17th December 2009, 3:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 17th December 2009, 3:37 PM by Dark Jaguar.)
I say there is a distinct difference between a statement like "This CAN be interpretted to mean this" and "It was the original intention for this to mean this" (including the suggestion that it was subconcious).
The first is just a subjective critical opinion on it, which is fun and welcome. The second needs to be backed up with some historical evidence.
The biggest weirdness is when people use the second untennable method on statements of fact. Rather than analyze the evidence of some old text, they instead will say something rather stupid like "because Darwin was born in racist times, his work is inextricably racist, and therefor wrong". While he may well have been a racist, it has no bearing on whether or not his evidence and reasoning behind evolution is true or not. It's truth value is independant of that.
The first is just a subjective critical opinion on it, which is fun and welcome. The second needs to be backed up with some historical evidence.
The biggest weirdness is when people use the second untennable method on statements of fact. Rather than analyze the evidence of some old text, they instead will say something rather stupid like "because Darwin was born in racist times, his work is inextricably racist, and therefor wrong". While he may well have been a racist, it has no bearing on whether or not his evidence and reasoning behind evolution is true or not. It's truth value is independant of that.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)