The proof is not conclusive, if it were then no controversy would exist.Originally Posted by wessexgirl
Some eminent shakespearean scholars are among the doubters and cannot be petulantly dismissed as barmy conspiracy theorists.
The proof is not conclusive, if it were then no controversy would exist.
Some eminent shakespearean scholars are among the doubters and cannot be petulantly dismissed as barmy conspiracy theorists.
The proof is not conclusive only to those who wish it to be that way. Those, as I've said who close their eyes, and block their ears to it, those who want to support controversy with no legitimate reason for doing so. There's no controversy amongst those who know their subject. Those who want to cherry-pick, and dip their toe in the waters of Shakesperean scholarship, may choose to latch on to so-called "facts", but those who know their stuff can dismiss them as easily as swatting a fly.
And those who do support such theories can most certainly be dismissed as barmy conspiracy theorists, whether you choose to see it as petulant or not, I choose to see it as reasonable. Do you choose to question experts in every field? Would you disregard the knowledge of someone who spends all of their working life steeped in their subject because someone comes up with a way-out theory? I don't care whether the antis have got famous names on board or not, personally I love Derek Jacobi as an actor, for example, but because he acts in Shakespeare plays, do not make the mistake of thinking he is a Shakespeare expert. As for these "eminent" Shakespeare scholars, well they are certainly not that if they buy into these ridiculous theories. Real experts know their stuff, and must be heartily sick of these attention-seeking, for want of a better word, idiots, coming out of the woodwork to stoke up the fires of controversy for no reason except their own deluded satisfaction, in trying to prove something which was never an issue at the time the plays were produced. The man from Stratford is the man, and no amount of wishing it otherwise will make it so.
Good Morning,
Although the post initiating this thread was too absurd to warrant response, I find Brian Bean's suggestion that if conclusive proof of Shakespeare's identity existed, controversy on the subject would be silenced, an entirely engaging hypothesis. Unfortunately, recent history and on-going research illustrate that Brian's hypothesis is incorrect.
News reports in the United States (my home) show that people have a remarkable ability to dismiss and misrepresent conclusive proof that challenges their deeply held beliefs--even when those beliefs have been demonstrated to be objectively false, and even when those who generated false statements publicly and unambiguously refute them. For example, while George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc., now admit that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, many Americans refuse to accept that fact. Large numbers of otherwise rational Americans also believe in UFO abductions, fake moon landings, creation science, and the "fact" that President Obama was born in Kenya, is a secret Marxist/Nazi/homosexual/racist, and wants to kill their grandparents.
What is the reason for this massive cognitive distortion? Research by Prasad, Perrin, Bezila, Hoffman, Kindleberger, Manturuk, and Smith (2009) provides a "social psychological" explanation for the persistence of false beliefs. In their abstract, Hoffman writes:
The primary causal agent for misperception is not the presence or absence of correct information but a respondent's willingness to believe certain kinds of information. (p. 2)
Hoffman concludes that people tend to seek out and accept confirming information, regardless of its quality or objectivity, while discrediting contradictory information.
This suggests that the presence of controversy around a particular issue should not lead people to argue, ipso facto, that compelling evidence exists to support contrary opinion. Even highly educated people, doctors, lawyers, scientist, etc., are willing to suspend critical thinking in favor of "inferred justification" a pattern of fallacious reasoning in which a person begins with a strongly held belief (e.g., Shakespeare was Italian) and performs all manner of mental gymnastics to confirm it. This phenomenon also explains why a deeply religious biologist can deny evolution, or a committed Republican can deny birth records.
In other words, while the presence of smoke usually indicates fire, the presence of controversy may simply be a sign of foolishness.
Prasad, M., Perrin, A., Bezila, K., Hoffman, S., Kindleberger, K., Manturuk, K., et al., (2009). “There Must Be a Reason”: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred
Justification. Sociological Inquiry.
R e m i n d e r
Please do not personalise your arguments.
We are here to discuss the ideas, not each other.
Posts containing inflammatory or personal comments will be removed without further notice.
.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
If you would like to check out the pro and anti factions on Wickipedia, you will see that cherry-picking and toe-dipping isn't confined to the anti's, some of whom certainly know their stuff, which is why they haven't been dismissed as easily as swatting a fly.
It is fortuitous that the misperception referred to in the study has a direct bearing on the subject matter of this thread. In Oscar Wilde's short story The Story of Mr W.H., the protagonist believes he knows the the name of the dedicatee of Shakespeare's Sonnets and goes to great lengths to prove it, even to the extent of falsifying evidence. Similarly, in Arthur Koestler's factual book The Case of the Midwife Toad, Paul Kammerer an Austrian scientist who believed in the theory of inherited characteristics, claimed to have discovered evidence of such in a species of toad. As in Wilde's fictional tale, the evidence proved to be a falsification and, like Wilde's character, Kammerer committed suicide.
I do not, however, see anything irrational about questioning the authenticity of Shakespeare's plays where there is sufficient cause for concern. As I have said elsewhere on this thread, I think that Shakespeare probably did write the plays but I don't rule out the possibilty that he may not have done.
I prefer to keep an open mind on the issue.
I prefer more reliable sources. I wouldn't cite Wikipedia as a reliable source for an academic debate.
The antis have been swatted with evidence and proof. They choose not to believe it.
I think we had better let the Bard speak on the antis, so if, as it would appear, you missed it first time round:
Modest doubt is call’d
The beacon of the wise, the tent that searches
To the bottom of the worst.
Troilus and Cressida. Act ii. Sc. 2.
I didn't miss it first time round. Quoting the Bard does not change the matter we are discussing.
True Beewulf, confirmation bias runs rampant in these things. Got to set the record straight.
Yes it is.
True. None does.
Fallacy! Appeal to authority *fail*
He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot. ~ Douglas Adams
Perhaps you are right. It isn't wise to place too much reliance on someone whose authenticity is so frequently called into question by some of his foremeost interpreters.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
Bertrand Russell
Ad hominem *fail*
sticks and stones
Any evidence yet?
Last edited by xman; 09-03-2009 at 05:46 PM.
He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot. ~ Douglas Adams
Honestly, why do people pay attention to such stupidity - the maturity of some of the posters (I think you know who I am talking about, but seeing as how I already have 30 strikes against me, I won't get banned naming names) is completely silly. There is no evidence to suggest Shakespeare wasn't an Englishman, and in truth, there is no substantial biographical information yet available. What that means is, there is a bit of cloudiness in his biography, not that he was Italian, or somebody else - the point is, given that we know little about Shakespeare, it is only logical that we believe what we already know, rather than invent things which are completely out of this world, or attribute the works to some other thinker. It's called basic logic - you don't invent or substitute to explain what you don't know, you look for proof, and you declare things ambiguous or unclear where there is lack of evidence. There is no proof that Shakespeare wasn't English, so why bother inventing him as an Italian (or Sicilian if you will).
But I guess there always will be third rate morons arguing one way or another, to try and seem smart - the point is, what's so hard in thinking that a genius came from something other than the upper classes? Is it so difficult to conceptualize someone great from humble beginnings?
.
F i n a l W a r n i n g
Inflammatory comments/ad hominem attacks will lead to thread closure.
Posts containing such remarks will be deleted.
.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
I would suggest that one of the benefits of maturity is allowing for an alternative point of view on a subject that, as you have said, we know very little about and of whom there is no substantial biographical information yet available.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote