Re: [Pen-l] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan

[Doyle Saylor <doylesaylor@xxxxxxx>]

Greetings Economists,
On Jan 6, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Jim Devine wrote:

> Doyle, I haven't the slightest idea of how this is relevant to the
> idea that people on pen-l should try to attain clarity of opinions
> rather than appealing to preexisting biases, etc.

Doyle;
Well I think you have a fixed idea of what it means to be clear.  Your  
standard of meaning is sort of rooted in the history of writing up to  
but not including the internet period we are in.

the internet produces information that aided by automation can clarify  
content better than an argument between two people can.  So the point  
is that the automation techniques of producing information makes more  
stuff more clear to more people than an exchange on the list.  Why?   
Because people who have no direct relation to the exchange (not  
whomever reads the list regularly) can get the data we produce in some  
sort of process that unites the information to their need anywhere at  
any time.  All unrelated to 'clear writing'.

JD writes;
Doyle, I haven't the slightest idea of how this is relevant to the
idea that people on pen-l should try to attain clarity rather than
appealing to preexisting biases, etc.

Doyle;
My comment illustrate kinds of advances in knowing picture meaning  
analogous to your hypothetical process of clear writing.  This list  
has functioned for years and has not significantly increased it's  
clear writing no matter how much tweaked the list members get when  
requested to write clearly.  By the way, clear writing is related to  
'joint attention' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_attention)processes 
 in collaboration between writers. Editors used to have that role in  
publishing but that is collapsing with the industry in the face of  
internet automation of knowledge production.  Not that I'm for a lack  
of clarity, I'm just saying the list can't achieve what you call for.

JD writes;
It's the process of discussion itself that can clarify opinions; it
may not attain total clarity, but we can try to move in that
direction. The purpose of pen-l, as far as I can tell, is not to
produce a scholarly journal.

Doyle;
Yes the list is not a scholarly journal.  But your view promotes the  
ideal of scholarly journal as the way of clarity.  That means to me  
that sentences are 'clear' and the content is relevant to the list.   
What does this accomplish?  A limited system of opinion exchanges.   
The term, 'clear' as you use it, is not well defined as a process of  
producing knowledge.

Does clarity increase production?  Does it develop content?  Does it  
influence more people?  I think those questions are relevant sorts of  
ways to understand developing clarity.  And clearness has to be  
related to what the tool or application you use can handle in terms of  
volume, and precision.  the list is low volume manual labor.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l