tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post257634090818722378..comments2023-12-17T19:35:07.459-08:00Comments on Bouphonia: Two SpeciesPhilahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-41270998381012406082010-04-22T12:02:36.290-07:002010-04-22T12:02:36.290-07:00Thanks, Gail!
I usually think of being "rand...Thanks, Gail!<br /><br />I usually think of being "random" as a bad thing. I'm lucky that it seems to appeal to some people!Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-36378331370151151292010-04-21T07:51:55.354-07:002010-04-21T07:51:55.354-07:00Hi, I found your blog from your comment at climate...Hi, I found your blog from your comment at climate progress and I love it! It's so random!<br /><br />Also this post is the best smackdown I've read anywhere of that bizarro screed from Monbiot. Why do he and Pearce want to eat their own?Gailhttp://www.witsendnj.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-36420675208632669602010-04-09T08:14:28.576-07:002010-04-09T08:14:28.576-07:00Certain people, when they get a basic point wrong,...<i>Certain people, when they get a basic point wrong, always seem to switch their perspective to the Big Picture. Which they also get wrong, of course, since they only brought it up to change the subject.</i><br /><br />Funny, I was just teaching two composition classes about the dangers of vague and glittering generalities, and the need for definition to both combat it, and to make sense in what you write.<br /><br />They looked at me like I was a sort of Flemish merchant, though, so I'm not sure how well I did.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-64156113895584690052010-04-09T08:12:10.154-07:002010-04-09T08:12:10.154-07:00Had to clear my head to properly answer your quest...Had to clear my head to properly answer your question, Phila:<br /><br />No, of course specialization does not lead to inability to communicate across disciplines, nor to the problem of "knowing more and more about less and less." In fact, I'd argue that specialization leads to understanding clearly how much ones does not understand about the larger picture, and how important more knowledge/information/insight, is.<br /><br />Dom Crossan is an excellent example: his better work is a mixture of scriptural studies, literary theory, anthropology, archeology, and sociology. He's not an expert in all those fields, and sometimes goes quite astray in applying them to his subject: but the result is a fascinating analysis and an enlightening look at his subjects, one that draws in other interested readers, rather than walling them out because they don't have Crossan's scholarly training (well, he can be a tough read, but that's another matter).<br /><br />Or, as I said: "poppycock." It is, as you say, precisely the opposite. Drawing more and more particularity from other fields allows us greater and greater understanding. Unless, of course, you're Dawkins or Harris or Hitchens, and refuse to allow your ignorance to be disturbed by knowledge from outside your field of expertise. <i>That</i> can be a problem of specialization.<br /><br />But I don't think that's caused <i>by</i> specialization.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-50271504328569937112010-04-09T08:10:21.323-07:002010-04-09T08:10:21.323-07:00Jokerine,
Good point.Jokerine, <br /><br />Good point.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-87831225015081253652010-04-09T08:09:48.979-07:002010-04-09T08:09:48.979-07:00Of course, I thought Monbiot was a failed Turing T...<i>Of course, I thought Monbiot was a failed Turing Test do, so what do I know?</i><br /><br />He's not usually this bad. That's one of the main reasons I think he's just tying himself in knots instead of confronting the fact that he overreacted, at best, to "Climategate." <br /><br />Certain people, when they get a basic point wrong, always seem to switch their perspective to the Big Picture. Which they <i>also</i> get wrong, of course, since they only brought it up to change the subject.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-2100621150858402712010-04-09T01:15:21.858-07:002010-04-09T01:15:21.858-07:00Right, because the only place that science communi...Right, because the only place that science communication happens is in "science journalism" and oviously the only places people learn things are in school. I'm not a huge fan of specialised university education, but to posit that this is the only place students learn, so as to be shut off of all other worlds is... silly.jokerinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05620164657534699424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-53634730089814820002010-04-08T21:07:38.478-07:002010-04-08T21:07:38.478-07:00Of course, I thought Monbiot was a failed Turing T...<i>Of course, I thought Monbiot was a failed Turing Test do, so what do I know?</i><br /><br />Or "too," instead of "do."<br /><br />Obviously the drinks are taking over at this hour....Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-26483946659541465122010-04-08T21:06:36.044-07:002010-04-08T21:06:36.044-07:00Incidentally, RMJ, I wonder what you think -- as a...<i>Incidentally, RMJ, I wonder what you think -- as a sort of idealized version of the complete Renaissance man -- about Monbiot's claim that our education is "antiquated" to the extent that it produces specialization.</i><br /><br />Well, the Penguin sketch was right: knowing everything does take all the mystery out of life; so I've tried to forget a lot lately. Drinking helps.<br /><br />On the other hand, I <i>do</i> look like a sort of Flemish merchant....<br /><br />As for Monbiot's claim: poppycock. In a word. I thought the claim that "young people are learning more and more about less and less" was a joke. Was that serious?<br /><br />Of course, I thought Monbiot was a failed Turing Test do, so what do I know?Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-59359658566059830402010-04-08T14:09:00.493-07:002010-04-08T14:09:00.493-07:00Incidentally, RMJ, I wonder what you think -- as a...Incidentally, RMJ, I wonder what you think -- as <a href="http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode28.htm#10" rel="nofollow">a sort of idealized version of the complete Renaissance man</a> -- about Monbiot's claim that our education is "antiquated" to the extent that it produces specialization.<br /><br />I tend to think he's got that exactly backwards, for better or worse.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-34501090108471165162010-04-08T13:47:08.302-07:002010-04-08T13:47:08.302-07:00I don't even accept the "closed worlds&qu...<i>I don't even accept the "closed worlds" argument arguendo. Shaw was right, all professions are a conspiracy against the laity, but they are always conspiracies conspicuously aware of both the laity and the public nature of the conspiracy. Jargon is shorthand for the convenience of the players (LOL), not just to baffle the rubes.</i><br /><br />Which is pretty much Bourdieu's point, right down to the focus on "players" (and with the requisite hat-tip to Wittgenstein).<br /><br />And you're right, these worlds aren't "closed" in any literal sense. But there's a "price of entry" (per Bourdieu, again) and there are rules to follow. "Skeptics" tend to overlook these little details, natch, except inasmuch as they can be portrayed in a negative light. (Which is not exactly news to you, of course.)<br /><br />As for jargon and rubes, I thought <a href="http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2009/11/you-dont-need-to-know-what-the-science-means-to-establish-what-the-words-means-to-scientists.html" rel="nofollow">Acephalous</a> did a nice job on that topic:<br /><br /><i>The problem with nonspecialists reading the private correspondence of experts is that their ignorance transforms all the technical points into nefarious inkblots. To continue with the example above, skeptical nonspecialists encounter the word "trick" and ask for clarification. Schmidt provides evidence that the word is innocuous, but because nonspecialists can interpret neither the context of the original nor that of the further examples, they redouble their efforts: now the rhetorical situation in which the word "trick" is uttered matters; now the appearance of quotation marks matters, etc. They are convincing themselves that those black blobs represent what they insist they represent, and when experts inform them that those are not Rorschach blots to be subjectively interpreted — that they are, in fact, <i>statements written in a language that skeptics simply do not understand</i> — the nonspecialists look over them again and declare that it could be a butterfly, or maybe a bat.</i>Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-74422792258452324892010-04-08T13:08:38.209-07:002010-04-08T13:08:38.209-07:00C.P. Snow wasn't that interesting the first ti...C.P. Snow wasn't that interesting the first time around, and he really hasn't worn that well in the interim.<br /><br />I don't even accept the "closed worlds" argument <i>arguendo</i>. Shaw was right, all professions are a conspiracy against the laity, but they are always conspiracies conspicuously aware of both the laity and the public nature of the conspiracy. Jargon is shorthand for the convenience of the players (LOL), not just to baffle the rubes. There is, indeed, a tendency to wall off from non-members, but it never gets very far (it simply can't) and never furthers the cause of the group.<br /><br />Monbiot's hand-wringing, as you say, is a form of special pleading, a way of ignoring the log in his eye by squealing about the splinter in the climatologists' collective eye. Which, as every, is nothing more than a reflection.<br /><br />Maybe if he backed away and got some perspective, rather than try to inspect the "other" so up close and personally....Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.com