Re: ORGASM - Operant Reactionary Graduate Academic Scholastic Mentality

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:57:55 -0500, Anthony Bucci
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Hi Lester,
>
>> Obviously the hard and soft sciences are replete with those who consider
>> themselves beyond reproach but who in fact are little more than soft
>> shelled egos unwilling or unable to explain or justify their own doctrinal
>> perspectives in ordinary conversation with anyone who has the temerity to
>> disagree.
>
>Oh come on.  This is *obvious*?

Well, how about if I eliminate the term obvious and pejorative
references to quantities? I admit these terms are hyperbolic.
>
>I don't think it is.  I think you wil find people like this in all walks of
>life.  Some professions might have more or fewer for what might be random
>reasons.  I think any profession which leads to a high degree of
>specialization with high stakes will tend to exhibit people like this.  Even
>so, I wouldn't say the sciences are "replete" with such people; I also
>wouldn't characterize them as "doctrinal" or "dogmatic."

Well I would simply because that's really the only academic
alternative to analytical truth. If you know of another basis that
isn't doctrinal and/or dogmatic please advise.
>
>Let me paint a different, and less negative,  picture.  In academics, you
>are constantly defending your work against criticism.  That's the nature of
>the game.  You submit papers, and these are reviewed, sometimes scathingly. 
>You present work at conferences, and the audience can be brutal in its
>reception of the ideas. [1] You talk with colleagues, and they have no
>interest in patting you on the back and saying "good job;" they will dig
>into the ideas too, particularly if they call their own ideas into question. 
>Certainly the process can short circuit, but I think generally it works like
>this.

I don't think the effect I'm describing is a question of short
circuiting. I think it's personality driven.
>
>After a few years or decades of doing such things professionally, it's
>understandable that an academic might not want to go back in time and defend
>their work against a critique which they dismissed doezens of times years
>earlier.  Unfortunately, that seems to be inevitable; the academic will have
>specialized and refined an idea for a long time, and it will take time and
>effort for an uninitiated person to get up to speed.
>
>If the academic is also an educator, then perhaps s/he will make the
>effort to bring people up to speed.  But, in any case, perhaps it's
>understandable where the frustration comes from, and why certain academics
>may appear pigheaded or unwilling to justify their ideas.  It's, dare I say,
>boring to defend the work against the same attack which has been levied for
>years. [2]

You know what I'm suggesting is not a question of not justifying their
ideas. Many curmudgeons I am familiar with refuse to justify their
criticism. It's the resort to justifications based on reference to the
ideas of others as explanations for what they assert. If you want to
dismiss ideas as contrary to Newton's or Euler's perspective there's
no problem. But if you wish to justify a position because of what
Newton or Euler said then I suggest one needs to defend what Newton or
Euler said that explains and defends what you claim.
>
>Of course, that does not excuse bad behavior on the part of academics; I'm
>certainly ot trying to defend pigheadedness or condescension.  There's no
>excuse for being a jerk.

Agreed.
>
>I ask you to think about this, though:   How can a specialist ever have an
>ordinary conversation about their speciality without it coming off badly? 
>As a specialist you might assume the posture of an educator in "ordinary
>conversation," but that sounds pompous and arrogant; or you might simply not
>respond to critiques, but that sounds dogmatic.  Some people can pull it
>off, but those are very special people who win awards, etc.  You can't
>expect every specialist to be that gifted.  It's not an easy question, and I
>propose that's what lies at the core of what you've observed.
>
I'm not so sure it does. I think the more knowledgeable a specialist
in any discipline the more one learns to accurately recognize the
level of interst and appropriate response. Of course there are always
exceptions.

>Anthony
>
>
>[1]  Let me tell you, it's quite an experience to stand up in front of a
>room full of 50 scientists, some of whom pioneered your field, and present
>an idea you're not quite sure about but still think is valuable.  Talk about
>stage fright!  If you've never done this before, perhaps you might try to
>imagine what it's like to get a sense for why some academics behave the way
>they do.

Oh believe me I don't have any problem imagining that at all. I've
never had the experience with scientists but I have with audiences.
But it's not really what I'm addressing. 
>
>[2]  Making the work comprehensible to an uninitiated person is hard work
>too, which distracts from furthering the research.  So some people don't
>bother -- the research is primary.

Perhaps I need only explain that I once had the temerity to approach
one of the Lawrence brothers (?) indirectly through a personal liason
with some very raw ideas on special relativity. I won't bother to
describe the consequences. Do I regret it? Not for a moment.
>



Regards - Lester