Re: this is a tragic situation now the comedy

Daniel, now you're not reading me very carefully. You cite this:

"The real difference in perception between engineering types
and humanities types is that even stupid people can see the point of an
engineer's work (some of us drive over bridges and work on computers
every day), while these same stupid people cannot see the point of
humanities work." [my phrase from previous post]

as evidence of this:

>Jim, I am talking about yours and John and many others who seem to equate
>academic knowledge with intelligence.

But that's not what I said, Daniel.

I said "even stupid people" can see the value of an engineer's work.

I didn't say all people were stupid, or that all non-academics were stupid, or that all engineers were stupid -- just that it doesn't take a whole lot of brainpower to see how engineering makes your life better.

And how you get this out of it:

>The two specimens from today (below), the first assumes that it takes more intellect to appreciate
>engineering then humanities, as if all humanities work like abridges are meaningful.

I have no idea. You manage to actually get my point and miss my point at the same time. When you say:

>>as if all humanities work like abridges are meaningful.

That's actually my point. The value of humanities work is not immediately, physically apparent. It's not like the Verazzano Bridge gracefully spanning the Hudson. The value of engineering is regularly apparent. So even a dummy can see the value of engineering.

To your average person walking about, now -- I'm not talking about the especially stupid -- the value of engineering is even more apparent. I would say that because of the nature of humanities work, the value of humanities work is not readily apparent. By "humanities work," of course, I'm not talking about the actual reading of literature or appreciation of art or theater of music. The average person probably has different levels of appreciation for all these things. They still may not see the immediate value of scholarly study of these works. I don't think that makes anyone stupid, but I do think they probably haven't spent much time thinking about the issue, either, or getting many opinions beyond the regular media trash you very well represented in a previous post.

So far as this goes:

> "I have a whole lot of formal education and that makes me an expert and if you disagree with me you're an idiot"

Well, I've seen that too -- in all fields, no more or less in academia than anywhere else. I've talked to some pretty arrogant engineers, and being a former construction worker I know just how arrogant these guys can be about their designs...never mind that I'm actually in a building that has 9.5' of floor to floor-above space, an 8' ceiling, and they're trying to put 3' of ductwork in what's left over. If it doesn't work, it must be -my- fault :).

We've all seen (and you know this too, you said so) similarly arrogant doctors and lawyers.

So this returns to my so-what question. So, some academics are just as arrogant about their knowledge as other knowledge people are. You know how it goes...knowledge puffs up.

Ok, that's true. So what? :).

The rest of it seemed to refer to John's post, so I'll let him respond there.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Sep 29 17:39:57 2003