To return to a thread (because I've been pondering it) which appeared to have run its course...
William Scott provided us with this glorious bit of goobledegook: > So transversal rationality acknowledges the many rationalities at play in a pluralistic environment. As a method, it proposes that we look for intersections between rationalities -- "transversal" means "to lie across" -- and enter into dialogue at those concrete, situated moments ... We must do so, however, with "epistemic humility;" that is, we need to be open to theoretical correction. And our results will be judged in moments of "praxial critique," in which the practical wisdom that comes out of the situation is tested in future, real-life situations. Robin Abrahams helpfully "translated" this stunning pronouncement as follows: > In other words, be aware that people have different points of view, don't act > like a know-it-all, and try to pick up some real-world experience while > you're at it. Jim Clark also tried his hand at comprehending the incomprehensible: "There are many equally valid ways of coming to understand the world. It is presumptuous of any one way to think that it has a better (i.e., more valid) approach. What we need is for each way of knowing to be equally humble about what it has to offer and to recognize the legitimacy of diverse approaches. The diverse approaches include intuition, religious revelation, cultural traditions, and the like ... oh yes, science and reason constitute another approach as well, although not one at all superior to revealing the truth (presuming such a thing is possible). What we need is a dialogue or narrative that amalgamates these alternative approaches in an egalitarian manner, rather than an attempt by any perspective to elevate itself above the other ways of knowing." So who's right? Following in the footsteps of the sentiment expressed in Jim's version, one could argue that it doesn't matter. Both Robin and Jim could be right, even though they have different interpretations. As Jim's quote says (not that he believes the notion, of course), "There are many equally valid ways of coming to understand the world". But I don't think we should play that game. I agree that it doesn't matter whose translation is right, but for another reason. If a passage is constructed in such an abstruse manner that the reader must struggle to understand it, is it worth the effort? If we can't decide whether Robin's or Jim's plain English version is what the author was talking about, should we bother? Passages like that simultaneously depress and outrage me. How can people write such crap and pretend that it's profound? And how can journal editors, hiring committees, and granting agencies take them seriously? If there's one thing that Alan Sokal's brilliant "Transgressing" hoax on the journal _Social Text_ tells us, it's that the people who claim to understand such nonsense really don't. It's not even clear that the people who _write_ the stuff understand it. Postmodernists seem to have academic defecation disorder (ADD). It's writing to impress, not to communicate. information. So who cares what the author may or may not have been trying to say. If it can't be understood without the need for someone else explain it to us, let's just flush it down the toilet. Note: I'm not talking about legitimately difficult exposition such as, for example, in modern mathematics. Mere mortals cannot understand such writing, not because it lacks meaning, but because it deals with genuinely difficult matters which only the seriously smart can understand. This, alas, is not the case with postmodernist babble. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 0C8 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
