14.0396 primitives, argumentation, markup and evidence

From: by way of Willard McCarty (willard@lists.village.Virginia.EDU)
Date: 10/21/00

  • Next message: by way of Willard McCarty: "14.0398 on WWW: Preserving Access to Digital Information (PADI)"

                   Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 396.
           Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
       [1]   From:    Wendell Piez <wapiez@mulberrytech.com>              (72)
             Subject: Re: 14.0387 primitives, argumentation, evidence
       [2]   From:    Randall Pierce <rpierce@jsucc.jsu.edu>               (5)
             Subject: Re: 14.0387 primitives, argumentation, evidence
             Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 06:52:58 +0100
             From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@mulberrytech.com>
             Subject: Re: 14.0387 primitives, argumentation, evidence
    Hi Francois,
    What an amazing post. Ably defended, and I have to agree with everything
    you're saying. I'm also struck by your linking of our recent thread on
    methodological primitives to strategies of argumentation. Of course they
    have everything to do with one another. (Just a glance at Unsworth's
    categories ought to alert us to this, but somehow I missed it.)
    Also satisfying because here, certainly, the mysteries start. How do we
    categorize what works to bring about the shock of recognition, the faith of
    shared conviction, or the stimulating provocation of a perpendicular view?
    We've noted from time to time that markup seems to be an odd (displaced and
    behind-scenes) species of rhetoric. Whether "encoding" is, is another
    question: maybe rhetoric is a form of encoding. The notion of trope,
    metaphor or metamorphosis is deeply worked up in this. Both rhetoric and
    encoding seem to be tropes for "trope". This gets mixed up because of the
    intimate but vexed relation, as in all poetry, between what is up front
    (the "interface"?) and what is (presumed to be) behind it. The system is
    generative of complexities, so that this relation itself is soon so
    manifold and subtle as to become inexplicable.
    I am reassured by a remark made just this morning by an independent
    scholar/Humanist friend of mine who's just getting a feel for the power of
    generic markup in textual editing. "You've got to get down in the
    [ttranscribed] text to fix it anyway," he says, "it's never perfect. So
    while you're there, you may as well put in good code: it saves you so much
    work later." In his eagerness, he may be sliding over how bold and
    dangerous this work is. But he is certainly right that for scholarly
    production, something has to be done sometime, somehow.
    I'm already on record suggesting that boiling it all down to methodological
    primitives isn't going to save us any work. Call it "rhetorical primitives"
    and we're talking about one of the oldest games in the book. Selection,
    likening, typing, discrimination, juxtaposition. Nevertheless, it is all
    definitely part of understanding what it is we do, and why we do it. That
    is to say, I guess, part of that strange kind of self-erasing poetry called
    I hope no other readers take my claiming bandwidth here to discourage them
    from answering your question: "do certain patterns of presenting arguments
    and evidence have an impact on the perceived feasibility and desirability
    of mechanizing methods?"
    At 09:15 AM 10/20/00 +0100, you wrote:
     >The hide-and-seek primitive in subject fields, and the impulse to read a
     >unidirectional syntagm off a listing, along with the method/methodology
     >distinction introduced in the discussion recently and my own even more
     >recent lapsus in forgetting ascii, unicode and their ilk, have alerted me
     >to one of the joys of observing humanities scholars in computing action :
     >the ease with which they move between instance and model.
     >Which leads me to pick up one of Willard's themes : the nature of evidence
     >and its connection to argumentation and to wonder if Willard or other
     >subscribers might muse online about the relation of pursuit of primitives
     >to forms of argumentation and the construction/discovery of evidence. Or
     >to reverse the order: do certain patterns of presenting arguments
     >and evidence have an impact on the perceived feasibility and desirability
     >of mechanizing methods?
     >Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large
     >         http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~lachance
     >Member of the Evelyn Letters Project
     >         http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~dchamber/evelyn/evtoc.htm
    Wendell Piez                            mailto:wapiez@mulberrytech.com
    Mulberry Technologies, Inc.                http://www.mulberrytech.com
    17 West Jefferson Street                    Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
    Suite 207                                          Phone: 301/315-9631
    Rockville, MD  20850                                 Fax: 301/315-8285
        Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML
             Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 06:54:00 +0100
             From: Randall Pierce <rpierce@jsucc.jsu.edu>
             Subject: Re: 14.0387 primitives, argumentation, evidence
    Re the exchange between Wendell Piez and Francois Lachance: Speaking
    linguistically, the cognitive matrix in which arguments and evidence are
    presented should be the determining factor creating perceived feasibility
    of mechanizing texts. If argumentation is formed properly, it will produce
    the most necessary implement in the discovery of evidence: the proper
    question(s). Randall 

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/21/00 EDT