Professors, PhDs, Lecturers and all Peer Reviewed Scholars!

[oldbadger]

The your OP should demonstrate less of it.

Oh.... I have no time left for any kind of snobbery, but here my contempt is for 'expert' flag waving.
Debater A waves Fred's flag to gain ground in a debate, while Debater B waves Sid's, and Debater C waves Ned's.
Fred, Sid and Ned are all peer reviewed scholars.............but only one can be right, the other two are as wrong as the Lay... let's say ( I can't do it) !!!

 

[oldbadger]

You can’t always know.

You use your judgement and intuition as best you can, or accept there are competing arguments/explanations and keep an open mind.

You don’t need to adopt a strong stance on every issue.

That's right.......... all we can do is offer our own opinions and we might show a scholarly idea as our support.
Sure.

 

[oldbadger]

Eh, as someone who is a peer-reviewed scholar it sounds like you've basically run into the phenomena of the internet pseudointellectual - a particular species that is really just interested in grandstanding, posturing, and chest beating once you peel back the veneer of intellectualism (hence "pseudo"). Actual academics don't... well, for one they don't conduct themselves like that and for two they don't waste time doing it on some recreational website that has close to zero significance to the profession. Maybe all this isn't quite what you were aiming to point at, sure, but it is what I thought of. Used to drive me nuts when I was an active researcher.

May I ask....what did you research and what peers reviewed your findings?
Do you think that some Scholars are pseudo-scholars?

As far as the title 'intellectual'... I have known some very well known intellectuals who out of their intellectual circle could be like beached whales.

There's another issue here I find more interesting though - and that is how when we do speak from that which we know most intimately (our direct personal experiences) that is often not taken seriously. This failure to respect our own (and others) experiences is a strange thing. It may be a cultural notion an it is certainly one that got in the way of my work on more than one occasion. I've learned, slowly, to get over it. If anything, in this era of disinformation and lies, my own direct experience is the only thing I can fully trust.

And that is what everybody should do, I think......to trust themselves. We are nearly all very specialised in some area or other and we should trust from our own experiences whilst searching for 'other knowledge' from outside. Yes.

 

[Heyo]

byI've been on websites and debating upon various issues for 12 years now.
No matter what the subject matter I've often been subjected to the opinions and findings of the above folks in situations where the debater didn't seem to have anything of their own to contribute.
I remember one occasion many years ago when two debaters were in deep contention and one demanded to know from the other 'have you read Fred?!!' ...A name was fired at the other.
Well, the other hadn't read Fred, but he'd read about Fred, and the reply came racing back 'So you haven't read Fred!'
The opposing debater tried again, 'But I've read a report about his findings.'
And so the death blow ensued, 'I knew you couldn't have read Fred! Any self respecting (whatever) has read Fred, a peer reviewed Doctor of (whatever) and Professor of (whatevering) at (wherever)!!'
Clubbed to death by ( or with, actually) a peer reviewed scholar. But are all these docs, profs, super scholars and other elites getting stuff right?

A central stone at wonderful Stone Henge in England is the centre of attention amongst some scholars at this time. The cry has gone out that 'Wow! It came from Scotland!'
OK, it might have done, or not, but the month before this amazing discovery a whole bunch of scholars had thought it was dragged or floated from somewhere else. And so knowledge seems to move in fashion's of 'how it all is now' and things could change ...anytime.

This very week on RF a regular member quoted a scholar's findings in order to show or prove one point, but in the next sentence he explained that he didn't agree with much else that this scholar had written. That's what I find...I've read books by super-scholars and found that most are confronted by other super-scholars and , well, my own opinions.

So why don't we debate from our own discoveries and opinions rather than by quoting smidgens from the academic lords?

Rant over.....but I enjoyed that.

I think you are mostly ranting over (pseudo-) science entering small talk. There are always multiple levels of communication. In an academic conversation, personal experience and unfounded opinions have no merit, while they are all that counts in common small talk.

Also, your example seems to be more about philosophers than scientists. Scientist don't ask "have you read person X", they ask "have you read paper Y". And if they do, they agree about the facts and go on to discuss the interpretation.

 

[blü 2]

byI've been on websites and debating upon various issues for 12 years now.
No matter what the subject matter I've often been subjected to the opinions and findings of the above folks in situations where the debater didn't seem to have anything of their own to contribute.
I remember one occasion many years ago when two debaters were in deep contention and one demanded to know from the other 'have you read Fred?!!' ...A name was fired at the other.
Well, the other hadn't read Fred, but he'd read about Fred, and the reply came racing back 'So you haven't read Fred!'
The opposing debater tried again, 'But I've read a report about his findings.'
And so the death blow ensued, 'I knew you couldn't have read Fred! Any self respecting (whatever) has read Fred, a peer reviewed Doctor of (whatever) and Professor of (whatevering) at (wherever)!!'
Clubbed to death by ( or with, actually) a peer reviewed scholar. But are all these docs, profs, super scholars and other elites getting stuff right?

A central stone at wonderful Stone Henge in England is the centre of attention amongst some scholars at this time. The cry has gone out that 'Wow! It came from Scotland!'
OK, it might have done, or not, but the month before this amazing discovery a whole bunch of scholars had thought it was dragged or floated from somewhere else. And so knowledge seems to move in fashion's of 'how it all is now' and things could change ...anytime.

This very week on RF a regular member quoted a scholar's findings in order to show or prove one point, but in the next sentence he explained that he didn't agree with much else that this scholar had written. That's what I find...I've read books by super-scholars and found that most are confronted by other super-scholars and , well, my own opinions.

So why don't we debate from our own discoveries and opinions rather than by quoting smidgens from the academic lords?

Rant over.....but I enjoyed that.

I do both. I debate according to my own opinions and understandings, and when a technical question arise I may if it seems useful or required link a page in Wikipedia or some other accessible work.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And you think that this verse has obvious meaning amongst the scholars?

That is not what I said.

 

[PureX]

A good scholar and academic would take the time to explain things as best as possible rather than belittling their opponent in a snobbish sarcastic way.

I agree. Or even an honest intellectual. But there are very few of either of these on this site. Mostly what we have here are blind opinionators that can't explain why they hold their opinions because they arrived at them based on emotion and make-believe.

I find independent thinking, even if it's flawed, there's a hell of a lot more honest and sincere take in the conversation then any pompous *** individual parroting intellectualism and academic-ism as if he or she has insiders knowledge and privilege, yet themselves has no independent critiquing thoughts outside an experts parameters.

I think you're being a bit unfair, here.

One of the reasons people listen to music is because they are deeply moved by songs that express how they think and feel far better than they could do on their own. Songs often speak for us. And show us that we are not alone in our feelings and experiences. And they articulate these for us and for others.

If I were in a discussion and someone said to me that some particular song expresses how they think and feel on the subject being discussed exceptionally well, I may not bother to look it up and listen to it, but I would understand what they are saying. Because I know that this is something that does happen among we humans. And it can be true of most any kind of intellectual dissertation, too.

I understand your objection: that if you understand your own perspective/opinion you should be able to articulate it for me clearly, yourself. But I also understand that some of us are going to be far better at this than others, and it doesn't necessarily mean we're wrong or stupid when we have difficulty explaining our ideas. I have known fantastic artists that produced amazing artworks and yet could barely string together a coherent sentence, verbally. Our brains are not all wired the same, and neither are our verbal skills. And I think it is important to take this into account.

 

[Audie]

There are a number of common 'tricks' people try to use when they don't know what they're talking about but can't admit it. I see them all the time, and have been confronted by them many, many times. Just a few minutes ago on another thread, in fact.

It's absurd and even embarrassing the lengths people will go to just to avoid simply admitting that their thinking is weak, flawed, biased, unfounded, and or irrational. But we are what we are.

Including what " we" project unto others.

 

[Quintessence]

May I ask....what did you research and what peers reviewed your findings?
Do you think that some Scholars are pseudo-scholars?

Traditional, university academia as a post-graduate student getting a Master of Science degree in conservation/ecological/plant biology; after that I stayed on as an employee of the university for a while to finish up some bits and pieces related to the research. Basically, research directly inspired by my religion and I pursued the program to serve the gods and further my religious studies (for me, studying science and studying religion end up being the same thing because theologically, nature and the gods are words that point at the same thing for me).

I didn't run into anyone I would label as a "pseudo-scholar" within our departments - all of us were doing active research and contributions to the frontiers of our field. I did run into other scientists who were horrible at visual and aesthetic presentation of their work, though... as well as many who were terrible writers. But I am very good at both of those things - enough that I worked on commission in that capacity for a time with other departments to polish works for publication. I didn't run into any "pseudo-scholar" stuff there either. Just a lot of badly drawn data tables that needed to be reformatted to be suitable for publication (dude, did you really just put the axis tick mark there - that's not where it goes!!).

As far as the title 'intellectual'... I have known some very well known intellectuals who out of their intellectual circle could be like beached whales.

And that is what everybody should do, I think......to trust themselves. We are nearly all very specialised in some area or other and we should trust from our own experiences whilst searching for 'other knowledge' from outside. Yes.

That's usually how it works in the academic scene, honestly - it's why research teams are routinely interdisciplinary. Once you go post-graduate in sciences, everyone becomes more and more specialized. We had researchers from three - or was it four? - different departments in our group. Academics are all nerds, so we're all willing to learn stuff, but also know our limits and collaboration is essential. That's part of what peer review is about too.

 

[Quintessence]

Also, your example seems to be more about philosophers than scientists. Scientist don't ask "have you read person X", they ask "have you read paper Y". And if they do, they agree about the facts and go on to discuss the interpretation.

Eh, I've seen both. The thing is, when you're working in a niche field there are maybe a handful of other scholars also working on that thing. You'll name names in that case. You'll also name names when it comes to acknowledging some of those first handful of research pioneers who started your field of speciality. It's generally expected that if you are new in the field, you do your homework. That includes reading the body of work by certain founding or seminal scholars who got things started or who are currently considered big players in your area. Sometimes, the focus is instead put on a specific paper especially if it has a ton of coauthors. Like the "World Scientist's Warning to Humanity" that I sometimes post. It has like 16k-odd signatories and nobody's gonna reference all those lol.

 

[We Never Know]

byI've been on websites and debating upon various issues for 12 years now.
No matter what the subject matter I've often been subjected to the opinions and findings of the above folks in situations where the debater didn't seem to have anything of their own to contribute.
I remember one occasion many years ago when two debaters were in deep contention and one demanded to know from the other 'have you read Fred?!!' ...A name was fired at the other.
Well, the other hadn't read Fred, but he'd read about Fred, and the reply came racing back 'So you haven't read Fred!'
The opposing debater tried again, 'But I've read a report about his findings.'
And so the death blow ensued, 'I knew you couldn't have read Fred! Any self respecting (whatever) has read Fred, a peer reviewed Doctor of (whatever) and Professor of (whatevering) at (wherever)!!'
Clubbed to death by ( or with, actually) a peer reviewed scholar. But are all these docs, profs, super scholars and other elites getting stuff right?

A central stone at wonderful Stone Henge in England is the centre of attention amongst some scholars at this time. The cry has gone out that 'Wow! It came from Scotland!'
OK, it might have done, or not, but the month before this amazing discovery a whole bunch of scholars had thought it was dragged or floated from somewhere else. And so knowledge seems to move in fashion's of 'how it all is now' and things could change ...anytime.

This very week on RF a regular member quoted a scholar's findings in order to show or prove one point, but in the next sentence he explained that he didn't agree with much else that this scholar had written. That's what I find...I've read books by super-scholars and found that most are confronted by other super-scholars and , well, my own opinions.

So why don't we debate from our own discoveries and opinions rather than by quoting smidgens from the academic lords?

Rant over.....but I enjoyed that.

As an old fella once said, some people believe that since they know what a hammer is and what its used for, they are a carpenter.

 

[oldbadger]

I do both. I debate according to my own opinions and understandings, and when a technical question arise I may if it seems useful or required link a page in Wikipedia or some other accessible work.

Best idea, I'm thinking.
Of course, so many debaters seem to snub pages from Wiki, since it is built up by mostly everybody. But I like Wiki.

 

[oldbadger]

As an old fella once said, some people believe that since they know what a hammer is and what its used for, they are a carpenter.

Ha ha! I like that!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Best idea, I'm thinking.
Of course, so many debaters seem to snub pages from Wiki, since it is built up by mostly everybody. But I like Wiki.

Wiki is good for generalized information, but it's certainly not any way near an academic caliber resource.

I do have a great deal of fun with the most recent editor however.

 

[We Never Know]

Ha ha! I like that!

For the record, I'm that old fella

 

[oldbadger]

For the record, I'm that old fella

I'll bet that you're a joiner or similar?

 

[oldbadger]

That is not what I said.

No?
In any case your chosen verse had initiated a variety of opinions from academics. I wonder which one was closest to correct?
Select any verse at all and the peer reviewed scholars out there will have varying opinions about it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No?
In any case your chosen verse had initiated a variety of opinions from academics. I wonder which one was closest to correct?
Select any verse at all and the peer reviewed scholars out there will have varying opinions about it.

OK. Select two reasonably modern yet disparate translations and we can discuss what basis, if any, would suggest that one rendering is preferable to the other.

 

[oldbadger]

OK. Select two reasonably modern yet disparate translations and we can discuss what basis, if any, would suggest that one rendering is preferable to the other.

No no.....I have asked the question of you, so I'm sitting comfortably and waiting for you to choose the findings of your favoured scholar, or a finding of yet another scholar. Pick your scholar!
You see, I'm waiting for you to reject the findings of the other 'peer reviewed scholars'.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Oh.... I have no time left for any kind of snobbery, but here my contempt is for 'expert' flag waving.
Debater A waves Fred's flag to gain ground in a debate, while Debater B waves Sid's, and Debater C waves Ned's.
Fred, Sid and Ned are all peer reviewed scholars.............but only one can be right, the other two are as wrong as the Lay... let's say ( I can't do it) !!!

Maybe three diverging views, held by experts* in their chosen field, can't all be right, but they can all have something of valuable to contribute to a debate. And if Debaters A, B, and C are widely read, I'm more likely to take their own opinions seriously. Sorry if that reads like intellectual snobbery.

* "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made, in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize winning physicist).