Response to Letters to the Editor

In class we used a list of questions provided to analyze five letters to the editor published in Athens over the last few years pertaining to fracking.  The letters each took different approaches to making whichever side of the argument they came down on but all of them used techniques clearly different than what one would expect to see in a formal research paper.  There were claims made on the support of science for both sides but though they included numbers there was no reference to any peer reviewed studies.

Several of the letters only claims to authority were that their authors live in rural Athens.  Despite the quantitative data offered by Kevin Smyth, Michelle Greenfield, and Carrie Towne there was not a logical argument to be found.  A Real logical argument consists of more than simply saying “Look at these numbers- obviously my way of interpreting them is the only way of doing so.”

The letters taken as a whole conveyed a deep and mutual sense of hurt feelings and a ubiquitous inability to put one self in another’s shoes.  Aristotle said “It is the mark of a well-educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it as truth.”  By this standard none of those speaking on the issue, even the rich professors within city limits, are well educated.

These letters to the editor were not arguments to sway a made up mind or even a patiently undecided one- they were only ranting’s of people who feel as though there is not truly a choice in the matter and who therefore seek to justify themselves.  If this is the typical caliber of letters to the editor- Then I think this country has taken the first amendment too strongly to heart.  Free speech is worthless without free thought and the best evidence of free thought is novel ideas, which these authors lacked.   Furthermore, that one’s right to speak is protected does not mean that one ought to endlessly invoke that right.  In the public discourse, just as in personal conversation and self-exploration, speech is good only when it is accompanied by a more generous helping of listening.  Debate in my experience generally ignores this fact- preferring to present, anticipate, and refute.  Why is the ‘us and them’ being set up between neighbors?  Why are the CEO’s and shareholders of drilling companies not writing letters to the editor?