Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/10/7 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>om>:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Odd, any
chance somebody pasted the wrong category into the template
code? I thought lack of completeness and lack of clarity were distinct
issues.
Lack of clarity is usually caused by a lack of information, but the
converse isn't necessarily true. I don't think that category is
correct, either.
I call bullshit. Amphiboly and obfuscation are both based
and predicated on a requirement and expectation of
asymmetry of information.
Usually when people have a lack of information, their
principles and motivations are often painfully clear.
I don't understand... what does that have to do with the difference
between an article being unclear and an article being incomplete? It
seems to just be a sequence of long words (one of which I'll admit to
having had to look up).
Perhaps if you had been talking about difference rather
than causation, your point would have been better made.
Unclear articles often omit details. But lack of details can
not be a *cause* of unclarity, any more than a lack of decorations
can be a cause for a lack of cake. The cake may have less
decorations, but still have lots of cake.
An article may omit any amount of facts and still be
quite clear on the heart of the matter, and often articles
are clearer without embellishments, sideissues and
blind alleys added into the mix, no matter how informative
they may be in the absolute.
Omitting details can be an *instrument* for reducing
clarity. When facts are missing through not being
available to the one writing the copy, what is clear
is that much remains unknown, but that is hardly
lack of clarity. There is a good deal of clarity in
circumscribing that which is not yet known.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen