PoMo theoretician threatens to sue students
Tue, 2008-05-27 08:25
#1
PoMo theoretician threatens to sue students
Tue, 2008-05-27 08:25
#2
quote:
Often it seems as though American higher education exists only to provide gag material for the outside world. The latest spectacle is an Ivy League professor threatening to sue her students because, she claims, their "anti-intellectualism" violated her civil rights.Priya Venkatesan taught English at Dartmouth College. She maintains that some of her students were so unreceptive of "French narrative theory" that it amounted to a hostile working environment. She is also readying lawsuits against her superiors, who she says papered over the harassment, as well as a confessional exposй, which she promises will "name names."
The trauma was so intense that in March Ms. Venkatesan quit Dartmouth and decamped for Northwestern. She declined to comment for this piece, pointing instead to the multiple interviews she conducted with the campus press.
Ms. Venkatesan lectured in freshman composition, intended to introduce undergraduates to the rigors of expository argument. "My students were very bully-ish, very aggressive, and very disrespectful," she told Tyler Brace of the Dartmouth Review. "They'd argue with your ideas." This caused "subversiveness," a principle English professors usually favor.
Ms. Venkatesan's scholarly specialty is "science studies," which, as she wrote in a journal article last year, "teaches that scientific knowledge has suspect access to truth." She continues: "Scientific facts do not correspond to a natural reality but conform to a social construct."
Read it [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120995103004666569.html]here.[/url]
Tue, 2008-05-27 10:06
#3
Catchfire
Wow, so this WSJ "editorialist" throws a few scare quotes around words like "problematize," "deconstructed" and "heteronormativity", removes any context around the alleged abuse, and dismisses accusations of racism out of hand so he can score a few cheap points against whatever he thinks postmodernism is. I'm also skeptical of his 'A' unless the academic integrity of Dartmouth is exceptionally low--which frankly would be unsurprising, considering the quality of the article.
[url=http://dartreview.com/archives/2008/05/05/tdr_interview_priya_venkatesan.... Venkatesan's response[/url]
quote:
I never name-called any student in that class. I never name-called any student in that class. What happened was that I went into class after that whole clapping incident, and I said; “What you did was horrific. What you did was really bad.” Not bad, I didn’t accuse them of being bad, I said what you did was unacceptable. They started arguing with me. I said fine. You think you know everything. You think you know everything without the knowledge base to boot, without the training, you think you have a command of all the knowledge in the world at this stage in your life, then I’m sorry, that is fascism and that is demagoguery. When I made the two words fascism and demagoguery I looked at the picture on the wall.I made sure that I did not look at the students, and that I did not make any personal attacks on them. The fact of the matter is that by being so arrogant about their command of knowledge about arguing with me about every point that I was making and that’s really arrogant. That’s very arrogant because frankly, and I’m not trying to be an academic elitist, but frankly, they don’t even have a B.A. They’re freshmen. They’re freshmen.
[...]
It’s basically we were talking about The Death of Nature by Carolyn Merchant. I believe I talked about how the scientific revolution—what effect it had on women of the period. In the context I brought up the witch trials of the Renaissance, and I was trying to make to make the claim—it was kind of a paraphrasing of Merchant’s argument, it’s not necessarily. . . . I made the argument that in many cases science and technology did not benefit women, and if women were benefiting from science and technology, it was an after-effect. It was not the goal of science and technology. It was a very feminist claim, and you may not agree with it. But that was Merchant’s argument; it wasn’t my argument, and I’m not a feminist scholar, so I was really making an argument that wasn’t mine and paraphrasing.
But there was one student who really took issue with this—and he took issue with this, and he made a very—I’d call it a diatribe, and it was sort of like, well—science and technology, women really did benefit from it, and to criticize patriarchal authority on the basis that science and technology benefited patriarchy or men, was not sufficient grounds for this type of feminist claim. And he did this with great rhetorical flourish; it was very invective, it was a very invective sort of tone. And I think what happened afterwards was that some people—I can’t name them, and I don’t know how many there were, but it was a significant number—started clapping for his statements.
It was a very humiliating moment to my life; it was extremely humiliating, that my students would clap against me, when all I was trying to do was talk to them about arguments and argumentation, in the light of what I had been trained with.
Personally, I think she sounds like she cannot handle the pressures of educating, but this does not discredit her scholarly work (which might also be poor--I don't know). But this article has far too much glee in "deconstructing" what it didn't even bother to report accurately. The "editorialist" could also use to learn what "deconstruction" actually is.
Tue, 2008-05-27 17:55
#4
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]Wow, so this WSJ "editorialist" throws a few scare quotes around words like "problematize," "deconstructed" and "heteronormativity", removes any context around the alleged abuse, and dismisses accusations of racism out of hand so he can score a few cheap points against whatever he thinks postmodernism is. I'm also skeptical of his 'A' unless the academic integrity of Dartmouth is exceptionally low--which frankly would be unsurprising, considering the quality of the article.[url=http://dartreview.com/archives/2008/05/05/tdr_interview_priya_venkatesan.... Venkatesan's response[/url]
Personally, I think she sounds like she cannot handle the pressures of educating, but this does not discredit her scholarly work (which might also be poor--I don't know). But this article has far too much glee in "deconstructing" what it didn't even bother to report accurately. The "editorialist" could also use to learn what "deconstruction" actually is.[/b]
Thanks for posting that link Catchfire, in her own words, very interesting to read.
It does seem to me that the brightest students, and the brightest classes, will be those who challenge the teacher more frequently. A lot of teachers complain about having only sleepy drones who write down, so she seems to have experienced an other extreme. She may be right about the students being arrogant.
You seem very defensive about the popular belief that sociology and post modernism are bullshit. While I personally realize these claims are exaggerated, I can see why people believe it. That's part of the reason I wish string theory would get a downgrade in status, otherwise I worry the physical sciences will be prone to the same attacks of manufacturing bullshit.
[ 27 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Tue, 2008-05-27 19:37
#5
A natural road apple for the Babble Hall of Shame:
quote:
You seem very defensive about the popular belief that sociology and post modernism are bullshit. (500_Apples)
Tue, 2008-05-27 20:45
#6
quote:
Scientific facts do not correspond to a natural reality but...to a social construct.
Hey, I like this!
Tue, 2008-05-27 21:14
#7
Cueball
I am glad you do, because I am a little bit confused, perhaps you could expound a little on the concept so I can understand it better?
Tue, 2008-05-27 21:52
#8
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]You seem very defensive about the popular belief that sociology and post modernism are bullshit. While I personally realize these claims are exaggerated, I can see why people believe it. That's part of the reason I wish string theory would get a downgrade in status, otherwise I worry the physical sciences will be prone to the same attacks of manufacturing bullshit.
[ 27 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ][/b]
The "popular belief" in Germany in 1933 was that there was an international conspiracy of Communists, Jews and Bankers collaborating to rule the world. Not that anyone would be laughing at the idea of young National Socialist students harrassing Jewish professors at Hiedleberg in 1933. We might be calling that Fascism and Demagoguery.
So, are we absolutely sure here that the harrassment experienced by this Professor of South Asian origin was not actually a racially and gender motivated campaign of harrassment?
[ 27 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2008-05-27 21:59
#9
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]A natural road apple for the Babble Hall of Shame: [/b]
It is a popular belief...
[ 27 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Tue, 2008-05-27 22:05
#10
Cueball
And what can we say about "popular beliefs" scientifically speaking? I should think that an arguement made from a scientific perspective that relied on a "popular belief" was indicative that the scientific perspective in question was, at least in part, embedded in a social construct.
Wed, 2008-05-28 06:10
#11
I don't know about this case in particular, but there is a vast body of literature on the social construction of technology/science. I certainly wouldn't call it po-mo, but it does ground scientific thought and development in the realm of the social -- it examines what actually constitutes objects of study, as well as how processes emerge (hint: they don't just drop from trees). And no, it doesn't have to include Foucault; I'm thinking more of the sociologists of science crowd...
I also know what it's like to face aggressive/arrogant behaviour from students. I wouldn't consider this indicative of inquisitiveness. It's reactionary and is a block to learning, by flat out rejecting what is being discussed. It can get pretty hostile and rather personal -- if not overtly sexist, racist, and homophobic. I don't want sleepy drones, either, but rather students who can think and question without having to get in my face.
Actually, I really like it when students can hash these sorts of things out themselves, through respectful discussion. Then I can switch to moderating/facilitating mode and let them do the "teaching". It's amazing to see students address the more reactionary responses by drawing on their own experiences and connecting them to course themes & materials.
Wed, 2008-05-28 07:34
#12
Makwa
I think that accepting this article at face value, and falling into the 'pomo' discussion is allowing oneself to miss the point of the actual contention. From other articles I have read, and I shall get links when I find them, the instructor was merely outlining a reference which read something like 'science as a historical discourse (or something) is unfavourable to women' and some guy wank jumped up and made a speech about how science has saved all women and everyone everywhere from everything, and the class clapped and supported him, and it was all a hoot and a hollar, except for the disrespect given a new female lecturar who didn't know enough to tell asshole to sit down and shut up or get the fuck out.
Wed, 2008-05-28 07:46
#13
Catchfire
I defend against what I perceive to be anti-intellectualism and attacks against the humanities and arts because there is no other discipline in the world where I am expected to be embarrassed about what I have studied all my life. I can study tax law with impunity, but for some reason if I want to see how society imagines itself I have to withstand arrogant and ignorant assaults by those who dismiss it without understanding.
It is my view that the study of culture is one of the most important things in society. It structures our laws, our governance and the way we relate to each other every single day. And I will not stand by while ignorant writers for the WSJ mock what I do with my life.
Makwa: check out the link in my OP. It has an interview with the instructor and her version of what happened.
Wed, 2008-05-28 07:53
#14
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
[b]... some guy wank jumped up and made a speech about how science has saved all women and everyone everywhere from everything, and the class clapped and supported him, and it was all a hoot and a hollar, except for the disrespect given a new female lecturar who didn't know enough to tell asshole to sit down and shut up or get the fuck out.[/b]
There have been times when I've wanted to say as much. In the worst cases, I've just had to shut down the discussion, mostly to pre-empt anything too egregious. For some of my friends and colleagues, though, the hostility continues after class and into office hours, email, etc. Fortunately, the departments I've worked for support their instructors who face this sort of harassment.
(Some of the worst incidents I've heard about involve social work students who've been compelled to face their own prejudices & intolerances, but this pretty much happens anywhere "critical approaches" are encouraged...)
Wed, 2008-05-28 09:05
#15
It seems like a clear case of power, privilege and entitlement coming to the defence of the dominant ideology expressed by a white male student denouncing a South Asian female Prof. Naturally the Wall street journal defends the status quo and dismisses the harrassment.
Wed, 2008-05-28 10:36
#16
Catchfire
Exactly, N.R.K., it's the same brand of "challenging ideas" that you see Tucker Carlson deliver on CNN or Fox News, or more locally, on the right-wing reactionary "Contrarian" radio show on CBC. Statements like "feminism has gone too far" and the like.
There's nothing wrong with challenging continental philosophy, it's done all the time. But it doesn't sound to me like that's what's going on here. In fact, she mentions in the interview above that Dartmouth has a very "conservative reputation." I don't know if that's true, but it does sound appropriate to the situation.
Wed, 2008-05-28 12:34
#17
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
[b]From other articles I have read, and I shall get links when I find them, the instructor was merely outlining a reference which read something like 'science as a historical discourse (or something) is unfavourable to women' [/b]
It seems to me that this is the kind of thing you start to notice when you're about twelve, i.e., that all thinking is historically conditioned (or, if you prefer, embedded in social constructs).
[ 28 May 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Thu, 2008-05-29 08:22
#18
The funniest part of the WSJ article:
quote:
Ms. Venkatesan's scholarly specialty is "science studies," which, as she wrote in a journal article last year, "teaches that scientific knowledge has suspect access to truth." She continues: "Scientific facts do not correspond to a natural reality but conform to a social construct."
So what does she do when she gets stressed? Visits a doctor:
quote:
Ms. Venkatesan informed her pupils that their behavior was "fascist demagoguery." Then, after consulting a physician about "intellectual distress," she cancelled classes for a week. Thus the pending litigation.
Did the physician diagnose her, or impose a social construct on her? Discuss. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-05-29 08:41
#19
Cueball
The funniest part of the anti-postmodernist article, is that it is an excelent example of decontextualization of text that demonstrates clearly how the meaning of words and phrases can be changed by removing them from their original context and putting them in a new context -- that meaning is context dependent.
Derrida in other words.
In this case, it is almost impossible to tell that the quotes used in the article actually refer back to an interview. Nor do the meanings that are expressed in the original context, relate at all to the meaning they express in the new one. In fact if you googled the phrases particulated from the original interview, the original interview would likely not even appear in the search engine, or would be very low down on the list.
[ 29 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2008-05-29 10:14
#20
We have the professor's side of the story in vivid detail. Do we have the students' side of story in any detail?
Thu, 2008-05-29 10:31
#21
Cueball
Yeah, that would be good, we could decontextualize that too.
[ 29 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2008-05-29 10:45
#22
quote:
The funniest part of the WSJ article:
The funniest part of the article and your response is that both you and the "journalist" are expressing intellectual disdain towards ideas that you don't comprehend in defence of a method of enquiry that you don't understand in a pique of slathering anti-intellectualism. Your attempt at displaying your intellectual superiority only highlights the degree of your ignorance. Do we really need another hackneyed "science vs. post structrualism" thread?
quote:
So what does she do when she gets stressed? Visits a doctor:
Not really surprising if she needed to take leave from work or was considering legal action. We live in a society that requires we have a medical doctor to legitimize our emotional experience or distress which is in reality quite ironic considering that Medical doctors by and large know very little about emotions or psychological distress apart from believing they occur in the brain and are rectified by pharmaceuticals.
quote:
Did the physician diagnose her, or impose a social construct on her? Discuss.
A diagonsis is a social construction especially in reference to experiences of social distress.
[ 29 May 2008: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Thu, 2008-05-29 11:44
#23
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Yeah, that would be good, we could decontextualize that too.[/b]
It seems that that has already been done for us.
Thu, 2008-05-29 11:47
#24
quote:
Do we really need another hackneyed "science vs. post structrualism" thread ?
We don't if Dartmouth doesn't.
Thu, 2008-05-29 12:28
#25
I would like to point out that not all critics of post-modernism are anti-intellectual or, for that matter, right-wingers. I'm not saying anyone said this. I'm just making a statement. Yes, it's an obvious statement. But there are lots of obvious statements in this thread [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-05-29 12:36
#26
quote:
Original article:Ms. Venkatesan's scholarly specialty is "science studies," which, as she wrote in a journal article last year, "teaches that scientific knowledge has suspect access to truth." She continues: "Scientific facts do not correspond to a natural reality but conform to a social construct."
I totally agree with Ms. Venkatesan on this; I think I'd have enjoyed her class if this is any indication, and its nice to have unorthodox professors. Although I have thought this for a long time, as RosaL said,
quote:
It seems to me that this is the kind of thing you start to notice when you're about twelve
Although obviously if her students are any indication not everyone does!
But considering that her own work is the sort of thing I noticed as a young teenager I don't have much time for Ms. Venkatesan's complaint that her students shouldn't argue because,
quote:
they don’t even have a B.A. They’re freshmen. They’re freshmen.
They shouldn't argue because apparently they are idiots but even freshmen should understand the material she was teaching. I guess I'm saying that she is condescending on the wrong basis [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
I do have to say I tend to agree with Catchfire that,
quote:
I think she sounds like she cannot handle the pressures of educating, but this does not discredit her scholarly work
Thu, 2008-05-29 12:54
#27
quote:
I defend against what I perceive to be anti-intellectualism and attacks against the humanities and arts because there is no other discipline in the world where I am expected to be embarrassed about what I have studied all my life.
So it's about your delicate self-image and the need to impress others.
Thu, 2008-05-29 13:22
#28
quote:
She continues: "Scientific facts do not correspond to a natural reality but conform to a social construct."
It is too bad, but too much post-modernism is just a new way for old discredited thinking to be resussitated.
I consider that to be the Creationist position on evolution.
It is also the same position the church held when it punished Galileo for believing the earth circled the sun.
There ARE sophisticated discussions of the POSSIBLE, but not necessary, biases involved in scientific work. For example, Bourdieu:
quote:
Bourdieu contended there is transcendental objectivity, only there were certain historical conditions necessary for its emergence. Bourdieu's ideal scientific field is one that persistently designates upon its participants an interest or investment in objectivity. Transcendental objectivity, he argued, requires certain historical and social conditions for its production. The scientific field is precisely that field in which objectivity may be acquired. The structure of the scientific field is such that it becomes increasingly autonomous and its "entrance fee" becomes increasingly strict. Further, the scientific field entails rigorous intersubjective scrutinizing of theory and data. This makes it difficult for those within the field to bring in, for example, political influence. Therefore, the structure of the scientific field imposes upon its participants a habitus that has tacit interest or investment in objectivity.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu]http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Thu, 2008-05-29 13:31
#29
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
[b]So it's about your delicate self-image and the need to impress others.[/b]
Hi, would you mind not personally attacking other people here? Thanks.
Thu, 2008-05-29 13:31
#30
Cueball
Care to find the Journal in which that statement is made. It seems so ridiculous that you would think that there might be some larger context in of which that idea is just a part.
Thu, 2008-05-29 14:27
#31
quote:
I consider that to be the Creationist position on evolution.It is also the same position the church held when it punished Galileo for believing the earth circled the sun.
Of course you're free to consider that statement by Ms. Venkatesan to be whatever you want. I personally consider yours to be ridiculous.
quote:
The scientific field is precisely that field in which objectivity may be acquired.
Thats so "sophisticated" [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Why is any suggestion of the ignorance of science automatically dismissed as a product of ignorance itself?
I of course disagree with the Church positions on the issues you mentioned, and yet I can still see plenty of ways in which science is an inherently flawed way of knowing; I will go out on a limb and venture that I am not the only one.
Thu, 2008-05-29 15:46
#32
quote:
Posted by It's me D: I can still see plenty of ways in which science is an inherently flawed way of knowing; I will go out on a limb and venture that I am not the only one.
So if enough people believed (like Sharon Stone) that the Chinese earthquake was some sort of divine payback for political repression in Tibet, you might accept this as a plausible explanation? Sorry, I'll continue relying on the scientific theory of plate tectonics as the much more likely explanation.
Do people's biases and ideological filters (including those of scientists) sometimes lead to erroneous conclusions being drawn? Undoubtedly. Does this mean we should stop relying on the scientific method and critical thinking to explain the world around us? Absolutely not.
Thu, 2008-05-29 16:30
#33
Now that I've read the interview I feel quite bad for the professor. She sounds like her students are assholes. That being said it's possible she was inept and it sounds like it. She says she cancelled class when there was carnival. A teacher should never do that, it makes them look like a clown. I do really dislike that story about "Gattaca"... I totally didn't get that, and I can't believe someone would do that. Authority is very important. She may have been the butt of jokes due to her tendency to say everything twice.
Post modernists may have a legitimate beef vis a vis the anti-intellectualism they encounter from colleagues, from friends and from the media. But anyone that makes seemingly nonsense blanket statements such as "science has suspect access to truth" is them self behaving in profound anti-intellectualism and demonstrating a void of comprehension. What matters about Maxwell's equations is that they work, very well, and that they're consistent. They achieve both those qualities to a level that has never been achieved anywhere outside the physical sciences.
Thu, 2008-05-29 16:53
#34
quote:
So if enough people believed (like Sharon Stone) that the Chinese earthquake was some sort of divine payback for political repression in Tibet, you might accept this as a plausible explanation? Sorry, I'll continue relying on the scientific theory of plate tectonics as the much more likely explanation.
Oh Sigh!!! Can you actually make a distinction between a critique and an outright dismissal. This is why these threads are so tedious they always tend to revolve around "fer or agin" binary. No one here is dismissing "science" outright and I would challenge you to find one theorist who makes a claim that even approximates what you are suggesting.
quote:
Do people's biases and ideological filters (including those of scientists) sometimes lead to erroneous conclusions being drawn? Undoubtedly. Does this mean we should stop relying on the scientific method and critical thinking to explain the world around us? Absolutely not.
Where has anyone stated that society abandon the scientific method? Understanding the limitations to science and the manner in which false assumptions and conclusions can be made actually makes a more informed science not an abandonment of the method.
quote:
But anyone that makes seemingly nonsense blanket statements such as "science has suspect access to truth" is them self behaving in profound anti-intellectualism and demonstrating a void of comprehension.
I'm not sure if taking a decontextualized quote embedded within an obviously hostile article is a particularly strong demonstation of "access to truth."
[ 29 May 2008: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Thu, 2008-05-29 16:58
#35
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]Where has anyone stated that society abandon the scientific method? Understanding the limitations to science and the manner in which false assumptions and conclusions can be made actually makes a more informed science not an abandonment of the method.[/b]
Can you demonstrate the existence of such an informed critique?
I'm skeptical that it is possible for people outside of science to argue in a manner that would lead to an informed critique.
Thu, 2008-05-29 17:04
#36
quote:
What matters about Maxwell's equations is that they work, very well, and that they're consistent.
And yet, the physicists who created and applied these equations never ceased to treat them as suspect, to search for their limits, for the instances where they could be falsified, their falsifiability being a criterion of their truth value.
I suspect you would have more respect for Ms. Venkatesan's statement if it had been voiced by a white male such as Claude Bernard or Karl Popper; her (and their) critical approach to scientific "truth" has been part of the scientific method for more than 150 years.
[ 29 May 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Thu, 2008-05-29 17:07
#37
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]And yet, the physicists who created and applied these equations never ceased to treat them as suspect, to search for their limits, for the instances where they could be falsified, their falsifiability being a criterion of their truth value.
I suspect you would have more respect for Ms. Venkatesan's statement if it had been voiced by a white male such as Claude Bernard or Karl Popper; her (and their) critical approach to scientific "truth" has been part of the scientific method for more than 150 years.[/b]
I'm not sure who you're accusing of racism,
regardless, your post is incoherent.
Thu, 2008-05-29 17:09
#38
The implied allegation of racism aside, what's incoherent about Martin's post?
Thu, 2008-05-29 17:09
#39
Given your perspective on "coherence," I take this as a compliment, sir.
Thu, 2008-05-29 17:20
#40
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
[b]The implied allegation of racism aside, what's incoherent about Martin's post?[/b]
Michael, a few posts above, I questioned whether it was possible for someone outside of science to, in N.R. KISSED's words "Understanding the limitations to science and the manner in which false assumptions and conclusions can be made actually makes a more informed science."
Can people who are outside the field, who are trained in a different manner, who do not recognize the jargon and the internal norms, who do not understand how one gets from point a to point b, truly make a critique of something they don't understand? And by that I mean bring new insights into the game, something very useful, that has not been thought of before?
Martin mentioned that physicists themselves questioned Maxwell's Equations, the examples I brought up. Of course they did. Maxwell's equations are a form of knowledge, and somehow increasing understanding of them, perhaps finding cases of where they can't work, would be very valuable. Physicists might be able to do this one day. I cannot conceive of how a sociologist would ever do this. How can an architect specializing in glass and steel ever write a constructive critique of the cooking methods of Australian aborigines? He cannot, that would be a category error.
Which is why Martin's response that physicists have searched for their limitations is irrelevant. He then switches to an accusation of discrimination with no intermediary logical sequence.
He draws an analogy between Popper and Venkatesan which is incoherent as well. She is not being discussed as a philosopher but as a teacher, nobody here knows what her personal opinions are on epistemology. Secondly, Popper was actually very informed. Logic for example is a very rigorous field and requires a lot of very precise, very abstract mathematics.
Thu, 2008-05-29 17:22
#41
quote:
Can you demonstrate the existence of such an informed critique?
There are inummerable critiques you'll have to do your own work, try googling "philosophy of science" for a start.
quote:
I'm skeptical that it is possible for people outside of science to argue in a manner that would lead to an informed critique.
I don't believe it is a matter of scepticism but rather an article of faith for someone whose understanding of truth tends to be based almost exclusively in appeals to authority. I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to people "outside of science" many of those who work or did work in the area of philosophy of science were/are trained and or working as scientists. Furthermore anyone who dismisses critiques "outside" their particular discipline is only defending their ongoing ignorance. The problem with many working in science is not only that they have not done any reading/reflecting on the philosophy of science but they are openly hostile to the entire discipline. This is again a dangerous authoritarian approach to the acquisiton of knowledge and also informs a great deal of bad science in practice.
Thu, 2008-05-29 17:25
#42
quote:
Posted by N.R. Kissed: Oh Sigh!!! Can you actually make a distinction between a critique and an outright dismissal. This is why these threads are so tedious they always tend to revolve around "fer or agin" binary.
Perhaps I should have followed my first instinct and asked It's Me D to explain what the heck he meant by his statement that he "sees plenty of ways in which science is an inherently flawed way of knowing" and then justified this statement by saying he wasn't alone in thinking this.
Sorry if my post sounded dismissive, but I'm at a loss as to how to intelligently critique such an odd statement.
Thu, 2008-05-29 17:34
#43
N.R. Kissed please try and offer some substance.
quote:
Furthermore anyone who dismisses critiques "outside" their particular discipline is only defending their ongoing ignorance. The problem with many working in science is not only that they have not done any reading/reflecting on the philosophy of science but they are openly hostile to the entire discipline.
You are getting a lot of things wrong.
First, I have not rejected any philosophy of science in this thread as none has been offered. You for example were incapable of posting a useful criticism from the outside, so you feigned ability by referring to google.
Secondly most scientists enjoy philosophy of science, we discuss it quite frequently, there are a ton of science blogs if you take a look. We, however, like to discuss it on a very rigorous and serious level, as opposed to some inane and meaningless comments such as "Scientific facts do not correspond to a natural reality but conform to a social construct".
If you want to see some serious philosophy of science, see here:
[url=http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0704.2291]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0704.2291[/url]
[url=http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/12/07/guest-blogger-joe-polchinski-on-the... s/[/url]
At this point I am the only person in this thread who has linked to constructive and useful philosophy of science.
What you'll notice in those two links is that the people discussing the issues mentioned actually know what they're talking about. You can dismiss experience all you want but it's very important in reality. That reality is why you are incapable of demonstrating the existence (let alone disproving uniqueness) of useful criticisms of science from the outside.
Galileo didn't randomly overthrow 1500 years of thinking. He first mastered the previous way of thinking, only then could he see its failures.
[ 29 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Thu, 2008-05-29 17:57
#44
Cueball
Gallileo did not ovethrow 1500 years of thinking. He improved on some already existant optical crafts and made some obeservations. The idea that earth revolved around the sun was prexistant of Gallileo, and he just put the pieces together and helped substantiate some ideas. I think we agree here at least partially. What he did do was create a philosophical problem for the Catholic Church.
His historical influence is pretty specific to a period, and the ramifications of his discoveries pretty localized and specific to European Christian society. What gives his innovations their historical signifigance, in fact is the relationship that they have to the social and the social construction of knowledge.
This is not to say that he was an idiot.
[ 29 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2008-05-29 18:13
#45
quote:
First, I have not rejected any philosophy of science in this thread as none has been offered. You for example were incapable of posting a useful criticism from the outside, so you feigned ability by referring to google.
You clearly demonstrate your ignorance concerning the depth and breadth of philosophy of science. I didn't respond to your request for two main reasons the first being I truly don't understand your inside/outside binary, I don't know what your definition of a "real" scientist is, who you consider and insider or outsider, the distinction in itself seems quite circumspect. Also one does not need to know all the present theory of a discipline in order to be aware in flaws in logic and questionable philosopical assumptions being made. I am not incapable of posting or linking you to basic concepts discussed in philosophy of science, I'm just not going to do the work for you and clearly a lot of work needs to be done.
Thu, 2008-05-29 18:15
#46
Le T
I really think that making this thread into a discussion of theory is missing the point, as has been pointed out by Makwa and alluded to by martin.
It also misses the point to dismiss the behaviour as that of "assholes".
This would not of happened had this have been a white male prof. This kind of thing is very common in the academy where a prof who is a woman, a racialized person, someone who speaks with an accent, etc. is treated this way by white male students.
Regardless of how I feel about the way this prof teaches or the theory that she was outlining to the students, it needs to be pointed out that this is how sexism and racist exists in universities.
Thu, 2008-05-29 18:24
#47
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]You clearly demonstrate your ignorance concerning the depth and breadth of philosophy of science. I didn't respond to your request for two main reasons the first being I truly don't understand your inside/outside binary, I don't know what your definition of a "real" scientist is, who you consider and insider or outsider, the distinction in itself seems quite circumspect. Also one does not need to know all the present theory of a discipline in order to be aware in flaws in logic and questionable philosopical assumptions being made. I am not incapable of posting or linking you to basic concepts discussed in philosophy of science, I'm just not going to do the work for you and clearly a lot of work needs to be done.[/b]
It would be a lot more respectable for you to admit you have nothing to offer.
Thu, 2008-05-29 18:31
#48
quote:
500_Apples: ...She is not being discussed as a philosopher but as a teacher, nobody here knows what her personal opinions are on epistemology
I don't know how or where you are discussing her other than slinging innuendo and insults. Venkatesan is clearly a teacher who offered a philosophical statement about science and about a common view of its claim to hegemony. She expressed suspicion about that view - as any careful scholar would, regardless of his or her field - and the male student who verbally assaulted her confirmed that he held such a naive view. So did apparently those who applauded his antics. So this is not about Venkatesan's "personal opinions", but about her challenge to a "popular belief", as you like to say and the sexist racist reception it received from both these students and the male-stream press.
I would add that nobody is "outside" science, as you claim and that you show remarkably little empathy for someone who was clearly harassed on the basis of her educated opinion and of some alpha males' sentiment that she had no entitlement to issue a strong statement about something that clearly has iconic status in their eyes, Science.
[ 29 May 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Thu, 2008-05-29 18:32
#49
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]I really think that making this thread into a discussion of theory is missing the point, as has been pointed out by Makwa and alluded to by martin.It also misses the point to dismiss the behaviour as that of "assholes".
This would not of happened had this have been a white male prof. This kind of thing is very common in the academy where a prof who is a woman, a racialized person, someone who speaks with an accent, etc. is treated this way by white male students.
Regardless of how I feel about the way this prof teaches or the theory that she was outlining to the students, it needs to be pointed out that this is how sexism and racist exists in universities.[/b]
I dont think that getting excited about people discussing what post-modernism is is very helpful. While I agree substantially that the gender/race analysis should be forwarded directly here, as I pointed out near the top of the thread. The fact is that the article that begins this thread is using the professor as a tool to attack post-modernism, as well as ignoring largely the actual gender issues raised by the professor, as well as the possible race issues. Inherent in this attack on post-modernism, is also an attack on much of the social theory which is related to it, such as post-colonialist analysis, Edward Said, Frantz Fanon, Bell Hooks and the like.
Post-modernism, while somtimes abstract has served as a basis for questioning the asserted authority of modernist humanisism based in presumed European intellectual authority, I think both discussion points are interelated, especially since the nature of the harrassment by the student seems to have come in the ideological form of an attack upon the theoretical framework that has asserted the validity of non-western narratives, in support of gender and race analysis.
[ 29 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2008-05-29 18:37
#50
quote:
It would be a lot more respectable for you to admit you have nothing to offer.
I don't have anything to offer someone as unreceptive as yourself. You also flatter yourself in believing that you've said anything novel or interesting in this thread, but that was rather predictable.
Thu, 2008-05-29 18:46
#51
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]I don't have anything to offer someone as unreceptive as yourself. You also flatter yourself in believing that you've said anything novel or interesting in this thread, but that was rather predictable.[/b]
I'm actually very well-versed in the philosophy of science, having been through several university courses, many books, incessant discussions with my friends and colleagues and also as a writer of science. Nobody is debating philosophy of science as a whole, only specific memes of sociologists.
I merely asked if it was possible for constructive criticism of science to come from people who are outside of science. Outside of science is quite trivial to define in this context, it's any human being who has not spent many years practicing science. The possibility that someone could offer constructive criticism without direct knowledge from first-hand experience is not manifestly obvious. Your have failed to prove the existence of such a criticism and it is very obvious that it is because you are incapable to do so.
[ 29 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]