Arlo: Excellent. Thanks for responding with wisdom, balance and clarity. I wish I could argue with some of your insights, but I come up empty. :-) Thanks.
Platt > [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/ > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
