Re: RE: writ large, another sip

Responses below...

<<My comments are based on the need for external criticism not reason-less intellectuals,>>

You seem to have forgotten your previous post. I wasn't asking for examples of "reason-less" intellectuals, but in your previous post you seemed to be positing "non-intellectual" criticism, or criticism from "non-intellectuals," that didn't emphasize reason.

I'm not arguing for the place of "reason" here, but you seemed to be identifying reason with "intellectuals" alone (which I think is a mistake -- critical theory itself developed a criticism of Enlightenment reason).

<<The difference between the everyday variety and the
professional type is that the former usually has external validation or falsification but with much in the realm of the intellectuals a reasoned position can carry on for a while only being displaced by another fad.>>

What external validation or falsification applies here, though? You screw up a bridge calculation and the bridge collapses. If you make a mistake in social criticism...what? Other people will certainly disagree with you. Hopefully the policy makers aren't paying attention.

I think you're mistaken to identify intellectual currents, primarily, as a series of "fads," although fads do come and go, there are always a lot of people doing the basic work of the historian...

<<Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould who both have rejected criticism from those without their field. By
rejection I mean name calling, like childish and ignorant and no direct response to the specific points raised. In the field of Geology, I studied
Geomorphology and I brought up serious short comings unexplained by the theory based on my knowledge of Rock Mechanics and I was told in effect that
Geologists don't need engineers to tell them about their own theory. This was a graduate course mind you. I could give you specific names but that is
not relevant.>>

Yep, I see stuff like this. It's HUMAN, Daniel. Happens in all walks of life. Doesn't matter if it's electricians arguing about the best way to run pipe or "intellectuals" arguing about evolution theory or rock mechanics, people get snitty sometimes. So this doesn't really support your assertion, though.

I don't understand why you're drawing examples from the sciences here, when near the end of your post you seemed to think people in the sciences were more exempt from your criticism because they subjected themselves to "external verification."

<<This is not speculation on my behalf this was what was written on the evaluation sheets. When I brought this up the PHD holding professor criticizing the basis of the grade she defended it not based on my actual work but on the premise that I was not sensitive enough to my fellow classmates.>>

Yep, your professor sounds like she was a class A moron. I think you got the shaft in that situation. Now, the questions I have to ask are...how representative is she of English profs. in your previous institution, how representative is she of English profs. across the US, and how do you know?

I don't think you'd have had the same experience where I am teaching now. But then, we don't offer technical writing, either.

<<Another example comes from a friend concerning a 'non-religious' old testament prophets class. He wrote a paper on an old testament individual commonly held to be a prophet. He received an F on his paper because the class's definition of prophet did not apply to the subject of his paper.>>

See, this example could go either way. Papers aren't just graded on how well they are written, but on how well they fulfill an assignment. It sounds like you have another good example of a bonehead professor, but this one isn't as cut and dried to me. I'd need to know more.

Furthermore, it's not clear how these two examples reflect arrogance on the part of the professor or an assumption of his/her superiority.

<<Your first four sentences I agree with. But comparing it to these other things is not as agreeable, again I am not criticizing professionals but Intellectuals. Keeping the terms clear.>>

That's just it, Daniel. The terms aren't clear. What's an intellectual, then? It sounds as if John O. is right -- you define the word intellectual by these bad characteristics, then proceed to say that intellectuals all have these bad characteristics. You may be talking in circles.

<<I am talking about those who are willing to submit their product to external criticism. Most engineers,
doctors, and interior designers do this but few literary critics do and even fewer philosophers. Those that reject external critics are subject to the
'nasty' label of intellectual.>>

No, engineers can be real jerkwads about their designs -- again, I worked as an electrician and had to translate blueprints into a real world building. It wasn't uncommon that the engineer would plan 38" of ductwork, electrical, and plumbing in 30" of space and wonder just what the heck was wrong with us. Many of them were real asses about it. Others draw plans with a beautiful disregard for the electrical codes we all need to follow in the real world, then wonder where all these backcharges are coming from.

What external criticism, again, are you talking about? External to the field? No, engineers are usually not willing to take criticism from people who aren't engineers about their own work, and doctors generally think they know more about what's good for their patients than the patients themselves do. I don't blame them for this, but I don't understand, then, what external criticism you're talking about.

<<You dichotomize theory from theorist, ok, but it is not the theory itself but how intellectuals handle the theory. That's it, it is not handled as a theory but often as dogma.>>

Show me examples. Most "intellectuals" hold to some form of ontological or moral relativism and tend to be anti-dogmatic. I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but I am saying it's a mistake to characterize an entire group of people this way.

<<That is the point, intellectuals say all kinds of things but they listen only when it comes from a certain direction, so in that point they are in
agreement, again, we are talking about intellectuals. Think about it Jim. Why are they referred to as if they are defined (principally) by their intellect.>>

Ok, but who is defining them in that way? Do they self identify as "intellectuals," or is that a libel others place on them? I would argue that most of the time it's the latter -- in which case, you're only saying that the fact these people are criticized means the criticism is true. And that, of course, is nonsense.

<<We all have some humility and arrogance but to lay a superior claim to intellect and then expect the glaring critical eye not to notice is well not very intellectual.>>

Ok...show me examples of these claims to superiority. The examples you provided were of narrowness of outlook, but not necessarily to superiority.

The essay was a glib dismissal of the work of "intellectuals," not a step in any direction.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Apr 29 18:46:02 2003