[Platt] OK, but I trust the process less than you do, especially in the fields of liberal arts, social sciences and forecasting. I like to think that I keep the door open to Pirsig's contrarians. But maybe I'm kidding myself.
[Arlo] There are a few things worthy of note regarding The Academy.The Academy does not, nor should it, advance a "final truth". What we should get from The Academy is that "this" is our best understand of "the world" at the present time, with these cultural lenses. Within the walls of The Academy, movement should always be "towards a better understanding". That said, static latching attains overt importance in this mission. In essence, what The Academy does is take the best and latch it strongly. This preserves, and tries to guarantee, progress without devolution. Yet we in The Academy are aware that this very preservation feature makes The Academy move slowly and respond quite cautiously to new ideas. However the alternative would result in an Academy that was unable to latch, but would bounce from claim to claim with no time nor ability to weed out the bad from the good. Is over static latching a problem. At times, certainly. All of us see the overall sluggishness with which the MOQ is making headway, and we read Pirsig's encounters with overly cemented ideas in anthropology, and I personally feel there are insights in archeology that have been frustratingly slow in gaining ground within our walls. But the alternative would be a chaotic curriculum that would pounce on every unsubstantiated, unproven claim with no discrimination. We move slow, and sometimes maddeningly so, to make sure that what does make it in is Good, and historically this appears to work. And so I usually tell students I work with to consider "The Academy + 1". That is, start with where we are, and look to what appears to be on the cutting edge. But accept that sometimes this "+ 1" can be profound or profane. It is here, in examination and consideration of what's on the cutting edge of our understandings that critical thinking is so, well, critical. Or, to use Pirsig's terminology, looking to the contrarians is critical, but knowing how to tell an Einstein from a snake-oil salesman is crucial. [Platt] You raise the important issue of who qualifies as an "expert." Would like your views on this. My problem with academic credentialed experts is that among them one can usually be find those who support opposite sides of an issue. Thanks. [Arlo] Of course. There is often little consensus within The Academy, and sometimes bitter feuds. This is part of the dialogic process of weeding out good ideas from bad ideas. Both sides present their cases, and over historical time (I say this because sometimes it takes generations) people gravitate towards the idea that seems "better". Will we ever reach absolute consensus in The Academy on any issue? About as likely as this happening outside The Academy. I think the word "expert" by definition connotes some sort of social credentialing process. When I need to call a plumber, the first thing I look for is credentials. Indeed, the whole notion of credentials was started to alleviate the burden on us in trying to make informed decisions. But typically they are only a part of an overall package. In The Academy, sadly, there has been an oversaturation of credentials, beginning with the Undergraduate Degree but effecting even the PhD level. In the marketplace we can see this as salaries associated with undergraduate degrees become less and less significant. Twenty years ago have a BA or BS meant something, and it likely meant long-term job security and a certain "cooshiness". Now we have people with undergrad degrees working at bookstores and coffee shops. (This is, I fear, the result of the "institution" selling out "The Academy". Or, in Pirsig's words, the brick-and-mortar "legal corporation" pandering the "real University" or "Church of Reason". We admit more and more students, and slap them with a degree, in order to increase financial profit, expand buildings and make Provosts wealth people.) But credentials are really only "foot-in-the-door" papers. All the credentials in the world won't make you overlook shoddy work or poor Quality in your plumber. Likely we ask around, who do our friends trust, who do our neighbors trust. But even then we won't overlook low Quality work. So I think maybe we start with "credentials" but move towards personal experience with those whom we've learned to trust. This, I guess, doesn't answer your question outright, but perhaps its good fodder. The question still remains that Pirsig's "Harbor Effect" can blind us to the low Quality of work when it meets our preconceived notions. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
