RE: this is a tragic situation now the comedy

It seemed to me like the discussion was about the value of a specific
-field- of
study, not the value of some of the individual work done within it.
Jim

The field is suspect because there is poor to no measurement of the value of
the individual work done. Create checks and balances internally and
externally for the individual work and the field will become better for it.
Daniel

Yes, Daniel, I think a good many of the links you provided were trash. Poor
reasoning and questionable research. And I think I'm appealing to standards
you
wouldn't argue with -- like what kind of evidence warrants what kind of
conclusion, etc.
Jim

That is my same diagnosis of much in the humanities. The key is standards.
Daniel

The example I used was oversimple. The point is that the engineer won't
admit
he's wrong no matter how "obvious." He's in an office in CA and knows more
than
someone standing in the very room itself. There's just no getting around it

--
I worked with these guys for years, and some of them were real pieces of
work.
Jim
Yes, but the point is that a third party can clearly see the point, in the
humanities that is very rarely the case and often a second party can't see
the point much less a third.
Daniel
Some were pretty sharp, though.
Jim
The same could be said for humanities if there were standards to point at.
If there are no standards then it does become swirling ideologies bumping
around, and it seems that the denser molecules dominate, fine, but admit it,
the field of humanities at the major universities have identifiable
dominating molecules, but don't blow smoke up my ass by saying that isn't
the case.  What makes it more critical here then an engineer is that many
practitioners in the field of humanities at major universities have an
intent of changing society through their work, fine, let's get this out in
the daylight.  Let us see how the thoughts and work of the classroom make
contact with the larger world.  And then we can start the real critique.
Daniel
I don't know about non-experts correcting experts, but I do know experts
correct
experts all the time.  In humanities work, on the idea end, anyone can have
an
idea.  On the knowledge end, you just need to put in the time reading.
Jim
What is a good idea?  What is a bad idea?  What is valid knowledge?  It
takes more than thinking and reading to know, it requires contact with that
public.  If the public has no role or say then lets cut the cord.  The
Humanitist can dwell with in his chosen halls of academia but his academic
based critique becomes illegitimate when used to influence the public forum.
One way or the other.  It is a part of the market place or it is not.  If it
is then bring it.  Regardless of how good a read it is, if it is absurd
where the shoe hits the pavement then it is absurd and the reason for any of
its influence becomes meaningless.  If the intent is to engage the public at
all then experts correcting experts is not good enough.
Daniel
BS.  You need the guts to walk out on them, period.  To demand a second
opinion,
to fire the lawyer, etc.  There's no more checks and balances in these
professions than there are elsewhere.
Jim
If an engineers ideas that result in a design are not valid then people die
or machines or structures fail and then the non-engineers step in, money,
reputations, licenses, and lives hang in the balance.  The same can be said
of lawyers you are caught breaking the law or the malpractice of a doctor.
But how are the individual humanitists held responsible for their screw ups?
I am not even talking about blatant dishonesty, I am talking about that
grand theory that tickles the brain and makes a thrilling read that the
humanitists champion in the public forum and convince others of its value
based upon their expert authority, and when this grandiose theory blows up
in everyone's face, be it as small as an individual or large as a society?
Has their ever been a humanitist dragged before a real court with a real
judge with real jurors to pass judgment?  I know there have been plenty of
Doctors, lawyers, and engineers who have.  So re-read you comment above and
apply some thinking and get back to me.
Daniel 
I see no need for a check and balance -- some academics say stupid things,
other
academics accuse them of saying stupid things, and readers need to decide
for
themselves.
Jim
But I thought the public shouldn't participate with the experts?  You can't
have it both ways Jim.
Daniel
Neither do I see a need to demand this profession be free of the faults
plaging
every other profession.
Jim
A careful reader you are Jim, who said free of faults that plague other
professions?  Just accountable.
Daniel
That's the bottom line, Daniel.  We all need to think for ourselves.
Jim
Exactly Jim, and the fat lady on the porch is thinking about the
humanitists, imagine that.  Old Jerome, made a window for looking through,
and the set of A Wise Child is a curious place indeed.
Daniel
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH