Repeating an assertion doesn’t make it into an argument. The bit about drugs is clearly untrue, although there is a bit of a causal relationship in the opposite direction (nasty negative effects with minimal positive effects gives you a poison, not a drug). The “if X can make one’s career, it stands to reason it can also break one’s career” is also clearly untrue, as a moderate effort to come up with values for X will show.

If we knew absolutely nothing around about the world, had no ancilliary knowledge whatsoever, never heard of blogging or academia or tenure – then maybe going over such an analysis of abstract inference would be useful.

But for heaven’s sake, why waste the time on it here? Why pound this pedantry, doing exercises in logical formalism?

And yes, absolutely, I’d consider: “I got denied tenure because my blog revealed me to be small-minded/petty/a huge asshole” to be a potential downside of blogging – especially when the blogger doesn’t realize that’s what’s going on.
Isn’t that obvious? If something broadcasts your flaws to the world, it’s a bad idea to do it!

Why must big losers exist? There are plenty of cases where a few can profit mightily and everyone else suffers a small loss. There are plenty of other cases where those who participate profit at the expense of those who do not. There’s no reason to think that academic blogging doesn’t exhibit both attributes.

We can further argue whether cases of “I got denied tenure because my blog revealed me to be small-minded/petty/a huge asshole” should be considered a potential downside of blogging, especially when the blogger doesn’t realize that’s what’s going on.

Regarding 117, I think blogs will eventually become a dominant mode of correspondence in the intellectual and scholarly community. What is lost in the careful crafting of letters will be made up for in the broader collective intelligence (usually) brought to bear on focused threads and by the more rapid tempo of discourse. Just as the collected letters of a person studied by scholars are primary research materials, the collected blog posts should, similarly, become a legitimate target of scholars. The difficult here is that the preservation of blog threads cannot currently be taken for granted. It may be that we lose 25% of historically significant blog threads before appropriate preservation measures are taken. This is a typical figure for loss of newly invented media archives.

I glanced at some reviews of “Anonymous Lawyer” and was pleased to see that blogging now has some literary recognition. What I think is still missing from the appreciation of this phenomenon is that blogs with comments are far more than the sum of their posts. A great blog, like DailyKOS, is like a traveling circus, or moveable feast, that is constantly growing and morphing. It is, in an important sense, alive, and not merely a projection of the ideas of its originator. This kind of vibrant, innovative, convergent communication mechanism has great potential for furthering academic pursuits.

HH, you raise some very very good questions in #109. We discussed #4 and #5 at the meeting, but didn’t come up with clear answers. As usual, it depends. (For example, clearly not all posts should count as several often have little if anything to do with academic work. However, some could matter. In particular, we discussed whether contributions to book events like our book seminars should count somehow.)

Regarding novel as blog, are you familiar with Anonymous Lawyer?

Academic blogophobia makes as much sense as a fear of fiction or essay writing.

My view of blogging is it’s a “return” curve akin to casino gambling or day-trading or horse race betting, etc. There’s big winners, big losers, lots people who just get burned a little etc. (and some say they’re doing it just as entertainment, which is a different issue).

If you look at my comment way back at #1:

“The problem with those panels and such is severe selection bias. There are some rare and unusual situations where someone does very well with blogging. They then go around evangelizing blogging. But – THE PEOPLE FOR WHOM BLOGGING IS AN UTTER DISASTER AREN’T ON THE PANELS! Moreover, it’s socially much more acceptable to tell a “success story” rather than a “failure story”. And the bogosphere amplifies that bias.”

That is a mathematical argument about skewing what one hears. Yes, per Henry #107, I assume there’s negative effects. This is what I mean by being pedantic, it’s a short comment, give me a break, per #58. I assume some basic familiarity with the whole background of advocacy of blogging, about what wonderful positive effects it can have.

Snipping out five words from that paragraph, and rephrasing it as a categorical instead of a dependent clause – “You assert that “BLOGGING IS AN UTTER DISASTER” – makes it sound like the grandiose claim that every person who blogs loses big.
Which is amplified by “lots of people – not just for a few, but for so many that not including any on a panel constitutes “severe selection bias”

That’s not an accurate characterization of my views. The point is that there’s a process where positives are publicized but not the negatives. Yes, I do assume there are negatives – but again, the phrasing pushes it to a strawman. If one out of a million wins big, and one out of a million loses big, showing just the one big winner alone would be a disservice even though there’s only one big loser.

Note I’m being very careful not to make claims of exact proportions of win big vs lose big, except for what I think are very reasonable assumptions that big winners are rare and big losers exist.

[See how long this is to, outline it all?]

1) Did I provide reasonable evidence (#101) to support my contention about annoying strawmen?
2) In #103 (and earlier #100), did you ignore this evidence to do something of a personal “screed”?.

If this is true in the small case, why shouldn’t I expect it to happen in the larger case? (note space and effort required to go over this).

“there is no ex ante reason … some evidence concerning the underlying causal relations”

See #58 (“drugs which have powerful effects also have powerful side effects”). Yes, you are completely logically correct, as a purely abstract matter. But this is a comment-box, not a book. Being so pedantic isn’t serving any purpose except as a means of slamming me for not being as pedantic.

“and point out that intimating (which you certainly are doing – be honest here)…”

I am being honest in acknowledging that one could see that in my comments. I am not playing the game of claiming that because I didn’t state it outright, it’s improper to even discuss the implication. But further, when you don’t credit the additional parts, e.g. “I’m aware of that and trying to stay away from it in specific.”, I think you’re being unfair to what I say in total, where I’m disclaiming the accusation “that people who push you for real, actual evidence are Internet evangelists” – I’d call that another strawman, after I outright explicitly noted the issue and said I don’t intend to do that.

“Instead, we’re getting a self-defensive …”

Umm, per #101 (and elsewhere), I think I have some legitimate basis :-(

1. Can blogs be adapted to collaborative research?
2. Can blogs incorporate scholarly apparatus for validated references?
3. Can blog content be digested, abstracted, and stored is a fashion useful to scholars?
4. Should blog posts be citable by scholars?
5. If authors blog, should their blogs be preserved and critically appraised?
6. How can blogs be better integrated with more structured online knowledge resources?
7. Can the blogosphere be made more navigable through topical or content indexing and categorization?
8. Can blog threads be manipulated graphically for easier access?
9. Can methods be developed for preserving anonymity while preventing sock-puppetry and impersonation.
10. When will a novel be written as a blog?

You assert that “BLOGGING IS AN UTTER DISASTER” (vigorous emphasis in the original) for lots of people – not just for a few, but for so many that not including any on a panel constitutes “severe selection bias.”

How is this not an accurate characterization of your views?

And since then, your argument in this thread has gone through a revolving cycle of (1) I can’t criticize the Internet evangelists or they would retaliate against me [which is irrelevant] (2) I don’t have the incentive to find evidence that would support my claims [why bother arguing if you don’t have this evidence] (3) even if I did, nobody would believe me [again – why bother]. Rinse. And repeat.

And as for the ‘I am not suggesting that Lemuel is an Internet evangelist’ bit – I’ll just repeat your precise formulation

Well, one could reasonably draw that implication, but I’ve carefully not said it about him, confining my points to certain patterns of argument.

and point out that intimating (which you certainly are doing – be honest here) that people who push you for real, actual evidence are Internet evangelists is both a pretty trite evasion tactic, and a piss-poor substitute for real evidence and arguments.

Again – I’m hearing an awful lot about internet evangelists. I’m hearing a lot about how you really, really love the internets and all its goodness. I’m hearing nothing in the way of actual arguments or evidence. I don’t care whether you are the great Internet-hating Satan on the one hand, or Jon Postel’s secret avatar on the other. All I want to see are good arguments and good evidence that advance debate. Instead, we’re getting a self-defensive and self-referential shtick, that is getting very, very old.