Re: writ large, another sip

Responses below:

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

> 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. --Jim
>
> That is my point, thank you. Yet those in the essay see some sort of
> consequences, it may be all muddled but their world is not free floating it is
> probing a connection with the rest of us. The social critic could use some of
> that, at least the ones currently immune from consequences. -- Daniel

You're not arguing very honestly, Daniel, in that you reply by saying "that's my
point," but then ignore the question I asked. I think you eventually get to it
down below.

I would say that our ideas do have consequences -- sometimes they're the basis
of decisions about whether or not we should go to war. Critique serves as a
check on ideas. But it's never completely clear, when you're dealing with the
world of ideas, how ideas play themselves out in material reality. It's
certainly never as completely clear as the consequences of a bad bridge
calculation.

> Yes of course it is human, and it happens in all walks of life that is why I
> didn't define intellectuals exclusively to Literary critics or philosophers
> they are just more prone. Dawkins and Gould aren't practicing science
> exclusively they are hawking naturalism, hence the break with accountable
> science. Some scientists are afraid of saying 'I don't know' or 'that is not
> in the purview of science'. -- Daniel

Ok, I see the point of your selection of Dawkins and Gould, and agree with your
assessment of them.

> This is common grist for the mill. Just about every one I know who has
> attended a college course has had this sort of experience. Yes, this is
> human, but the explanations are often rationalizations and the 'victim' has to
> swallow it because of the authority of the grader with the veneer of reason.
> This sort of thing goes on in academia, where papers are based on the same
> sort of 'reasoning'. -- Daniel

In neither of your examples did I see any hint that "reason" in an Aristotelian
sense was the basis of the professor's decision. The first was pushing a pretty
stupid and "unreasoning" valuation of "sensitivity," the second, from your
account, sounded like she was being totalitarian in her definition of
"prophet." What do either of these have to do with "reason," superiority, or
intelligence?

By the way, I've never had an experience like this. I did tend to argue with my
professors too. Pretty much all the humanities professors liked me -- probably
wore a bit thin sometimes, but at least someone was talking and got everyone
else talking.

> I am not against discarding the term intellectual, I am more interested in the
> phenomena reflected in the assumption that if someone uses or claims to use
> reason they have a defacto superior position.

Ok, but that's a *completely* separate issue from defining the characteristics
of "intellectuals" or the intelligentsia.

> Academics get involved because people assume that they have the most developed
> reasoning skills (critical thinking), and I am pointing out that neither of
> these are good assumptions.

If that's all you meant to say, Daniel, you should have just said it, and I
wouldn't have argued with you. But you've moved to this position from another
one.

> Also, a consequence to these assumptions is resistance to any external
> righting mechanism/system. You can peer review but if the review process is
> broken then you won't know if you are getting valid results. I am saying that
> I suspect your 'system' is broken. I think that is what the essay was sort of
> about or at least those attending the meeting saw something as being broken.
> -- Daniel

What "system"?

> That is exactly my point, they had you or other craftsman to point out the
> failures in their work. The good engineer will pay attention the bad one will
> be ignored (hopefully). But there is real external criticism (craftsmen will
> gladly tell you they aren't engineers). Yea, we engineers are asses but our
> work is measurable. It is ok to 'brain storm' but don't sell it as anything
> other than that. -- Daniel

This is an irrelevant analogy. The same mechanism exists in all fields.
Professionals seldom all agree about anything. Again, you're making the mistake
of thinking all intellectuals argue the same thing. They argue with each
other. People observing/participating in the argument have to choose sides, but
at least they'll be presented, usually, with well argued positions.

> The best engineers work with craftsmen, owners, architects, communit planners,
> interior designers, government entities and accomplish things together
> checking and balancing each other. I think philosophers can too but they have
> to be much more careful about it since they don't often have team members to
> give them that guiding kick.

No, the only real difference is that there's a lot of money involved from many
different sources and the engineers are always -- always -- employees. They
work for the architect who's working for the owner who has to work with
government entities. It's not a big happy family, Daniel. You're talking to
someone with 17 years construction experience. You idealize this process as
ridiculously as you criticize "intellectuals."

> Yet, many who study philosophy don't see this. Maybe they are to close or
> maybe I have missed something but insert Scottie's elephant here. They need
> to look for ways to check it. If they are making fiction or poetry, ok that
> is what it is but if they are making claims of truth, well that includes
> everyone, it is not their personal property anymore. -- Daniel

Daniel, please be willing to consider that you don't know a tenth as much about
modern philosophy as you think you do. Again, what you observe exists, but it's
not everywhere or everything, or not even most everything.

> Your right if they didn't call themselves that, but some do if only secretly.
> But regardless of labels, some equate their value in life with how smart they
> are.

Yes. Engineers do this, doctors do this, computer programmers do this...any
member of any profession that requires at least a BA can be guilty of this.
Heck...electricians do this, plumbers do this...don't even need a BA. You're
saying nothing here. "Knowledge puffs up." We already knew that. It's not
clear that you can single out any group as being especially above or below any
other group in this regard.

What's the difference between God and a doctor?

God doesn't think he's a doctor.

Don't get me started on the lawyer jokes.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Apr 29 21:35:18 2003