[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Arlo:

Excellent. Thanks for responding with wisdom, balance and clarity. I wish I
could argue with some of your insights, but I come up empty. :-) Thanks. 

Platt    

> [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.
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/