arguments and cultural conditioning

[Rajarshi Banerjee]

I came across Dr. Witzel describing talageri's style of argumentation as
hair splitting and an example of cultural conditioning. Isnt there something
something universal about hair splitting, Isnt it what logic, science is all
about why make a stereotype out of it.

My turn to make stereotypes:
Judging from above It looks like many westerners are still stuck at the
stage of artsy stereotyping when it comes to understanding things indian.

And another one:
Westernes have no stomach for detached argument and are poor debaters. They
soon start getting emotional and accusing their opppnent of heresy, question
his authority rather than his statements. Afterall witchhunts, inquisitions,
mccarthyism and planned genocide have happened fairly recently in their
past. Perhaps they have been conditioned into thinking that drawing
attention to terrors like the churches authority, the stretching rack, or
peer ridicule is a good way of winning an argument.

witness steve farmers style of arguing:
He brands his opponents as beleivers in flying saucers, wooly mammoth pilots
and such like.

I have spent a couple of years as a school kid in the US and always recall
the level of conformity and peer awareness required even at a young age in
the US. Maybe this behaviour is a hangover from a recent oppressive european
past and seeps over into academia.

By the way I would like to acknowledge that steve farmers investigation of
the alleged horse seal has benifited all. As for witzels and farmers article
on frontline they are as entitled to such journalistic pursuits as Rajaram
is.