[Mark]
Now, you may say that a Ph.D in Biotechnology is not a degree in
Philosophy. However, you would be mistaken since any of the sciences are
considered philosophies.
[Arlo]
Again, I'm at a loss for any other 'degree' that's so denigrated as a
degree in philosophy. If I told you I had a PhD on the ideas of Charles
Peirce, would you say this makes me adequately versed in Biotechnology?
If I told you I read a few books from Barnes and Noble on biotechnology,
does this place me on equal footing with you and your PhD?
Your problem seems to revolve around a 'blind acceptance' of whatever a
PhD says is 'right', and I think every PhD I know would agree with that.
But while not all knowledgeable people on a topic have PhDs, its fairly
certain that all PhDs are knowledgeable on their subject. Indeed, what
IS a PhD but a demonstration to the community that you understand not
only the very broad field of your study, but also the nuances and
critical minutia that often escape the layperson?
Have we hit a point where we say someone who has devoted the better part
of their life to reading and understanding a philosophy has no more
insight into that than someone who glanced through "Plato for Dummies"?
When I want answers to how the heart works, you can bet the first people
I turn to are the people who have made their life's effort to
understanding and studying the heart. Are they the ONLY ones who
understand the heart? No, but this is far different than saying that
everyone's opinion about the heart has equal merit.
That is what 'degrees' allow us to recognize, and I don't understand why
we so easily say an degree in biotech makes you an expert on biotech, or
a degree in neurosurgery makes you a skilled neurosurgeon, or a degree
in accounting makes you a knowledgeable accountant, but a degree in
philosophy, at best, is irrelevant to your understanding of philosophy,
or at worst an actual IMPEDIMENT to understanding philosophy.
I don't want people to blindly listen to what I say because of my degree
in Instructional Design, I want people to recognize that my degree in
Instructional Design precisely prepares me to have insight and skills
that are rooted in experience, devotion, effort and a strong understand
of instructional design. Otherwise, what's the point? Why get a degree
at all if it either means nothing or actually means LESS than having one?
[Mark]
As such, I can consider myself free of any "educational bias" on the
subject much in the same way that Pirsig was.
[Arlo]
See, what other field would you say such things about? Do you want a
surgeon that free of "educational bias"? A car mechanic? What about an
accountant? If you were developing an online course, do you want someone
free of "educational bias" on the best designs?
This is not to fail to recognize that many professionals (surgeons,
mechanics, accountants, professors) can succumb to tunnel vision to
various degrees. But like with all fields, mastery of the structure is
what enables creative and critical thinking to emerge. Pirsig was NOT
free of "educational bias", he was a master of it, the MOQ emerged out
of a lifetime of devotion to reading and understanding a large swath of
interdisciplinary research and writing, with an eye towards a singular
goal... developing his metaphysical ideas.
Does the academy make all the right decisions about what it accepts as
theses and what it does not? No, of course not. But I firmly believe the
MOQ would be much stronger had the University of Chicago accepted his
proposal. Not because the process homogenizes, but because the process
strengthens the organism. Challenges, rebuttals and 'attacks', when they
have to responded to make good arguments all the better. No one should
expect to go through a PhD without encountering some antagonism. Nearly
every committee I've seen has a member who is 'hostile' in some way to
the idea. The idea is that this strengthens the thesis, and I believe it
does just that.
The Academy is not perfect, and it has its flaws, and many times those
in 'cutting edge' areas feel the whole institution is laboriously
sluggish, but the process itself is a micro-study in the balance between
static and dynamic quality. Too static (which many feel it is) and good
ideas (like Pirsig's) can take a while to gain entry. Too dynamic
(which, I'd say, many also feel it is) and it just becomes nothing but
sensationalism and whim.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
