Re: ScientificAmerican.com: How RFID Tags Could Be Used to Track Unsuspecting People

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones () riddlemaster org>
Date: August 26, 2008 7:51:38 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net, dhc2 () dcrocker net
Cc: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:     ScientificAmerican.com: How RFID Tags Could  
Be Used to Track Unsuspecting People

On Monday 25 August 2008 19:49:53 David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2 () dcrocker net>
> Date: August 25, 2008 6:26:59 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>, Steve Lamont <spl () ncmir ucsd edu>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   ScientificAmerican.com: How RFID Tags Could Be
> Used to Track Unsuspecting People
> Reply-To: dcrocker () bbiw net
>
> David Farber wrote:
> > > How RFID Tags Could Be Used to Track Unsuspecting People
> > >
> > > By Katherine Albrecht
> >
> > While I agree with much of what Albrecht has to say, it's worth
> > knowing where she's apparently coming from:
>
> Or perhaps it isn't.
>
> As much as it might be titillating to focus on theatrical aspects of a
> critic, that focus serves only to distract from the factual  
> discussion.
>
> If the critic raises valid concerns, it does not matter what they do
> in the privacy of their home, their religion, or their head.  What
> matters is whether their concern is valid.
>
> Would it be "worth knowing" that she's a member of the NRA, a member
> of the Sierra Club, does beading, drives a hybrid, drives an SUV or
> prefers pants rather than skirts?  Does it alter the pragmatic aspects
> of the concerns she is raising?
>
> Then why is it "worth knowing" that she deems some things the work of
> the devil, other than as theater?

You're absolutely correct that the her motives have nothing to do with  
the
truth or falsity of her claims.  If what she says is true, then her  
personal
belief system is completely irrelevant.  Ah, but there's the rub.  IF  
what
she says is true...  How do I know if what she says is true?

I can't speak for anyone but myself but I read many articles, blogs,  
postings
and rants every day.  There simply aren't enough hours in the day to  
do a
thorough fact check of every one of them.  The amount of credence I  
place in
something I read is affected by a number of factors.  If those  
assertions
which I can verify or already have knowledge of are true, that tends  
to raise
my confidence level while an assertion which deviates from what I  
believe to
be true does the opposite.  If the article or posting appears in a  
location
where I have generally found trustworthy material before, that tends  
to raise
my level of trust and again the opposite holds true.  Etc, etc, etc.   
There
are many other things which all affect my trust level which I won't
enumerate, but the final one, which is important here, is the trust I  
place
in the author.  If the author of a science article, say, holds a chair  
at a
noted university, that tends to raise my level of trust.  It doesn't  
mean
that I will always agree with the logic of the article, but I do tend to
trust  that those things that are asserted as fact are in fact true.   
But
knowing other facts about the author may very well decrease my trust  
in the
author.

I fully support anyone's right to believe as they choose.  But I do  
tend to
place less trust in the judgment and reasoning ability of those who  
believe
what I consider to be outlandish and unscientific dogma.  And I'm well  
aware
of other assertions made by those who tend to hold those beliefs, such  
as the
assertion that creationism is scientifically viable and on par with
evolution.  I'm aware of the flawed and intellectually dishonest  
arguments
they make to support those causes.

Her beliefs do not in any way, shape or form discredit the arguments  
which Ms.
Albrecht puts forth.  But they do shake the trust that I have in her
statements, and cause me to more critically examine what she has to  
say.  I
am less likely to take an unsupported assertion as factual, and more  
likely
to verify or fact check her statements.  In this particular case, I  
believe
she makes a reasonably honest and accurate assessment of the matter,  
and I
agree with her concerns.  But that doesn't dismiss her background or  
beliefs
as irrelevant when I consider her arguments.







-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com