Ian wrote: > Nomological and ideological have the same number of letters. Why does > the critique of one of those metaphors/idioms give you the creeps when > it comes to explanatory strategies for dealing with social histories, > while you type lots of boilerplate about the other?
I do not have any "creeps." I don't know why you think I do. Do you know my emotions? How is it that you can read them? My problem is that I find big words (including "ideological") to be just as ambiguous as most small words. Alas, I know a few academics who use big words as a substitute for clear or critical thinking (while potentially raising their status, by proving their chops). Of course, some of them don't know what they're doing since they're just imitating their peers (or the people they'd like to be peers of). It's an occupational hazard, one that does not facilitate communication with those poor benighted folks who aren't in the ivory-tower in-group; instead it seems an effort to prove the inherent superiority of academia. (In economics, by the way, people usually use math rather than big words for exactly the same purposes.) If I write "boilerplate," please tell me _why_ what I write is incorrect (in your view) rather than simply labeling it as something you don't like. After all, even cant can be right now and then. My "boilerplate" may not be fashionable these days, but it makes sense -- until someone points one what's wrong with it and can present a superior alternative. > I love the term 'false precision', though. It's another occupation hazard. It's quite common among economists; as a former freshman chem major, I have a sense of what "true" science means that often makes economists look silly. Alas, in practice this false precision can be extremely destructive when it is used by a government or a central bank. (Of course, the lack of precision is hardly decisive; the government or CB instead does what it does due to political influence from the powers that be. ) > Performativity has been written about extensively, by non-economists. > The performative aspects of language use are as important as the > representational aspects; some would consider them even more important. I've actually published a review of a book of articles -- some of whom are professional economists, I believe -- concerning "performativity" in economics. The stuff makes a lot of sense when there's an effort to be concrete or empirical. (Of all of the articles in the anthology that I reviewed, the one with the most BS was the one by the fellow who was given credit for applying the concept of "performativity" to economics. I've forgotten his name but see no reason to look it up.) The concept didn't seem a very important contribution, however. That doesn't mean that it can't contribute to clarity in the future, of course. > I won't give you a bibliography as you work at a university. thanks for the sneer. It warms my heart. Or perhaps I'm reading your emotions incorrectly... If so, my apologies. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
