I actually have a question about the process behind verifying reports. Why should we not believe newspapers if in some cases, the reporters have witnessed the events being discussed first hand? Sources have to start somewhere,. Don't they originate from experiences in our own extensional worlds (or in this case, the reporter's extensional world)? If this is true, then is there reason to doubt these reports? If there was a report in the newspaper about the current presidential race, and direct quotations were used in that report regarding what a cannidate said, isn't that reliable information? Whether we agree with what the cannidate said or not, can't we agree that they did in fact say what is written? For, if they did not utter the words they are being quoted on, you would immediately hear about how the newspaper had been lying. For example, (purely hypothetical) if Obama was quoted as saying, "I hate poor people," and he in fact did not say that, wouldn't the report that supposedly quoted him quickly come under fire? In a matter of days, the report would be pronounced by other newspapers, TV programs, etc. as being invalid. In this way, can't we trust newspapers? If it says there was a fire in NYC are we going to doubt the paper? Are we going to say, "Show me the proof?" I think it's safe to trust data we regard as "factual", but we should still analyze the opinions expressed in reports with scrutiny.
Mr. Lazarow made the point that we should not trust newspapers because they do not list their sources. Although this is true, many reports use direct quotations like I pointed out earlier. Perhaps Mr. Lazarow believes we should not trust newspapers because we cannot prove that the reporter witnessed the event they are reporting about. However, if thats the reason we shouldn't trust the report, then we shouldn't trust anything, because we can very rarily prove reports on our own without the aid of other reports. Although multiple scholarly sources may agree about something, so may many newspapers or news programs. I agree that it is good not to just believe anything you hear (whether it be from the news, TV, internet, etc.). However, I find it makes sense to believe things we hear, unless we have good reason to doubt them. For if everyone was constantly questioning everyone else's integrity, there would be no social cohesion.
If you think about it, what reason do we have to believe what Hayakawa says in his book? All we can do is shake our heads and think to ourselves, "Yes, that sounds logical." What can we use as a bibliography for his findings about language? After all, isn't what he's writing a form of entertainment just like the news? The cover of Language in Thought and Action says "over one million copies sold." That means Hayakawa's making money. Isn't he essentially doing the same thing as news broadcasters? What's the difference?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think this person brings up a good point in the fact that some reports do have quotes. However, just like statistics, the types of quotes that the people put into their reports back up the person's point of view. Using the example provided of Obama saying, "I hate poor people," would probably be located in a report that wanted to prove that 'he will not make a good president,' that 'he doesn't stand for what people want,' etc.
Overall, it's not really the facts in the reports that we are doubting, but the way people analyze and word these facts when conveying them to other people.
And it is not like we are completely agreeing with Hayakawa. I know that in the scrapbook that we handed in, there were a few points on which I did not agree with him. Also, I think that his ideas are generally accepted because it is verifiable. Whenever he provides us with a new concept, he also gives an example, something that we can refer back to, such as learning golf terms. We have all been in that situation and are able to experience it again whenever we learn new terms for something. Although, now that I think about it, would the examples that Hayakawa gives us be examples of a warrant? I mean, they do place us and Hayakawa on a common place...
"Whether we agree with what the candidate said or not, can't we agree that they did in fact say what is written?"
Yes, but only to a certain point. For example, consider the completely hypothetical situation of a very conservative newspaper. It has two essential goals: to make a monetary profit and to cater to its own beliefs/the beliefs of the conservative audience.
Thus, it will probably report on that new bill legalizing underage abortion without parental consent. And, as in most newspapers, it will have quotes. If we were to trust the validity of said quote, it may or may not disregard context or misquote someone in order to slant their views to satisfy their readership.
A direct quotation is not free from bias. It can be mangled--"This bill is a significant improvement to the earlier option that was not viable" can be directly quoted as "This bill is...not viable."
When we read any type of report and choose to investigate its believability, we should consider all aspects. Which is why we provide bibliographic mentions for both facts/data and opinions.
Grace Yuan
The questions posed in this post are quite intriguing. In response, yes, I agree that sources have to start somewhere, that "somewhere" being our own extensional worlds. Does this not imply that every report can be interpreted differently by different individuals, since everyone has unique extensional worlds? If so, then isn't it logical for individuals to doubt certain reports, simply because not everybody has the same "territory" to work with? I think this is one explanation why people find reason to doubt some reports.
When Mr. Lazarow stated that we should not trust newspapers because they do not list their sources, I do not think that he meant this in ABSOLUTE terms. After all, everything can have its exceptions. As the author of this post points out, many reports use direct quotations of politicians, intellectuals, etc. In these cases, I think that the situation might be different from that of an article meant solely to entertain, and that if the person was quoted numerous times with similar connotations and contexts, the factual information provided might actually be trustworthy. Again, Mr. Lazarow was not saying that ALL articles in EVERY newspaper must not be trusted; rather, he just wanted us to realize that, in general, the newspapers that we give immense credit to do not always give verifiable or credible information.
The author of this post stated, "if everyone was constantly questioning everyone else's integrity, there would be no social cohesion." I agree with this statement to a certain extent, in that questioning and argumentation can disrupt social cohesion. However, I would also like to point out that while this statement gives a negative connotation to questioning and argumentation, arguments are also essential aspects of this linguistic world. Think about this: if nobody wanted to question the integrity of what somebody else says to him/her, and everybody agreed on everything, then what would become of the progress and development this world has seen? Wouldn't all progress come to a standstill because we'd have no room for "improvement"? Actually, I apologize for bringing up something we already discussed over the summer. I think it would be best if my comment is just skimmed over and ignored so that we are able to stay on topic. Sorry, I just could not help mentioning what I did!
Moving back on track, I respond here to the last part of this post. "Why is Hayakawa reliable?" Well, first and foremost, Hayakawa DOES in fact provide a bibliography in the back of LITAA. Whether or not this answers the question at hand, though, I am not at all sure. While I do understand the reasoning behind the idea that Hayakawa's book is a form of entertainment, I think that entertainment was not his PRIMARY objective of writing LITAA. In other words, we don't read the book as a way to entertain ourselves, do we? (Not that I'm saying it can't be a source of entertainment for the reader, just that this is not too likely.) Aren't we reading LITAA for the purpose of gaining insight into semantics and for adding to our general knowledge? Perhaps we listen to news broadcasters for similar such reasons, but I think that what makes Hayakawa "reliable" for us, AP III students, is the simple fact that we (well, maybe not all of us) feel obligated to trust his principles because we were given two assignments to complete which required application of his principles.
If there is a different or more relevant reason (why Hayakawa is reliable) that someone else thinks of, please offer your comments. I am rather confused myself and would appreciate hearing any thoughts or clarifications.
(Janet Lee)
I think that this brings us back to the essay we wrote on the Life of Pi excerpt. The only true way to know something happened is to experience it for yourself in the extensional world. This is impossible, however, in some cases (i.e. Historical events etc.) and even when it is possible, the way in which we perceive the occurrence(s) varies from the next person's due to our distinct intensional backgrounds. Furthermore, just as Hayakawa points out, we can only see a small sliver of what is truly occurring and even that is colored by our own interpretations.
We can, to some extent, agree that a candidate said something when it is shown in the media. After all, many people experienced the speech in its original extensional state, making it verifiable. Quotes, however, are often taken out of context and become entirely different as stand-alone phrases.
On a slightly different note, it must be important to note that Hayakawa's work is not without flaws. Yes, many people have probably agreed that his work in laying down the fundamentals of semantics is good, however one should never regard just one source as an ultimate authority. (Just as you should deny absolutes in favor of qualifiers) No matter how perceptive they are, everything is subject to human interpretation and what he or she perceives is only one small part of the entire picture, so to speak.
I'd also like to point out that Mr. Lazarow did not (If I remember correctly) tell us not to trust the media. He merely provided us with an alternate way of regarding the information presented to us by the media. Moreover, when he explicitly addressed the issue of trusting the media, it was in regards to his own personal preference.
Now that I think of it, Mr. Lazarow can also be considered an authoritative source. Whether what he says is right or wrong or somewhere in between, part of the whole experience lies in our interpretation of what he said. Just now we see a split: I think that he was merely providing us with a path of thought while others believe that he instructed us in the matter (Re: trusting the media).
This reminds me of a situation where a teacher of mine staged an argument with his teaching assistant as they walked into the room and the skit ended in the contents of a water bottle being spilled all over him. We weren't aware of the fact that it was staged and were thus caught by surprise. When the teacher later asked us to each write down an account of what had happened, everyone turned in a difference answer in both sequencing and actual occurrences/dialogue. In that situation we were caught off guard and our differences in perspective were highlighted by our inability to ready ourselves and look at what was happening from a more objective point of view. Similarly, even when we are prepared, this distinction between people's perceptions of events etc. still exists.
I think I touched on everything I wanted to cover.. If not, I'll probably comment/edit later. If this was in any way confusin, I'll gladly clarify for anyone who needs it.
The basis of the argument here is the credibility of an entity and its absolutism. Janet stated:
"When Mr. Lazarow stated that we should not trust newspapers because they do not list their sources, I do not think that he meant this in ABSOLUTE terms."
Let us all be logical. Is anything ever FULLY, COMPLETELY, and TRULY definite? It is highly unlikely. Then again, I hate to make this general speculation, because to Joe, an idea may be definite, while to Suzy, it may be unsupported rubbish. In the process of learning foreign languages, there always seem to be rules and exceptions. One is never fully at ease when conjugating certain verbs or assigning a definite article to a noun, for there is always a chance that our thoughts may be at fault. Currently, the French grammar book is attempting to teach the reader a set of patterns which may simplify the writing aspect of the required linguistics of the course. Most of the lessons, however, are based on exceptions which we must regard with caution. Even in subjects as stable and systematic as mathematics, there may be roots of quadratic, cubic, or quartic funtions that should be eliminated upon attaining an answer. The zero (or root) may seem quite plausible, yet upon plugging it into the original equation, one may find a contradictory statement. (I have merely used these two examples to present a scope to which we can relate easily.)
Another point introduced succeeded in striking my concern. Are we, AP English III students, abiding by Hayakawa's principles because it is required of us to do so? Were you to read Language in Thought and Action (underlined) on your own, would you accept the presented dogma or reject it? This is an interesting question, indeed; one that may be answered only by yourself and your past experiences before being introduced to this work.
Robert MacNeil's preface possibly had an impact on the reader. How could one reject a scholarly source? On the other hand, the introduction entailed the personal experiences and opinions/judgements of MacNeil upon reading LITAA. Who is Robert MacNeil to say that our tools of language will be enhanced by Hayakawa's lessons?
I feel that I could stretch this argument even farther, yet it is late, and I am unable to identify whether my thoughts are still coherent or not. I just could not resist replying to this post, and could not go to bed until doing so!
(Samantha Maliha)
Two points come to mind that I would like to bring up.
The first point relates to the questioning of reports, newspapers, etc. Hayakawa mentions that "even in a world like today's, in which everybody seems to be fighting everyone else, we still, to a surprising degree, trust each other's reports." (Hayakawa 23) I find this comment remarkably true. To whatever extent we may disagree over issues, problems, solutions, etc., we still seem to trust each other's reports to a certain extent. Hayakawa also makes another point that "the desire for self-preservation that compelled people to evolve means for the exchange of communication of information also compels them to regard the giving of false information as profoundly reprehensible." (Hayakawa 23) I find this statement to contain truth, as well. And, to a certain degree, I think this is the reason that many people will believe what a newspaper or news station has to say.
The second point I would like to add to was the comment concerning the verifiability of LITAA, in general. I think the key thing that Hayakawa does throughout the book is make sure he and the audience are on common ground. He tends to "check in" with the audience every few sections, with an example, analogy, generalization, etc. This deals with what we discussed in class about warrants. Hayakawa keeps the audience in mind as he writes because he wants us to believe what he is saying.
(Emily Thompson)
Sorry i always forget to put my name at the end of posts. It was mine guys sorry.
Kevin Trainer
Well,
There is no one objective perspective on any topic. As Tiffany emphasized, we can only be certain of an event's occurrence if we experienced it ourselves, and even then each of us would draw differing conclusions to satisfy our distinct pre-existing intensional worlds.
When we read a magazine piece, often we are being offered an analysis of the actual event, not just the straight facts. Sometimes this is intentional, such as when editorials are produced. Sometimes it is much more subtle, as the affective connotations of the words chosen and the hidden biases can unconsciously influence us. As a matter of fact, other than straight statistical reports such as those offered by the Census Bureau or mathematical texts, I doubt that anything offered in the media today is free of bias, even the so-called "reports."
After all, these newspapers and magazines are attempting to capture eyeballs and readers. There are only so many ways to describe an event factually without inserting any judgments. Without analysis, all of the magazines would have very similar articles and lose readership.
Bias is inevitable in what we read. But we shouldn't altogether reject and distrust bias, but instead scrutinize and consider it. The mere existence of bias in a work does not mean that it is without merits. If we are aware of the bias, we can mentally strip much of it away for a more nuanced view of the subject matter.
So, why should we believe Hayakawa?
Well, we really do not have to. But opinions are unavoidable in interpretation and analysis, and we cannot discount his work solely over the presence of bias. His primary purpose is to inform, and we be fairly certain that he is not willfully misleading us.
(Eric Wei)
Post a Comment