Wow, a polite, civilised conversation without name-calling, mud-slinging,

generalisations or wild accusations, and with reasoned arguments from
both sides and acceptance of different points of view.
What is this list coming to?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Chaplin
www.unisuper.com.au
[log in to unmask]
UniSuper
Level 37, 385 Bourke Street
Melbourne  VIC  3000
Australia
Phone: 61 3 9691 4145
Fax:   61 3 9691 4141

>>> [log in to unmask] 26/02/2004 12:17:32 >>>
In message <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] writes
>Roy asks:
>
>> > I think we have to be careful in using a study by a guy who advised
>>  >Spielberg on the movie "Minority Report" among other things;
>>
>>  I know Wirt's strictures on science fiction, which I guess you could
>>  classify 'Minority Report' as an example of.
>>
>>  And I'm sure the guy is dead right in cautioning against making waves
>>  based on such an apocalyptic picture of a world that only Kevin Costner
>>  could really be at home in... [1]
>>
>>  But can anybody explain to me how the above sentence isn't a really,
>>  nasty, shitty, closed-minded and intolerant attack that borders on the
>>  ad hominem, if indeed it doesn't wholeheartedly embrace it?

>No, I don't mind explaining it to you at all.

Thank you, most kind.

> In a nutshell, you completely misunderstood the comment.

No, I don't think so. I certainly didn't have the context you give
below, and which is illuminating. But as a central plank in an argument,
to try to dismiss someone *just because* he helped on a film, even a
sci-fi one, is to my mind grossly unfair.

> Peter Schwartz, the fellow under consideration, describes himself as a
>"futurist." He is the president of a consulting firm which he calls
>Global Business Network, and as anyone in his position, must naturally
>resort to self-promotory tactics. The fact that he advised Spielberg on
>"Minority Report" is not an ad hominen attack. Rather, it is both
>apparently a source of pride with him and his primary claim to fame.

The former, I can understand. The latter, however, starts the
rumblings....

>Schwartz is not a scientist. He has conducted no independent research,
>he has presented no talks at scientific meetings, he has published no
>papers in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals, thus he has established
>no credibility for himself. All that he has done was to interview
>"leading climatologists,"

OK, that's pretty damning....

>thus Wil Burns comment that "I think we have to be careful in using a
>study by a guy who advised Spielberg on the movie "Minority Report"
>among other things," is not only well considered, but absolutely
>correct.

I am beginning to see that it was perhaps shorthand for a context that
his intended audience knew very well, but which of course, I didn't.
Perhaps in addressing a wider audience, Will Burns would have made the
less emotive but more cogent criticisms you made. Or he might have said
"I think we have to be careful in using a study by a guy who*se chief
claim to fame is that he* advised Spielberg on the movie 'Minority
Report'".

And then let the idea that this too, might be a 'minority report' hang
in the air....

>To hold this work up as a valid study invites immediate dismissal among
>serious students.

>That doesn't mean that it is completely valueless however, but it
>should only be given the same level of consideration as a report in
>Time Magazine. It's primary value actually lies in that the report was
>created under the imprimatur of the Pentagon -- and that's unusual
>enough in the current circumstances to give it some notice.

I read about it in a London paper - the Metro - sound, but not one of
the most respected ones by some margin - and I had to look more than
twice at its provenance, as its apocalyptic message seemed startlingly
at variance with its source.

Perhaps a government that sits on *real* scientific research (according
to your recent 'Red Meat' postings here) lets out some of the wilder
stuff to discredit the whole process generally? Or is that too
Machiavellian for this lot?

Anyway, thank you for the context - I understand better now. Perhaps
sometimes the exotic species you proffer for our admiration go a bit
adrift, when taken outside of their native ecosystems?

Regards


Roy

--
Roy Brown        'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd     useful, or believe to be beautiful'  William Morris

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

"This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s)
 and contains information which may be confidential. If

 you are not the intended recipient please advise the
 sender by return email, do not use or disclose the
 contents, and delete the message and any attachments
 from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this
 email does not constitute formal advice or commitment
 by the sender or UniSuper (ABN 54 006 027 121) or its
 subsidiaries."

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *