[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[Arlo Bensinger]

[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.