Transcribe
Translate
Fandango, v. 3, issue 3, whole 11, Spring 1946
Page 5
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
THE TIMEBINDER. The coterie which Everett is building up about this magazine seems to be laboring under a number of collective delusions. Some of these errors are peculiarly those of the editor; others are shared by a number of the magazine's contributors as well. For an "adventure in thinking" (and note the lack of capitalization, please) try these on your synthetic brain and let us know what the Karildex has to say about them. First: Any statement which is prefaced "I believe", and which is not backed up with objective evidence means precisely nothing. No matter how well-expressed, no matter how dogmatic, any relationship such statements may have with the truth is purely coincidental. Second: Specious reasoning can by no stretch of the imagination be called objective evidence. While the scientist depends only upon his own experimental work, and the similar work of others, it is legitimate enough for the amateur Socrates to depend upon authoritative resumes of such work, or abstracts. It is also perfectly legitimate to speculate upon the nature of unknown things, but such speculations are no more than empty words unless they take into account what is actually known about the subject at hand. And speculations made in ignorance of known facts, or which deliberately evade these facts in favor of what someone wishes were the truth, are not only worthless, but are actually harmful to the person who is sincerely trying to learn more about this world we live in. Third: While it is quite true that the common man is capable of a certain amount of thought, and that it is definitely to his advantage to use and improve what brains he may have; there can be little excuse for the contributor to a magazine such as Timebinder not knowing most of the simple, every-day, accepted and proven facts upon which any successful evaluation of the world and of man must depend. This information is readily accessable in simply written, low priced books. I would particularly suggest that the Timebinder coterie investigate eugenics, Mendelian inheritance, environmental psychology, abnormal psychology, semantics, and the scientific method generally. Many of them betray a crass ignorance of these subjects, an ignorance which is wholly unforgivable when this readily available knowledge has a definite bearing on the topics which they are discussing. Fourth: No matter how much some of the Timebinders wish that all mankind were created equal (and apparently alike, from the way some of them talk), the matter of individual differences is too firmly established experimentally to be held in question by any informed person. A magazine "of sincere attempts to delve into the life philosophies and beliefs of the Common Men and Women of our circle" can be of genuine service if it recognizes this and other known facts, and attempts to help the readers and contributors make the most of what they are. If instead the magazine merely serves as a sounding board for people who are too interested in what they believe to listen to what others know, people who are too wrapped up in compensatory psychological adjustments to face facts and try to make something of themselves; it is difficult to justify its existence. All the foregoing are generalities which have been building up in me for five issues of The Timebinder. They do not apply especially to Milty Rothman, Art Widner, or Russell Chauvenet--three recent contributors who most certinly cannot be called typical of the Timebinder coterie. Now for a few specific omments on the current issue: -- 5 --
Saving...
prev
next
THE TIMEBINDER. The coterie which Everett is building up about this magazine seems to be laboring under a number of collective delusions. Some of these errors are peculiarly those of the editor; others are shared by a number of the magazine's contributors as well. For an "adventure in thinking" (and note the lack of capitalization, please) try these on your synthetic brain and let us know what the Karildex has to say about them. First: Any statement which is prefaced "I believe", and which is not backed up with objective evidence means precisely nothing. No matter how well-expressed, no matter how dogmatic, any relationship such statements may have with the truth is purely coincidental. Second: Specious reasoning can by no stretch of the imagination be called objective evidence. While the scientist depends only upon his own experimental work, and the similar work of others, it is legitimate enough for the amateur Socrates to depend upon authoritative resumes of such work, or abstracts. It is also perfectly legitimate to speculate upon the nature of unknown things, but such speculations are no more than empty words unless they take into account what is actually known about the subject at hand. And speculations made in ignorance of known facts, or which deliberately evade these facts in favor of what someone wishes were the truth, are not only worthless, but are actually harmful to the person who is sincerely trying to learn more about this world we live in. Third: While it is quite true that the common man is capable of a certain amount of thought, and that it is definitely to his advantage to use and improve what brains he may have; there can be little excuse for the contributor to a magazine such as Timebinder not knowing most of the simple, every-day, accepted and proven facts upon which any successful evaluation of the world and of man must depend. This information is readily accessable in simply written, low priced books. I would particularly suggest that the Timebinder coterie investigate eugenics, Mendelian inheritance, environmental psychology, abnormal psychology, semantics, and the scientific method generally. Many of them betray a crass ignorance of these subjects, an ignorance which is wholly unforgivable when this readily available knowledge has a definite bearing on the topics which they are discussing. Fourth: No matter how much some of the Timebinders wish that all mankind were created equal (and apparently alike, from the way some of them talk), the matter of individual differences is too firmly established experimentally to be held in question by any informed person. A magazine "of sincere attempts to delve into the life philosophies and beliefs of the Common Men and Women of our circle" can be of genuine service if it recognizes this and other known facts, and attempts to help the readers and contributors make the most of what they are. If instead the magazine merely serves as a sounding board for people who are too interested in what they believe to listen to what others know, people who are too wrapped up in compensatory psychological adjustments to face facts and try to make something of themselves; it is difficult to justify its existence. All the foregoing are generalities which have been building up in me for five issues of The Timebinder. They do not apply especially to Milty Rothman, Art Widner, or Russell Chauvenet--three recent contributors who most certinly cannot be called typical of the Timebinder coterie. Now for a few specific omments on the current issue: -- 5 --
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
