Online conversations

Charukesi and Dina have two nice posts about blogs being a form of online conversation.

I just want to point out that an overt conversation -- irrespective of whether it is face-to-face or online -- could also have, underneath it, one or more hidden conversations; perhaps one could call them subtexts. Let me use an example to illustrate what I mean.

In a recent post, I said I was unconvinced by Ravikiran Rao's criticism of Dilip D'Souza's logic (in this Rediff article). Yesterday, Ravikiran wrote this:

Then Abinandanan responds to my post, saying… I am not sure exactly what. The points he raises would have been answered if he had actually completed reading my post. But let me try again.

Now, it is clear that we are talking past each other. It is time, therefore, to take a closer look at a possible hidden conversation that could have taken place, but didn't (thankfully ;-). If it did, it probably went like this:

"Yo, look at this. I have shown here that Dilip is a bad boy, because his logic is sloppy."

"Let me see your argument. Hmmm... I am sorry, I don't think the allegation sticks."

"Which part? That Dilip is a bad boy, or that his logic is sloppy."

"Your argument about his logic."

"How so?"

"Let us step back a bit, shall we? Does this look like a Logic 101 kind of book to you?"

"I don't know about Logic 101, but this book's cover says Introduction to Logic."

"Okay, let us open the first chapter."

"Ah, the first chapter. I love first chapters. They are truly wonderful. You know what, I write them too, except that I call them Beginners' guides."

"How about the other chapters? Do you love them too?"

"Are you kidding? I have no use for them. You see, I don't do nuance. I am the sort of guy who believes in being direct. You know what, I don't even call a spade a spade. I simply say, 'A spade is a spade'. Sometimes, for variety, I say, 'a hammer and a sickle are not spades'."

"Hmmmm..."

"On other things too, I believe in being direct. For example, Wodehouse is unfunny. And, Dilip is a bad boy ..."

"Okay, okay, you believe in being direct. Let us get back to where we were. So, where were we?"

"Dilip is a bad boy."

"No, not that. In the book."

"Yeah, the book. The first chapter."

"Of course. It says here on page 3, 'reasoning is a special kind of thought ... in which conclusions are drawn from premisses'. Do you agree?"

"Oh, absolutely. I love premisses. I have actually used three of them in my argument. And, I have three conclusions, too!"

"Oh, good! Would you agree with me that different premisses may lead to different conclusions?"

"Yeah, it sounds logical."

"If Dilip started with a premiss that is different from yours, is it possible for him to arrive at a conclusion that is also different from yours?"

"Yeah, it is possible."

"Go back and read what Dilip wrote."

"I have done it several times. There is no premiss there. And the conclusion is all wrong!"

"[The premiss is there.] Okay, see this sentence. Does this look like a premiss?"

"Yeah."

"Does his conclusion follow from his premiss".

"Yeah, but .... , like, okay, ..., whatever! But, you had not 'completed reading my post. But, let me try again'. Dilip is a bad boy ..."

Yeah. Like, ..., whatever.

PS: This is the book that I am referring to: Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen (Introduction to Logic, Ninth edition, Prentice Hall India, 1995); I am told by reliable sources that Logic has not seen much new development in the ten years since its publication.

Update: I just added links to show more clearly the hidden conversation's connections with the (real) online one.