[Air-l] Doctorow on Dealing With Trolls

[Suzana Sukovic]

James, I like Boring's view. It is poetic and dramatic, there is a tragic 
hero and a dull pragmatic in the story, and we can all find real examples 
for comparison. I am not sure how the theory explains people from textbooks 
like Copernicus. And, whose textbooks? Tesla was certainly in my textbooks, 
but not in everyone's. Maybe the devil is in the detail (again!). How do we 
define trolling and scientific controversy? Latour's approach may help here 
- whose authority and where, what is controversial and why? Mary-Helen has 
mentioned aggression. Maybe one difference is in argument vs emotional tone.
Cheers,
Suzana



At 10:13 AM 17/05/2007, you wrote:
>"After much thought about the matter, I have come reluctantly to the 
>conclusion that scientific truth, like juristic truth, must come about by 
>controversy. Personally this view is abhorrent to me. It seems to mean 
>that scientific truth must transcend the individual, that the best hope of 
>science lies in its greatest minds being often brilliantly and 
>determinedly wrong, but in opposition, with some third, eclectically 
>minded, middle-of-the-road nonentity seizing the prize while the great 
>fight for it, running off with it, and sticking it into a textbook for 
>sophomores written from no point of view and in defense of nothing 
>whatsoever. I hate this view, for it is not dramatic and it is not fair; 
>and yet I believe that it is the verdict of the history of science." 
>Boring, Edwin G. (1929). The psychology of controversy. Psychological 
>Review, 36, 97-121. [Boring's 1928 APA Presidential Address about past 
>controversy in psychology.]
>
>


Suzana Sukovic
PhD Candidate
_________________________________________
Information & Knowledge Management
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
University of Technology, Sydney

PO Box 123
Broadway NSW 2007, Australia
www.hss.uts.edu.au/research/research_students/suzana_sukovic.html