Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

I am quite happy to accept your spelling of Occam's Razor but I am not sure that trying to used it to shave a few words off the title fits within the scope of what William of Occam was arguing: his thesis was that if there are two competing hypotheses that are otherwise equal in explaining a particular situation the simplest explanation was likely to be the best.

Here we only have one thesis on power,with no competing hypotheses about how or why power tends to corrupt.

You didn't reflect on the point I made about adapting philosophy to practical problem solving. The practical problem was to fit a whole quote into the limits of the thread title sequence. The solution was to retain the meaning with fewer words.

Are you disputing that the razor-ed version now no longer fits in with Occam's "two competing hypotheses" rule of opting for the simplest when "otherwise equal"?

As to your questiojn, I'd include any senior political figure who claims any religeous justification for any particular course of action, or who otherwise invoke the name of God/Allah/Yaweh etc, and in particular those who claim to have ben instructed by any god to adopt any course of action. The leading examples must be the Mullahs of Iran, and probbaly a number of recent US Presidents, possibly even Bush's Toy Poodle, Tony Blair.

I don't think you need to go quite that far to make the point about power, but I accept your example.

Dear Oracle
Sorry for the delay coming back but domestic pressures have kept me busy.

As an observation, the way you quoted this saying, i.e. omitting the “tends to”, is a very common misquotation.

I do not consider that Occam’s razor has any application in how to reduce the quote to fit the title space, since Occam’s razor is not connected with the technique of expressing one argument in the shortest comprehensible form, which is the art of précis.

In that respect, perhaps from a practical POV rather than seeking to omit the words in the topic title, you could have made the title “Power tends to corrupt......”, or otherwise used ellipses in the heading and then quoted the full saying in the text of the topic.

Then we would not be having this particular debate.

On the topic the following link, which uses the common misquotation, might be of interest.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/bylund/bylund3.html

[Oracle]

I am quite happy to accept your spelling of Occam's Razor but I am not sure that trying to used it to shave a few words off the title fits within the scope of what William of Occam was arguing: his thesis was that if there are two competing hypotheses that are otherwise equal in explaining a particular situation the simplest explanation was likely to be the best.

Here we only have one thesis on power,with no competing hypotheses about how or why power tends to corrupt.

You didn't reflect on the point I made about adapting philosophy to practical problem solving. The practical problem was to fit a whole quote into the limits of the thread title sequence. The solution was to retain the meaning with fewer words.

Are you disputing that the razor-ed version now no longer fits in with Occam's "two competing hypotheses" rule of opting for the simplest when "otherwise equal"?

As to your questiojn, I'd include any senior political figure who claims any religeous justification for any particular course of action, or who otherwise invoke the name of God/Allah/Yaweh etc, and in particular those who claim to have ben instructed by any god to adopt any course of action. The leading examples must be the Mullahs of Iran, and probbaly a number of recent US Presidents, possibly even Bush's Toy Poodle, Tony Blair.

I don't think you need to go quite that far to make the point about power, but I accept your example.

Dear Oracle
Sorry for the delay coming back but domestic pressures have kept me busy.

As an observation, the way you quoted this saying, i.e. omitting the “tends to”, is a very common misquotation.

I do not consider that Occam’s razor has any application in how to reduce the quote to fit the title space, since Occam’s razor is not connected with the technique of expressing one argument in the shortest comprehensible form, which is the art of précis.

In that respect, perhaps from a practical POV rather than seeking to omit the words in the topic title, you could have made the title “Power tends to corrupt......”, or otherwise used ellipses in the heading and then quoted the full saying in the text of the topic.

Then we would not be having this particular debate.

On the topic the following link, which uses the common misquotation, might be of interest.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/bylund/bylund3.html

The adaptations made, on my own volition to fit the letter-limits of the thread title, did not proclaim explicit reproduction of 'one quote by one man', but a theme for expansion. Indeed, it would be impossible to know 100% his very words and grammatical intonations. If you have nothing to add, but reproducing 'verbatim' the thoughts of others, this reflects on your weakness to progress beyond what you are fed; especially since you failed to address any salient differences between the two statements, "power corrupts" and "power tends to corrupt". And precisely why you fail to grasp how Occam's razor was applied.

[supporttheunderdog]

No you maintained the words were the words of Lord Acton, which they weren't. Indeed as I have been able to show by quoting the original source document, it is possible to know "100% his very words and grammatical intonations".

I cannot otherwise see in your orginal post that you asked anyone to distinguish between the actual words and the shortened version. IMHO this appears to be because that as never originaly your idea. only to discuss the single hypotheses of Lord Acton and you are only now raising this as you have been caught out with the incorrect quote.



If however you wish to debate the point, there is difference in meaning: the shortned version suggests everyone who holds any position of power is corrupt: that is however not the case if one adds in "the tends too": some who may hold some limited power may not be corrupt but the risk of corruption increases the more power one holds: I can think of a number of people who took elected office in local government in UK (of all sides of the spectrum) not for the power but for the good they hoped to do for other and who declined further advancement, beacuse the limited powers they had had not corrupted them.

One only look at Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam Huusein, etc, to see that these were totally corrupt people, drunk on the absolute power they held: ( I believe Mao may have had a prediliction for young girls, which his absolute power enabled him to indulge): even Popes and Archbishops can be corrupted by the finery that so often surrounds them.

Don't ever confuse the fact that I may quote something as thinking I am incable of original thought.

[Oracle]

Most people distinguished the difference between a title with limited letter capacity, which alluded to a discussion on "power", and the full quote which actually runs to much more than the truncated version which you googled, because, Acton went on to say much more. If I had not mentioned him at all, I would have been guilty of plagiarism since most of the words were his. But, it was my prerogative to shorten the quote, as I saw fit, within the title-length limits.

Which is why I asked you to expand on why it bothered you so much that the words "tends to" were removed or not, once the practical limits of title space were pointed out to you. It's been interesting watching your linguistic squirms. Indeed, the second clause precludes the fuller explanation for the first clause since it specifies "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Thus, something less than "absolute" corrupts less. So, the "tends to" is by all intents superfluous to the degrees of influence; hence Occam's razor.

[Gasman]

[Oracle]

Thank you, thread-spoiling TROLL, for announcing your entrance with a pithy warning!

I shall leave you with "STUD" to spread your "British Bulldog Bullshit" as thick as you wish, wherever you wish within Admin's discretion ...

[supporttheunderdog]

Gasman, Really, how could you - almost down to GR's level

[Get Real!]

Gasman, Really, how could you - almost down to GR's level

Hey!!! That's below the belt!

Any lower and I’d get a free wank!

[supporttheunderdog]

Most people distinguished the difference between a title with limited letter capacity, which alluded to a discussion on "power", and the full quote which actually runs to much more than the truncated version which you googled, because, Acton went on to say much more. If I had not mentioned him at all, I would have been guilty of plagiarism since most of the words were his. But, it was my prerogative to shorten the quote, as I saw fit, within the title-length limits.

Which is why I asked you to expand on why it bothered you so much that the words "tends to" were removed or not, once the practical limits of title space were pointed out to you. It's been interesting watching your linguistic squirms. Indeed, the second clause precludes the fuller explanation for the first clause since it specifies "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Thus, something less than "absolute" corrupts less. So, the "tends to" is by all intents superfluous to the degrees of influence; hence Occam's razor.

The affrontry of your last post defies belief. If any body is linguistingly squirming it is you.

Your initial comment was

The famous quote by Lord Acton the moralist, for whom I have a great deal of R*sp*ct!

Discuss ....

Therefore on a true construction of your words, the request was to discuss the (mis) quote, not power in General .

As it is, you only quoted six out of the eight words actualy used by Lord Acton. I cannot see any other words attributable to Lord Acton anwhere in your comments. On the other hand I not only quoted the full eight words, but a lot more besides, which illustrated further the point Lord Acton was seeking to make, and you accuse me of Truncation?

Yes, Gasman, was right!

You then chose to introduce Occam's razor, a philosohical tool which I still think you do not understand: that is apparant from your attempt to continue to refer to it in justification of YOUR truncation of the orginal quote, which IMHO is linguistic squirming of the first order.

As to the effect of removing the words "tends to", Acton's point was in essence that people are people and are prone to error, for which they should be criticised and this is not in any way altered by the exalted position a person holds.

The point of his particular remarks that you refered about the tendency of power to corrupt (and which you omited in quoting his aphorism
) is that not everybody with power is corrupted but that the more power someone has the greater the risk that they will become corrupt (and the greater the corruption) but with people holding absolute power they are absolutely corrupted, in particular as they think they can do no wrong. There is less of a tendancy for this to apply to those without absolute power as there is some restraint on them and they can be criticised and/or removed if others think they are wrong.

In that respect I am opposed to the blanket immunity from legal action applied to some officials, including, for example MEP's and Cyprus deputies. Apart from being generally offensive to the egalitarian principles of equality before the law this takes away a certain element of restraint if they know they can do wrong but avoid the consequences, and may increase the risk of corrupt acts.

One of the logical cosequences of your argument is, for example, that that Cyprus deputies and ministers (i.e. people who occupy positions of power) are all corrupt. Now some may, I do not know, they all may (I doubt it) but are you in fact suggesting all of those in positions of powier are corrupt, and if so with whom will we replace them if (as appears to flow from your comments) those people too will become corrupt?

This provides a philosophical basis for anyone to attack the state for corruption without objective reason and, from that philosophical point of view, justifies the Conors of this world, where I understand one of his complaints was of underlying corruption.

The words "tends to" therefore are important in showing there is no absolute rule that everyone with power is corrupt. There is no hope for honest governance otherwise.

[Oracle]

Kindly stop making a fool of yourself. A simple admission you made a mistake is enough.

If you didn't understand that it was "power" and "corruption" which were the subjects for discussion, but instead believed we were waiting for you to prove your ability to Google variations of the 'quote', then carry on 'discussing' "bullshit" with the other googlefarter because I'm not wasting time teaching you how to derive meaning from language and context.