't understand the difference you announced you'd be trying to make. 1) Discussing a critique, 2) attributing critique to a work being criticized and its author without justification? What was your point? About the equal standards. You would be shaken to discover reviewers are not held to the them by the journals and this is by design. Because, as I first said, the burden of making the argument robust is on the original work, not on the critics to robustly scrutinize beyond all doubt. I think you ignored what I started with, and then mistranslated me sidestepping anything.
        9y ago
sethrin 9y ago
I'm sure that "odium" isn't too far wrong, but I believe the word you intended was "onus". One should probably not conflate mathematical proofs and empirical evidence in this context. Mathematics allows for certain proofs, where no belief is required, but this is not true for any empirical science. I wouldn't recommend ever betting against the laws of thermodynamics, but at some point you have to take a leap of induction, if not of faith.

jedharris 9y ago

Thanks for that way of putting it. It articulates my feeling when I couldn't do it for myself. ALSO note that what you propose is an "enlightenment compliant" way of proceeding. Unfortunately much argument (especially in the less analytical disciplines) shirks this level of responsibility -- and is allowed to shirk it by the relevant professional community.