Most people do not have the inclination to engage in truly objective analysis. Psychological research has shown people generally form conclusions that fit their preconceived notions. In fact, the people with the most passionate convictions are the most likely to suffer from a high degree of internal bias.

Not suprisingly, few people consider themselves biased. Since the Florida election debacle started, the partisan democrats and republicans have reached radically different conclusions. Each side is confident they are "right," even though their positions have been inconsistent (and contradictory) at times.

Psychology shows that people have the ability to rationalize and justify almost any decision or belief. Certainly, most Y2K "doomsayers" were quite sincere. Once most reached a conclusion, however, no amount of factual data seemed to sway them. The same could be said for the Florida elections... on both sides of the aisle.

The greater problem here is less obvious. As a society, we have discounted the value of objectivity. We have become a subjective nation where everyone is "right." This is not only silly, but quite impossible. Not everyone can be right. Some ideas are bad, and others are simply wrong.

Unfortunately, this notion has been undermined, mostly by our public school system and the media. Self esteem, it seems, is more important than getting the correct answer. As a nation, we want the "truth" to make us all feel better. For example, there has been an effort to revise history so the literary contributions of early Native American shaman or an obscure 18th century female writer equal those of Shakespeare.

Perhaps, as humans, we can never reach perfect objectivity... but we tread a dangerous path when we abandon it as a goal. The truth may not be simple or pleasant... but it is far more important than the comfort of an individual or a nation. And it all starts with a simple notion...

I might be wrong.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 12, 2000

Answers

I blame the soccer moms. They started this whole mess...in my biased opinion.

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), December 12, 2000.

Yeah, and cell phone users, with their insistance on putting up those damn in-your-face towers because they can't agree on a standard, are after soccer moms.

-- (raven@never.more), December 12, 2000.

Here's a quote from a 'letter to the editor' in today's Florida Times Union - it's a gem!!!

"The Democrats can't have it both ways. If a pregnant woman does not contain a real human being, then a pregnant chad does not contain a real vote."

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), December 12, 2000.

Ken:

I'm amused. You want us to be objective about an election? We can be indifferent, I suppose, but objectivity doesn't seem to apply. There is no "right" winner by definition. There is only a preferred winner. I suppose you might question whether our preferred candidate is more likely to implement our preferred policies.

And we have certainly all seen positions supported by remarkable flights of imagination. As an exquisite example, we had Paul Davis claiming that Harris doing her job according the law was somehow the equivalent of her taking a bribe, on the grounds that Davis believes that Harris might expect to be rewarded for doing her job according to the law!

But most of this falls under the category of cheerleading, and the bias we display is necessary, at least to some degree, to cast a vote in the first place.

If you're looking for clear thinking, you'll probably have more luck than Diogenes in general, but not much and not in politics.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 12, 2000.

How do you do, Ken. You said:

Perhaps, as humans, we can never reach perfect objectivity

You certainly proved that about yourself when you said,

For example, there has been an effort to revise history so the literary contributions of early Native American shaman or an obscure 18th century female writer equal those of Shakespeare.

Minorities aren't trying to revise history, they are just reporting their own.

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), December 12, 2000.

Flint,

I'm glad you are in good humor, but you are badly off track. The process of election, recounting, certification, etc., is not the same as the franchise of voting. People will inevitably bring all of their biases into the voting booth and participate. It's the American way. Once the ballot is cast, I hope for an objective, rational process. Anticipating an observation, yes... the stakeholders will attempt to influence (or even corrupt) this process, particularly in a close election.

My hope is that we have enough objective people (on the election boards, on the bench, etc.) to fairly interpret the relevant laws and apply them... objectively. More importantly, I hope there are a few people left who feel the election process is more important than the immediate outcome in Florida.

Netscape,

I think it can be proven that the literary contributions of Shakespeare at least equal those of "early Native American shaman or an obscure 18th century female writer." Perhaps we can pick some objective criteria to measure these contributions? I'm quite willing to defend Shakespeare's place in the literary hierarchy.

By the way, I chose literature because dead European white male authors have been among the favorite targets of critics from the women's and minorities studies departments. Personally, if these academics simpy wanted to add to the body of history, I would have no quarrel. This is not the case. There has been a concerted effort to "change" history to elevate women and minorities and (at times) excoriate the work of dead white guys. Again, this is a point I think I can prove.

History should be an honest telling of our past... not an attempt to remake it.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 12, 2000.

Then again, I could be wrong.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 12, 2000.

I think you're wrong ;-D

You can post links to prove your point the way you see it until the cows come home and it won't change the way I view life. I've lived life as a "minority" (I'm female) and you'll never convince me there is a CONSPIRACY (again ;-D) going on to discredit the history of old white dead males. Sometimes people have a different truth and no amount of your "objectivity" can change that.

But then again, I may be wrong too.

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), December 12, 2000.

Machines are objective. They have no stake in the outcome. They obey the rules. Humans can never reach perfect objectivity, no matter how hard we try. That's why we put things to a vote, that's why we hold debates. Even when we try to put things into pro and con lists to reach some objective measure of the merits of both sides, the list itself is very subjective based on our priorities or our views. We can't be objective, we're not machines.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 12, 2000.

Dear Ken, I would be grateful if you could show me where I can find proof that Shakespeare wrote anything .I'm being serious here.

-- Chris (enquiries@griffenmill.com), December 12, 2000.

This is better than I had hoped for....

You demonstrate exactly the type of subjectivism that I criticize. Personal "truth" is an oxymoron (duly acknowledging the concept of personal "faith.") Fact transcends individual opinion. I can prove the sum of pi or the half-life of Carbon 14. This is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.

Provable fact become more difficult with something like literature, but I suggest we can still apply scientific principles and objective criteria. The problem, as I see it, is that people are willing to abandon an objective pursuit of "truth" when the going gets tough. In exchange, we have this fuzzy notion that everyone is "right" in their own special way. (sigh)

As did the Y2K doomsayers, you conclude that I cannot change your views. This is correct. The first step to objective inquiry is the willingness to consider available data and analysis. Intellectual inquiry is not for the closed minded.

There is a profound difference between our two approaches. I may discover I was wrong. You will not.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 12, 2000.

Dear Ken,

Were you addressing your last to me ?

-- Chris (enquiries@griffenmill.com), December 12, 2000.

You're wrong.

You are confusing fact with opinion. It is not a fact that minorities are trying to change history. FACTS cannot be changed. However, what many people perceive as fact is merely an opinion. (Such as what you have been stating.)

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), December 12, 2000.

Boy, tell me about it.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), December 12, 2000.

"People will inevitably bring all of their biases into the voting booth and participate." -- Ken Decker

This time I had no clear bias in either direction, so I brought all of my children into the voting booth and let them participate. They voted among themselves, and the winner of their election got the official vote on my ballot. They can't wait until they are old enough to get a whole ballot each. At least they WILL participate in the future, biased or not, and that's what I want more than "my" candidate's success.

-- helen (b@c.k), December 12, 2000.

Maria, because we cannot reach "perfect" objectivity does not mean we should not strive. We cannot be perfectly just... yet we strive towards justice. Should we simply give up on the notion of justice because perfection is out of reach? Oh, and you are forgetting mathematics... perhaps our greatest achievement as a species.

Chris, a delicious subject, but one that will take us afield. For the sake of this thread, can we simply refer to the works commonly attributed the writer known as "Shakespeare." (laughter)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 12, 2000.

Psychology shows that people have the ability to rationalize and justify almost any decision or belief. Certainly, most Y2K "doomsayers" were quite sincere. Once most reached a conclusion, however, no amount of factual data seemed to sway them.

You say most doomsayers were sincere, Ken, but I also noticed the little jab you inserted later in the same piece when you said

Self esteem, it seems, is more important than getting the correct answer.

Let me suggest a solution to this dichotomy. Perhaps the reason no factual data seemed to sway them is because most weren't arguing that everyone everywhere would experience catastrophic problems.

The constant last year was the idea that information suggested there would be Y2K problems of varying degrees here and there, and that having plans in advance was a good idea in case one of those places "here and there" turned out to be your own community.

It does take objectivity to realize Y2k was not a black and white, either/or issue. There were some on both sides of the whether-to- prepare issue who overlooked this important point. It's the same with the election. Gore people sometimes forget that a recount in selected counties is unfair to Bush, while Bush people don't want to admit that a statewide recount with uniform standards might show that Gore did win Florida.

-- (One@person's.opinion), December 12, 2000.

Netscape.

Temper, temper. If I can prove some women and minorities have attempted to "revise" history, this is a fact. My interpretation of their intent is opinion, unless they openly admit to an agenda (also easy to provide).

Facts can change. What we can prove as true today, may be overturned by better investigative technology tomorrow. (Is light a particle or a beam?) If you are looking for immutable facts, look under the "truth" section in the metaphysics department. (chuckle)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 12, 2000.

Drat,rumbled,again !

-- Chris (enquiries@griffenmill.com), December 12, 2000.

>> show me where I can find proof that Shakespeare wrote anything <<

Depends on your standards for proof. Given an attitude predisposed to doubt, one could doubt that Shakespeare wrote his own will, since he apparently signed different pages with different spellings of his own name.

The fact that Shakespeare was fully accepted by his peers as the author of the plays is proof enough for me. No one else has a better claim on the plays than WS.

Having read some of the argments against Shakespeare, they always strike me as amounting to the same thing: Will couldn't have written the plays because he didn't have the proper credentials - neither an upper class background, nor a university degree. Hells bells! By that standard, there's no way Thomas Edison could have invented any of the inventions credited to him either.

Once the would-be debunker finishes hammering at the idea that Shakespeare simply wasn't impressive enough to write what he wrote, then it inevitably leads a search for someone who the debunker thinks is impressive enough. Usually a peer of the realm, Lord Somebody-or-other.

Feh!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 12, 2000.

Temper, temper? I'm not angry Ken. You wouldn't want to be trying to smear me as a hysterical female would you? I don't know why, but I expected more of you. Let's stick to the subject like mature adults.

If I can prove some women and minorities have attempted to "revise" history, this is a fact.

All you've proven is those particular people have attempted to "revise" history. However, I don't think even that occurs. I think those people are providing information the waythey see a situation. Let's take the Bible for example. A couple of years ago a woman rewrote it and made God a woman. Did that change the facts? No. I have yet to meet anyone who can prove God is male or female. If you can show me by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a conspiracy to change the history of white men, I'll concede you're point.

Facts can change. What we can prove as true today, may be overturned by better investigative technology tomorrow.

Wrong. It wasn't a fact to begin with then. People just didn't understand it...just as I believe you have such a strong bias towards white male history that you can't understand people want to report their own histories, not revise it.

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), December 12, 2000.

Machines are objective. They have no stake in the outcome. They obey the rules.

Machines are created by humans. Many machines, such as computers and vote counters, are given commands by humans who aren't objective and who do have a stake in the outcome. They only obey the rules which are given to them.

Did you know the vote counters in use in the US are made and programmed by a private company whose code is considered propreitary and not open to public review? If you can't read the code, how do you know they are objective?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.

" If you can't read the code, how do you know they are objective? " -- Tarzan

OH NOOOOOOOOOOO! "If you can't read the code, how do you know all the computers the world over WON'T fail?" NOT AGAIN!

-- helen (b@c.k), December 12, 2000.

Please, Helen.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.

As I see it, blacks and minorities (as a group) are convinced that they will never enjoy a lofty position on societies totem pole. A certain futility has set in that breeds thoughts of civil unrest and a ‘take what we can get’ attitude. When I came into the work force all those decades ago, the percentage of the working population that required any form of public assistance was less than 3%. My hometown of Detroit was the first of the concentrated welfare cities that were given birth in the late 50’s. Tens of thousands of poor blacks (and whites) relocated to Detroit to work in the auto plants. Layoffs and production slowdowns created a massive group of people that found themselves unable to support, house, and feed themselves. Public assistance to the rescue. For the most part, this aid was short-term until the individual went back to work. In any case, the numbers were low enough where the financial ‘burden’ was tolerable.

In the early 60’s, Lyndon Baines Johnson forever altered the landscape of our country with his ‘Great Society’ legislations. LBJ needed the black vote if he were ever to have a chance at being ‘elected’ President, so he cut some deals with the black power brokers. Great Society my ass. Great disaster is more like it.

Fast forward to the present.

The numbers game is destroying our country. The percentage of eligible working Americans on public assistance welfare is dangerously out of whack and is propelling us to a critical mass situation. The black community knows that only the democrats will continue to keep the give-a-way programs in place and that is the overriding reason they will support Al Gore at all costs. The segment of the American population that has had it with these government sponsored programs that have done nothing more than perpetuate the problems and create a welfare monster out of control, want a reversal of this insanity.

You can talk this thing through until the cows come home but here is the bottom line on this election: Black –Vs- White

Jesse Jackson has threatened us all with civil unrest and rioting in the streets if Al Gore is not elected. I say this to you ‘Reverend’: should these riots of yours come to pass how will this benefit your people? We’ve seen this act before, burning out the hood and looting for personal gain. Real patriots aye? I say it is time for Jesse Jackson to be held responsible for his actions, just as any other criminal would be. If David Duke were proposing the same garbage he would be locked up pronto.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 12, 2000.

There were a few Y2K thoughtful "doomsayers" who based their preparation activities on a reasonable analysis of the situation. While we may have disagreed, I respect a logical, rational thought process... even when it leads down the wrong path. My "jabs" were generally limited to those most militant and vocal of the "doomers" who attempted to squelch counter-arguments through a variety of rather nasty tactics.

Brian, well said. The Shakespeare "mystery" makes an interesting parlour game for the literati, but I'm interested in this notion of objectivity.

Netscape... please. With your name, I hardly have any insight into your gender... not that it matters a whit. My "temper, temper" comment was simply a jest, as your last post seemed rather terse. Oh, and keep your expectations of me low... it's safer for both of us that way.

Yes, some historians do have political agendas. A few are even refreshingly honest about it. Some feminists and persons of color are deeply unhappy about the portrayal of women and minorities in history. Some of these authors would have us believe African or Native American cultures were equal (if not superior) to Western European cultures. Some of these authors would have us believe that oppression was somehow an anglo-saxon idea... as if practices like slavery or human sacrifice did not exist in other cultures.

As for your conspiracy straw man, save it for another day. I never suggested there was a "conspiracy." There are historians (and other social scientists) who have abandoned the creed of objectivity to forward another agenda. This is not "telling the story" of women or minorities... it is attempting to rewrite history.

Oh, and your standard for a "fact" is unworkable. We cannot know what we might know tomorrow. What we might know tomorrow might change what we know today. By your standard, there are no facts... only opinions.

Finally, I think history was biased towards a "white male" perspective for centuries. And I think it's healthy to consider how this bias may have impacted an objective reporting of our past. Historians may have overlooked the important contributions of women or persons of color.

This does not mean we should stand idly by and watch while some historians rewrite history to make a gender or culture "feel better" about their roots. Like it or not, women did not write the major philosophical works of the past millenium. Like it or not, women did not make significant contributions to the sciences until this century. Like it or not, it was white males who conceptualized (and realized) the concepts of the republic where you now have the rights of any citizen.

Personally, I don't think skin color or gender had anything to do with these accomplishments. On the other hand, I don't think these contributions should be minimized because of a political agenda.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 12, 2000.

Barry-

What would you say to those on the right who are advocating civil war and secession over this issue?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.

Tarzan, when I hear a public figure like JJ stand up and propose such an action, then I will comment on it. Where, pray tell, are you hearing this being said?

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 12, 2000.

I'm sorry, Tarzan.

-- helen (b@c.k), December 12, 2000.

Ken:

One of us is off track, I'll agree to that. We've been talking here, roundabout sometimes, about how to resolve a tie vote. And within our measurement accuracy, that's what we have.

It's a political election, and the resolution is a political process. If you're saying nobody should cheat, I agree. We should have legal standards and procedures, and follow them faithfully. But any good lawyer really CAN find ambiguity in a No Smoking sign.

So applying those legal standards and procedures, interpreting what they mean according the precise details on the ground, is inherently another necessarily biased political process. Our court system exists because the law must be applied to complex fact situations, and interpretations cannot be avoided. When the fact situation is purely political, then any legal interpretation cannot help but be political as well, even though it tries not to. Even the President's dog is political.

When multiple valid interpretations of the law are available, when multiple reasonable standards are justifiable, then it's a necessarily biased process to attempt to get a legal interpretation or reasonable standard favorable to your preferred outcome. This process cannot and should not be objective.

There just ain't no such thing as a "fair and objective" interpretation of the law. Unreasonable, yes, that's possible. But within the scope of reasonable, we prefer our preferences! And as far as I can tell, nobody is cheating or clearly breaking any law at all.

But I need a bit more clarification. I can't tell yet whether you are asking for the impossible, or merely the inappropriate.

---------------------

Some comments to others:

Tarzan:

Machines can be calibrated as "black boxes" by feeding them known inputs and measuring their output. The proprietary internals need not be known. Indeed, people have "cloned" such complex black boxes as x86 CPU's, PC system BIOS, and and Lotus 1-2-3 to the point of essentially total compatibility without ever knowing how the "real thing" did it internally.

Ken (again):

You are polarizing unnecessarily in some cases. Some people are more willing than others to change their minds based on their view of the evidence available, while others are more willing to misinterpret the evidence available rather than change their minds. But this is always a matter of degree. People have varying ability and willingness to learn. If tax law were a hot stove, KoFE would have died of 3rd degree burns long ago. But he's not a typical person, he's an ineducable screwball. Don't generalize from those like him.

Lack of bias is a worthy goal, but in some arenas it's not a particularly meaningful one. Politics is such an arena. I can laugh at the Democratic article of faith that more voters intended a Gore vote in Florida, and that *therefore* any count Gore does not win is flawed by definition. But in fact they may be right, and they don't become wrong simply because we can never know.

Netscape:

There is the normative position that the universe is real, that it has objective properties. That reality is real and follows rules that can be determined, and which won't change (we call these physical laws). A "personal truth" in contradiction to reality is wrong according to this position.

But I think Ken's Shakespeare example is too open ended. It's a statement of fact to say that many people consider his writing to be great. It's an opinion to state that his writing WAS great. Nonetheless, we shouldn't lose perspective. We can set standards we feel great writing should meet (clarity, insight, flow, durability, etc.) and use these yardsticks to judge all writing. And we should not lightly discard our yardsticks in favor of transient fads with little behind them but opportunistic self-promotion. When we elevate the trivial, life loses richness.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 12, 2000.

Barry-

You should read World Net Daily and Sierra Times. They're both, relatively speaking, mainstream journals of the far right (if that even makes sense). You should also take a look at slEaZy board, where folks like Invar, Zog, Patrick Mc, and others are wondering aloud about when to start shooting their fellow Americans.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.

Ape-Man, you have made my day! I’m ROTFLMAO over your references. World Nut Daily? Sierra Tomes? And to top it off, a fine collection of the usual loonies from the Slezy board. Why, the incendiary comments from the steps of the United States Supreme Court by JJ pale in comparison to these stellar examples of right thinking Americans.

Ah, thanks for playing and please come back again for another try.

:-)

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 12, 2000.

Barry-

Your ignorance aside, Joseph Farah et. al are the bullhorns of the extremist right. It was from these types of writers and sources that Timothy McVeigh found his motivation to bomb the Federal Building. World Net Daily is the morning news of a lot of people, some of them quite brittle and at least as rabid as Jesse Jackson's followers. Don't underestimate them just because you wouldn't choose them as sources of information.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.

Yea Barry, Timothy McVeigh got his ideas from World net Daily. LOL!

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), December 12, 2000.

Flint (the Cynic),

We are two ships passing in the night. You want to talk about the Florida elections, and I simply wanted to use them as an example. I wager that the republicans and democrats squabbling over the election do not feel biased. Many are, as evidenced by the amply documented reactions and rather astounding legal contortions.

We expect some actors in this political drama to play partisan roles. We also hope that other players--like the election officials or the bench--act in a nonpartisan manner. We expect referees and umpires to do the same during a football or baseball game. This is always an imperfect process... and the rules of sport are no less subject to interpretation than the rules of law.

I don't think we should consider any interpretation of rules as an inherently "biased" process. After all, he was "out by a mile." (chuckle) When multiple valid interpretations of a rule are available, then we trust the ump (or judge) to select one based on the best available information, his or her experience and expertise, a sense of the spirit of the rule and of the game.

Sport and our legal system depend on a level of trust in the arbiters. Both have systems of checks and balances. Both have rights of appeal. I can offer no assurance of a perfectly fair or objective system... but of systems that strive towards fairness and objectivity. I hope, Flint, that the legal system is not simply a marketplace where "justice" is bought and sold like so many pounds of sugar.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 12, 2000.

Ken--

You may well be correct about women and philosophy but I think women have made significant contributions to science long before this century.

The first person to win two Nobel prizes was.......Marie Curie.

How about Maria Agnesi, Sophia Germain, Hypatia, or even Ada Lovelace? Never heard of 'em? Well, maybe it is the fault of our high school textbooks.

I agree with you that the DWEMS need to be studied and learned from. But simply because DWEMS have received the most 'press' does not mean they are the only people who have made significant contributions.

-- Pam (Pam@j.o.e), December 12, 2000.

Timothy McVeigh got his ideas from the extremist press. It's not as funny as you guys seem to think.

-- Not laughing (itsnot@funny.no), December 12, 2000.

Ah! A great Decker thread! My first post in 8 months, been away from the cyber realities.

Ken; as I am an artist, perfect objectivity really clamps down on the creative aspects of being human. This of course doesn't apply just to those in the art world but all civilization.

And how is that book coming along Ken?

All : I worked for Elections Canada and was pleased to see paper and pencil still, the voter marked an X and stuffed the vote in the cardboard box to be hand counted later. Elections are still very primitive up here and after seeing what can happen down there it would appear it should stay simple up here in Canada.

Maybe what you should wonder about in the future is not objectivity but complexity.

By the way to you cold climate folks,

Keep your liners dry eh!

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 13, 2000.

Ken,

Oh, and you are forgetting mathematics... perhaps our greatest achievement as a species. No not at all, the machine was born out of mathematics! I agree that we should strive to get there but I don't think we will ever get there. Unfortunately, I see the opposite happening. Instead of fine tuning our objectivity skills, we (as humans) seem to be becoming more and more subjective. Voicing opinions rather than looking at the situation and drawing conclusions based on fact. With a background in math, I have learned those skills but even in math, we always look at where "we want to go" and use the facts to "get us there". I used that method many times in proving geometric theories. Start with a supposition and try to prove it.

And I agree that facts change as we learn more. History seems to change in light of other facts becoming available. Historians may be moving more towards objectivity because of their diversity as a whole or more towards subjectivity based on their own biases.

Tar,

Machines are created by humans. Many machines, such as computers and vote counters, are given commands by humans who aren't objective and who do have a stake in the outcome. They only obey the rules which are given to them. I was wondering who would bring this up. Absolutely, machines are created by very subjective human rules, so they inherently have that subjectivity programmed. My point is that once given those rules, they are followed. Those rules are spelled out very clearly, no ambiguity. The software language can't afford any imprecision. If the rule is to ignore dimpled chads, then it's done for all ballots, not just the ones that a biased candidate wants.

A machine would never be able to understand "clear intent of the voter". However, prior to the election, the machine was programmed to count valid votes. Whatever rules went into the software defined the exact meaning of "clear intent of the voter". Like it or not, the machine counted based on these rules, as accepted by all parties prior to the election.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 13, 2000.

Those rules are spelled out very clearly, no ambiguity.

Since neither the code nor the machines are open to independant review the question becomes not whether the machines follow their programming but whether their programming itself is fair.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 13, 2000.

Well Ape-Man, it’s time for us to move on to the next crisis. Now that we no longer need fear the extremist actions of Invar, Zog, and company, lets relax a bit. Crank up the fireplace, sip on a Bailey’s hot toddy, and develop a mental picture of Governor Bush as you merrily hum ‘Hail To The Chief’.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 13, 2000.

Ken,

This is the way I am reading what you're saying:

"For example, there has been an effort to revise history so the literary contributions of early Native American shaman or an obscure 18th century female writer equal those of Shakespeare.

[Snip]

I think it can be proven that the literary contributions of Shakespeare at least equal those of "early Native American shaman or an obscure 18th century female writer."

[Snip]

Personally, if these academics simpy wanted to add to the body of history, I would have no quarrel. This is not the case. There has been a concerted effort to "change" history to elevate women and minorities and (at times) excoriate the work of dead white guys."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that you thought that there is some sort of effort underway to rewrite white male history by minorities. Because I hear so many tinfoils crying "Conspiracy!" that thought came to mind when I read your post. Thank you for stating it is not what you think.

However, your first sentence - the once I originally took offense to - still bothers me. If an 18th century female writer writes about something more important to me than Shakespeare I'm going to read her works instead. That doesn't take away anything from Shakespeare, it doesn't rewrite the history of Shakespeare, it just means her work is far more important in the opinion of those who prefer her.

Flint, you said:

"There is the normative position that the universe is real, that it has objective properties. That reality is real and follows rules that can be determined, and which won't change (we call these physical laws). A "personal truth" in contradiction to reality is wrong according to this position."

I agree with you. I don't think that it is a reality that there is any concerted effort going on to rewrite history... therefore, what Ken stated is a personal truth. Personally, I think it's only possible to rewrite history for some, but the majority of reasonable people will understand the truth when exposed to it. I think there are checks and balances in life to counteract lies and distortions.

I found this discussion about facts and opinion interesting because I believe that overwhelmingly people discuss their opinions not facts. Facts don't really need to be discussed, do they? To make sure we all agree on the same definition of facts and objective reality, I went to an expert and copied them here:

http://www.m-w.com/ Mariam Webster

Fact - 4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence 5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality - in fact : in truth

Objective - b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind -- and - 3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

Based on these definitions, I can still state that what Ken orignally proposed is not a fact, it is an opinion.

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), December 13, 2000.

Brian, welcome back. The book is moving slowly, but moving nonetheless. Perhaps I should post the first chapter online for feedback.

Maria, well said.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 13, 2000.

Since neither the code nor the machines are open to independant review the question becomes not whether the machines follow their programming but whether their programming itself is fair Ever hear of testing? We test based on requirements, not design.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 13, 2000.

Maria-

The machines aren't subject to independant review. This means no testing.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 13, 2000.

Ken, I forgot to mention that I also stand by this statement...

Facts can change. What we can prove as true today, may be overturned by better investigative technology tomorrow.

Wrong. It wasn't a fact to begin with then.

The reason I stand by this statement is because facts don't change. People used to think it was a fact that the earth was the center of the universe. It was not, so it was never a fact. People used to think that there were four planets. I used to think there was a fat, white, bearded guy that would bring me presents down the chimney on December 25th. Those weren't facts either. Different people, in different times and different locations have different opinions -- but those are not facts. I reiterate, facts do not change.

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), December 13, 2000.

Psychological research has shown people generally form conclusions that fit their preconceived notions.

Please cite the psychological research that has shown this. Preferably peer-reviewed.

In fact, the people with the most passionate convictions are the most likely to suffer from a high degree of internal bias.

Perhaps you mean to say, "In my opinion, the people with the most passionate convictions..."?

Interesting business to mix fact and opinion in an essay on objectivity.

-- (I don't@get.it), December 14, 2000.