benhourigan.com’s funniest comment so far
Just a few minutes ago, Sasha posted this masterful comment, which made me, university trained geek that I am, laugh harder than I had in weeks. Kudos to you, Sasha. Thanks, too, to the mysterious Jess/Jessica, who made such a good butt for Sasha’s jokes.
What are you waiting for? Read the comment!
Dear Ben and Sasha,
Thanks for the comments. I enjoyed reading them. I’ll offer a reply to both of you.
First Sasha,
I thought your comments were very funny. Your parody of humanities academics’ writing was accurate and very clever. Your satirical statements such as “I can’t imagine where anyone gets the idea that academics don’t speak plain English” are germane and subtle. I particularly like the pun about “status quo” the band, which would’ve taken a lot of imagination to come up with. Your catchy and clever designation “kinky grammar nazi” accurately describes my writing. There’s little doubt that you demonstrate much talent. Well done.
You certainly demonstrate a greater ability to “speak in plain English” than me. I see now that “conditional”, “indicative” and “subjunctive” are big words. Those words could explain why you misinterpreted my passage. You stated: “So you’re not sure if I’m talking about you because I wrote ‘you’re’ instead of ‘you are’?”
Um no.
That’s not what my suggestion says. I said, rather: “Assuming that your conditional sentence is indicative (I’m not sure ‘if’ your sentence is subjunctive or indicative due to the contraction), then ‘I suggest’ that you re-read my comments more carefully”.
Where does it say I’m not sure whether you’re talking about me because of the contraction?
I’ll try to clearly explain what it does mean: a sentence beginning with “if” usually represents what the people who study grammar call a “conditional sentence”. I know “sentence” is a big word, but that’s what they use. I wasn’t sure whether your sentence was stating a fact, what those pretentious people who study grammar call “indicative”, or a supposition, what those pretentious people who study grammar call “subjunctive”, because you joined two words together and place a little mark where the missing letter use to be. Those pretentious people who study grammar call that mark an “apostrophe” and call the combination of two words using an apostrophe a “contraction”. The contraction made the word that represents doing stuff, what those pretentious people who study grammar call “verbs”, unclear. I didn’t know whether the word that represents doing stuff was “are” or “were”. If you were using “were” then the sentence would be subjunctive. If you are using “are” then the sentence is indicative. Your combination of two words and placement of a little mark where the missing letter used to be, which made knowing whether the word that represents doing stuff was “are” or “were”, refers to not knowing whether you meant that I did do something or whether you were talking hypothetically, and not to whether you were or were not talking to me.
You rightly point out that I misunderstood what you meant when you wrote “specifying”. You said: “If you’re going to accuse someone of ‘logical fallacies,’ I suggest a) specifying them, and b) not using them in the same post (ad hominem).”
As you correctly point out, when I specified, oops I mean “named”, a logical fallacy as “false cause”, I was “naming” and not “demonstrating”. “Specifying” as I now know actually means “to demonstrate”. You sated: “’false cause’ names a logical fallacy, but in itself fails to demonstrate that the cause in question is actually.”
I thought, incorrectly according to you, that “specify” is a synonym for “name”. Sorry, I used one of those big words again. When I said “synonym” I could have said “a word that has a similar meaning to another word”. That’s my fault for learning definitions from my Oxford Dictionary. It defines “specify” as “name or mention” and “name” as “mention or specify”; however, it defines “demonstrate” as “describe and explain”. Clearly those definitions are wrong, as you convincingly illustrate.
I appreciate your implication that I’m a “reasonable person”. According to you: “How else might a reasonable person interpret my comment” that “If you’re going to accuse someone of ‘logical fallacies,’ I suggest a) specifying them, and b) not using them in the same post (ad hominem).”
I assume you’re implying that I’m reasonable, considering I interpreted your phrase the way you intended, only suggesting that your meaning wasn’t clear. I still think, however, that “not using them in the same post” creates ambiguity and that the ambiguity makes your phrase “amphibolic”.
But as you convincingly demonstrated, I could have used “ambiguity” instead of “amphibolic”. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of thinking that “amphibolic” and “ambiguous” have different meanings. I thought “amphiboloy” was a “*fallacy* arising from ambiguity in the grammatical structure of a sentence”, and “ambiguity” was “unclear meaning in the grammatical structure of a sentence”. But I guess you could say, using your logic, that “ambiguity” arises from “ambiguity”, but a “grammar nazi” would decribe that as “begging the quesiton”. However, as you’ve convincingly demonstrated, “amphiboloy” and “ambiguity” are synonymous, just like “specify” and “demonstrate”.
On the topic of new definitions, I see you’ve developed a new definition for “false cause”. “False cause”, according to you, now means “a fancy way of saying ‘you’re wrong, so there’”. Looks like all the definitions in my books are wrong, including Govier’s definition: “a casual interpretation on the basis of limited evidence” (Practical Study of Argument); Keith Windschuttle’s: “that people often see two things happening together, one after the other, and assume from this that the first causes the second” (Writing, Researching, Communicating); Bensel-Myers’s: “that because one event occurred before another, the first was the cause of the second” (Rhetoric for Academic Reasoning) and Conway’s: “connecting one event with another because they follow each other” (The Elements of Reasoning). I’ll have to throw my books away and start following your example of using the internet for authoritative information. Your internet “fallacy lists” are certainly more authoritative than the books I referred to above, which incorrectly refer to “false cause” as a single fallacy.
You certainly put me in my place with your convincing argument that a “false clause” “doesn’t specify one”! There’s no doubt that your argument is based on impeccable reasoning: “the more extensive fallacy lists cite ‘false cause’ as a category, rather than a single fallacy, and that therefore it doesn’t specify one.”
Assuming that “specify” means “demonstrate” and not “name”, what, exactly, does “it” (and “one” for that matter) refer to? Does “it” refer to “extensive lists”, “category” or “false cause”? If “it” refers to “extensive lists”, you’ve made a syntactical error. If “it” refers to “category”, you’ve used a logically fallacy. If “it” refers to “false cause” then you’ve, by your own argument, made a mistake, specifying “false cause” in the singular. So therefore, to use your reasoning, “that therefore it doesn’t”, doesn’t it?
According to you: ‘the claim Ben actually made about most humanities’ [your emphasis].
Um no.
You must have been using one of those new definitions again. Could you show me where he says “most humanities” or anything that comes close to meaning that? Please take into account that I don’t have access to the Shasha dictionary.
I can, however, cite the passages that make no such qualifications: “academics… use them every day”; “academia has its own dialect”; “why did academics start using this language”; “the entrenched poverty in academia”.
The only time Ben uses a qualification is in relation to modernist techniques infecting the world: “The experimental techniques of the literary modernists made their way into the academy, where they slowly infected almost all of the humanities, throughout the world.” Looks likes this European epidemic is now pandemic, almost. So that must be where you found “most”, in “almost”. Well they are almost most the same.
In relation to your question: “Out of curiousity [sic], could you direct me to the study of primary schoolers’ understanding of tertiary institutions to which you no doubt referred?” I would direct you to “the study of primary schoolers’ understanding of tertiary institutions” if I ever make that claim. But I haven’t and won’t. I suggest you reread my statement. For if I did make that claim, it would mean that Ben’s propositions and arguments in his original post were satisfactory. From the name-calling and ad hominem attacks I’ve received, I don’t think that’s what it means.
I do like your metaphors such as “He-man” and “chest beating”; they are most appropriate. They certainly reflect Ben’s comments accurately: “I was an exceptional primary-schooler”; “my thought processes put any primary school student’s to shame.” I just hope Ben doesn’t feel the need to shame or humiliate school students to prove it.
In relation to your mistakes, yes I do forgive your “colossal oversights” in your “list of memorised fallacy names”. I forgive you if you have made an “egregious error of assuming” that hasty generalization “was more authoritative” that hazy generalization. I also forgive your, as you say, “pitiful intellect for failing to grasp” what I’ve said (and thanks for pointed out the fact that two of the most prominent internet fallacy lists that you use are able to keep up with me). Finally, I accept your apology for your mistaken accusation that I used ad hominem.
To sum up, I hope you stop putting yourself down. I don’t want you thinking that you’re “foolish”. From what I’ve read, you sound like a really special person. I think you should keep up the comedy; you demonstrate great talent. I haven’t stopped laughing. And I hope you don’t give up trying to develop arguments. I’m sure that if you practice you’ll improve. Anyway, good luck and well done.
Now Ben,
I have enjoyed watching your paranoia grow. I see you cannot understand how more than one person can access one computer. To put your mind at rest, no it’s not a government conspiracy, it’s a little less exciting than that: actually the computer I wrote my first post on was a communal computer, used by a dozen students in a twelve-room unit in student housing. I was there seeing a friend when “Fred” (not his real name, which does confirm the conspiracy somewhat; however, he’s very different from me, he has one of those things between his legs) showed me your post. I wrote my comments and left. I don’t know who “John” is, sorry.
In relation to me, my name is Jessica. I sometimes go by the name Jess, so I guess I am using two names to represent myself, sorry. I won’t give you my surname because after reading your replies, I’m concerned that you cannot control your emotions. In relation to what I do: I’m wasting taxpayers’ money on an APA scholarship doing a PhD in the humanities. I won’t specify because I can see that you don’t like to specify.
I’m glad that you were “an exceptional primary-schooler”, that your “thought processes put any primary school student’s to shame”, even though you “never thought in complex terms about standards of argument and evidence.”
I can’t say that I thought in complex terms as a primary school student either, as far as I’m aware, so you don’t have to call me a “liar”. Like I told Sasha, I never said that primary school students thought in complex terms. And judging from your reaction, you didn’t make that reading either. So I’m a little confused as to where you got that idea. My statement means, to set the record straight: that the ideas that you proposed were not complex; that they were based not on research but common complains that continue to circulate concomitantly with uncritical candour. I believe year 7 primary school students use the same level of reasoning. Unfortunately for me, it looks like that I’m going to “look like a fool” because I stand by my original assertion. I am disappointed, however, that you have to stoop to ad hominem attacks.
I agree with your assertion that it’s difficult to draw a line between modernism and postmodernism. However, I would’ve thought, and I’m no historian, that there is a clear temporal difference between “literary modernism in the early 20th century”, as you stated, and the 1960s. By the way, your reference to Fredric Jameson doesn’t help your argument. Jameson argues in his essay “periodizing the ‘60s” that the provenance of postmodernism occurred in the 1960s.
However, the big question remains: why does this writing upset you so much? Some people actually like it. Call them crazy, call them pompous or pretentious, but unless they’ve been hoodwinked with false consciousness by academic indoctrination that claims incomprehensible “academic dialect” is “scholarly”, so what?
Why is the writing of humanities academics, which you say “no-one in the world at large” is “interested in”, more “incredibly destructive” than say “legalese”, which has definite material effects on the lives of virtually everyone? And what about marketing, advertising and especially business management speak (see Don Watson’s Death Sentence: The Decay of Public Language)? Most people have no choice but to endure that language everyday. Most people don’t with humanities’ writing. I would suggest that if you don’t like the writing of humanities academics, don’t read it; nobody’s forcing you to read Bhabha, Derrida etc.
Rather than attack people who write in a style you subjectively dislike, why don’t you analyse the arguments of those who actually disparage your area? I don’t know of any literary or cultural studies academics that would do such a thing. I would be very surprised if they didn’t argue passionately for your research. The irony is that the people you use to support your argument are the ones who would criticize your area! And the ones you criticize would be the ones on your side.
Call me stupid or a “fool”, but doesn’t the example of Dennis Dutton also undermine your argument? Doesn’t he as an academic of the humanities criticize the very writing style that you claim all humanities academics use?
Denise Dutton’s personal project “sponsored by Philosophy and Literature” was so popular it produced four contests and lasted three years! It must have been a raving success. Dutton, of course, is world famous for his published books. None! He does demonstrate more than a little envy towards the “well-known, highly-paid experts” he disparages. And the examples he cites are not impressive; I’ve read far worse.
Your question “what problem, exactly, do you have with videogames and the study thereof?” is based on false premises. Where do I personally disparage the study of videogames? I did refer to “conservatives and Marxists”, “conservative political perspective” and “Brendan Nelson”. I did claim that “the logic that underlines your arguments” could be used to make the proposition “that the lowering of academic standards occurs when someone is allowed to complete a PhD on videogames” and to pose the question “would you accept the proposition that writing a PhD on videogames is incredibly destructive because it doesn’t refer to the outside world?”
Those statements and question do not represent the fact I have a “problem with videogames and the study thereof”. On the contrary, I personally think research into videogames is important, as your questions convincingly suggest.
I would argue that videogames is a legitimate and very important area of study. I play videogames myself, and I would be very interested in reading your thesis. Not because I want to criticize it, but because your area of research sounds very interesting, and I would like to learn more about it. I do find it disappointing, however, that you have to disparage other areas of study. I don’t know much about psychoanalysis, and I think some of the theories have little relevance, but I do think it’s a legitimate field.
I never claimed to be an “authority” on the assessment of PhDs. My knowledge is based on the advice given to me by supervisors, academics, other completed PhD students and, most importantly, the university advisor for graduate students who has mediated hundreds of disputed results.
I have limited knowledge of Butler’s and Agamben’s work, so can’t comment on them. I would agree that Lacan’s writing is almost incomprehensible. I personally dislike his writing. One critic even claimed that the only way to fully understand his published writing was to attend his seminars. Derrida’s writing is very difficult. I have read only ten or so of his essays, and I find they have little relevance to me. But his essays without doubt reflect great writing skill and intelligence.
Although I haven’t read the PhD theses of the academics above, I have read Homi Bhabha’s D.Phil. thesis. Bhabha’s thesis contains clear and concise writing, which is required for a doctorate. The writing for his thesis doesn’t reflect his published writing, which you mistakenly equate. I have also read most of his work and interviews, and the criticisms of his work. Bhabha has written, and continues to write, in various styles. His early writing in the 70s is clear. His articles in Artforum are very readable. His first ‘famous’ papers are, however, difficult. He writes in a specific style because the writing reflects his arguments. If you examine the words and the sentence constructions, you’ll see what he’s doing. If you read some of his interviews he explains exactly what he’s doing and why, which demonstrates that there is a legitimate reason for it.
People these days tend to look for the easy option; they tend to read rather than learn. Difficult writing forces people to reread and make the effort to understand. The writing is often difficult and takes many arduous hours to comprehend. If you read the highly readable critiques on Bhabha’s work by Bart Moore-Gilbert and Robert Young, for example, you’ll see that his writing is very much comprehensible, for those who make the effort that is. However, most people cannot be bothered and just complain. And many literary and cultural studies scholars have complained, which undermines your argument. For example: Bart Moore-Gilbert, Benita Parry, Neil Lazarus, Neil Larsen, Aijaz Ahmad, Arif Dirlik, to name a few famous ones. In the end, there is little doubt that Bhabha reflects an intellect highly superior to most academics.
Have a nice day.
Jessica
9 Dec 05 at 13:25
It’s mysterious ‘Fred’ here.
I too thought Sasha’s comments were hilarious.
I especially liked her attempt to argue that a ‘false cause’ ‘that therefore it doesn’t specify one’ because the ‘more extensive fallacy lists cite ‘false cause’ as a category’
Ouch. Sasha certainly shows no mercy (or intelligence).
You’re right Ben, Jess does have a ‘good butt’. I’d like to ‘that therefore’ thank her for it too.
Fred
9 Dec 05 at 16:35
Jess:
First, on your comments to Sasha:
But who do you ever see using “you’re” as a contraction for “you were”, anyway?
Could it have been when I said, in one of my responses to you:
Back to you, Jess:
What claim? Could it have been this?
Since we’re discussing my arguments and propositions on the subject of tertiary education and writing standards therein, surely providing evidence that my “arguments and propositions” reflect primary schoolers’ understanding of said subject would not be irrelevant. I realise it’s the standards of the arguments and propositions themselves that are at issue, of course.
Again, what claim, exactly? But whatever it was, how would providing evidence of my standards’ objective similarity to those of primary school students have conveyed your satisfaction with my arguments and propositions?
And so I was. I have an IQ in the top 99.8th percentile of the human population: by definition, that is “extraordinary”. I skipped 2 grades in primary school, which again, is rather unusual. He-Man-like chest-beating or not, the fact remains. Personally, I always preferred She-Ra.
And now we move on to your comments to me:
Did you not notice when I allowed for the possiblility that “you are three people using the same computer”? Since you failed to answer my question the first time, I assumed the worst and supposed you were an alias-changing comments troll.
Certainly not an Australian government one, anyway, since you make your opposition to Howard and Nelson so plain. Or is that a cunning ruse to throw me off your scent?
Do you mean a penis? “Penis” isn’t a rude word, you know… But still, if you didn’t want to use it, you could have just said “he’s a man.”
And? Are you afraid I’ll fly all the way from Osaka to track you down and hound you with logical fallacies? Let it be known, in any case, that it’s good blog ettiquette to identify yourself as fully as possible, especially if you don’t have an online presence. You can find out about me, because you know who I am you can find some of my writing on the internet. I, however, know almost nothing about you, your ideas and so on. I’d like to know who I’m talking to. Moreover, identifying yourself, surname included, makes you accountable for your comments. I’m prepared to let my real-life person stand behind my blogging persona: are you similarly prepared to stake your reputation on your comments?
What more would you like me to specify? You know my discipline, so why withhold yours?
And I’m glad of that.
Yes, you are. Shame, that. You’d have to agree, though, that my criticism of your person here is not “creating logical fallacies”, since I’m not accusing you of personal foolishness to discredit your arguments. I’m only doing so because I think you’ve proven yourself a fool.
I blame peer pressure, actually. If you’ve ever heard the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes, you may remember how it’s an allegory for the way people can assent to a proposition (i.e. “that the Emperor is wearing a fine new set of clothes,” or “that Bhabha reflects an intellect highly superior to most academics”) not because it’s true but because they don’t dare to contradict authority or the general consensus. Same thing here. Why does the writing upset me? Because I had to read hundreds of pages of the stuff to get my BA, and to put in a good showing in the postgrad scene at Melbourne Uni. At various points, it gave me a headache, made me want to cry out in anguish, made me want to sleep, and made me want to read comics. A reference to Hobbes in Agamben’s Homo Sacer once made me realise how much I’d rather be reading Calvin and Hobbes, which I’m sure you won’t agree is in every respect more fun, insightful, and intellectually stimulating than Homo Sacer.
I never said it was, and I don’t believe it is.
Well, that seems contrary to the spirit of your later comments, where you criticise people who “cannot be bothered [reading Bhabha and studies thereof] and just complain.” I will, however, take your advice in the spirit which it’s meant, since I’m sure you don’t mean me to eschew reading the work of all humanities academics, and I don’t intend to.
What a fabulous idea! Actually, I already spent some time doing that in the parts of my PhD thesis that I’ve already written. And that proves that the two activities you just mentioned aren’t mutually exclusive, as you suggested they were.
Wait. Isn’t it true that I didn’t really use anyone to support my argument? But whether or not Sokal, Bricmont, Windschuttle and similar critics of some writing in the humanities think videogame studies is worthwhile has nothing to do with whether or not I endorse their opinions on writing style. And then there are writers critical of “theory” and its use in videogame studies within videogames studies itself (I cite Barry Atkins and Espen Aarseth as examples).
Alright, fool, since you asked.
I already quoted this clarification, but I’ll give it to you once again. Didn’t you notice when I said:
Here’s you, on Dutton again:
Are you so sure that he, too, is not a “well-known, highly-paid expert”? And even if he is envious, if you mean to suppose that his envy invalidates his criticisms, then, as Mr T. might have said: “I pity the fool who uses logically fallacious rhetorical strategies (such as ad hominem).”
I’ll admit that I made an unreasonable assumption there. Kind of like you did when you came out of nowhere and falsely supposed that Sasha supports the Howard government’s IR reforms.
Finally, something on which we can agree to agree.
I did not explicitly equate it. I asked whether he would have got a 4 or 5 if he submitted writing such as that on display in Dutton’s article. If the answer is yes, then I have to ask: why do we have different standards for doctorates and for highly regarded published writing? Sounds like a case of “do as I say, not as I do.”
I haven’t read these interviews, but if it’s anything like Derrida’s rationale, which is to demonstrate non-logocentric thinking by writing ambiguously, then I will not concede that the reason is legitimate. To quote Wittgenstein: “Whatever can be said, can be said clearly.”
I haven’t read those ones, but I have read readable studies of other unreadable authors, including Lacan. My question about this is: if the studies convey the same sense as the original, and more effectively, why didn’t the original author just write clearly? If it’s because they couldn’t, then why should we suppose they have superior intellects? If Moore-Gilbert and Robert Young convey Bhabha’s ideas where Bhabha failed, I think we ought to be giving them credit for being geniuses, and giving Bhabha a good hard slap on the wrist (metaphorically speaking, of course).
I’m glad we’re at the end of your comment, because I’m sick of reminding you that I already conceded my criticism of humanities scholars in general was misplaced.
Thankyou, come again.
Ben H
9 Dec 05 at 23:13
Benny:
“I skipped 2 grades in primary school” Yes, that’s pretty obvious. I suggest repeating them.
From what you’ve written so far, having “an IQ in the top 99.8th percentile of the human population” can only mean one of two things:
1. that IQ tests are thoroughly unreliable, or
2. that 99.8 percent of “the human population” is exceedingly stupid.
(btw, how do you know whether your in the top or bottom of the 99.8th percentile?)
“Again, what claim, exactly?” I feel sorry for your supervisors having to identify everything for you.
“I should specify” Yes you should.
“I blame peer pressure” If you hadn’t missed those two years you’d be able to stand up to peer pressure.
“At various points, it gave me a headache” That usually happens when who’ve miss two years of schooling.
“made me want to cry out in anguish” I’d hate to see what happens when you break a nail.
“contrary to the spirit of your later comments” There’s no such thing as ghosts.
“already spent some time doing that [“attack people”] in the parts of my PhD thesis”. You shouldn’t attack people.
“I already quoted this clarification”. Yes, you certainly have made many clarifications.
“Are you so sure that he [David Dutton], too, is not a “well-known, highly-paid expert”? Yes.
“Penis” isn’t a rude word, you know”. I never said it was.
“You can find out about me, because you know who I am”. Hmm. I guess, to quote Sasha, “that therefore” makes sense.
“I’m not accusing you of personal foolishness to discredit your arguments. I’m only doing so because I think you’ve proven yourself a fool”. That follows the “that therefore” logic.
“I think”. I wish you would.
“not because it’s true but because they don’t dare to contradict authority or the general consensus”. Finally, you recognize your position, well done.
Now that you’ve conceded, my work is done. I’m off and shan’t be back.
Jessica
10 Dec 05 at 12:22
Now that is funny!
I almost feel sorry for Ben. It’s like watching a chihuahua being mauled by a pit-bull.
Fred
10 Dec 05 at 20:43