Art writes:

> This article is written by David Foster Wallace, who annoys at least a few
>  of my friends (be forewarned), but I happen to enjoy.

Well, I enjoyed it too. I particularly liked these two paragraphs. It
actually gets to the core of a lot of this discussion:

   "A dictionary can be an "authority" only in the sense in which a book of
   chemistry or of physics or of botany can be an "authority" by the accuracy
   and the completeness of its record of the observed facts of the field
   examined, in accord with the latest principles and techniques of the
   particular science.

"This is so stupid it practically drools. An "authoritative" physics text
presents the results of physicists' observations and physicists' theories
about those observations. If a physics textbook operated on Descriptivist
principles, the fact that some Americans believe that electricity flows
better downhill (based on the observed fact that power lines tend to run high
above the homes they serve) would require the Electricity Flows Better
Downhill Theory to be included as a "valid" theory in the textbook--just as,
for Dr. Fries, if some Americans use infer for imply, the use becomes an ipso
facto "valid" part of the language. Structural linguists like Gove and Fries
are not, finally, scientists but census-takers who happen to misconstrue the
importance of "observed facts." It isn't scientific phenomena they're
tabulating but rather a set of human behaviors, and a lot of human behaviors
are--to be blunt--moronic. Try, for instance, to imagine an "authoritative"
ethics textbook whose principles were based on what most people actually do."

Wirt Atmar

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