Shooting the Messenger: In Defense of Academia

[lewisnotmiller]

I think a lot of it is dependent upon the subject matter in question. I honestly don't believe there's that much dispute over "facts." Most political arguments I see are about conflicting values, not facts.

Apart from that, most people will believe that which can be shown to them. As Reagan used to say about Americans: "We're all from Missouri, the 'Show Me State'. You have to show us, not tell us."

That can be a challenge with some more complex topics, though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Nothing to contend here.
If one can't argue all sides of a debate, maybe you're not informed enough to have a valid opinion on it.

I used to get my Grade 4s to have old school debates when I was a teacher. Getting them to argue cases they don't believe in...or don't initially believe in...is very informative and educational I think.

 

[Regiomontanus]

The poor persecuted intellectual elites ... persecuted by philistines and commoners. That's basically the portrait you paint but I don't think it's accurate. What I think is they are arrogant enough to see themselves this way and you're helping them further their delusions. The reality is they are pushing extremist views on gullible young adults whose brains aren't even fully developed yet.

The fact is it's not really one thing or another that we can point to but an overall tendency to push extreme "progressive" ideology. One recent study finds that the communist manifesto is the most assigned economist in U.S. colleges.

Karl Marx is the most assigned economist in U.S. college classes

Do you think that the only works studied in college and university are those that are being advocated by the faculty as guides for living? Or might things be important for historical and cultural reasons too? And you can ask any economist and they will tell you that Marx made valuable contributions and insights into economics, regardless if one choses to embrace his overall system.

 

[SomeRandom]

I used to get my Grade 4s to have old school debates when I was a teacher. Getting them to argue cases they don't believe in...or don't initially believe in...is very informative and educational I think.

Lol my cousin does that to me now. Every time I talk to him, he always tries to get me to argue a position (any position) by asking me a deliberately undermining question to my stance. He’s a high school teacher.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Lol my cousin does that to me now. Every time I talk to him, he always tries to get me to argue a position (any position) by asking me a deliberately undermining question to my stance. He’s a high school teacher.

Damn teachers!! Lol

 

[SomeRandom]

Damn teachers!! Lol

I know, right?!

 

[Stevicus]

That can be a challenge with some more complex topics, though.

True, it would largely depend on the subject matter. But as an example, most people may not really know all the processes and working parts of a modern automobile, nor would they likely understand all the science and technology that goes into it. Nor would they likely care. All they would know or care about is whether or not it worked.

If it doesn't work, some people might get frustrated and say "This car is a piece of crap!" Someone who is more scientifically-minded might correct them by going into a long technical explanation that the car is not, in fact, dung, but a complex piece of machinery full of many moving parts, any one of which might fail. If the frustrated would-be motorist is still angry and says "No, this is a piece of crap," I wouldn't necessarily believe it to be a rejection of science. The person is merely frustrated over something that doesn't work as it should.

That may sum up how the general public might relate to science. If it works and proves useful for society's interests, then it's great. Science is wonderful. Miracles from Molecules! But if it doesn't work or doesn't seem useful, then people might get confused or not see any point to it.

People like science when it comes to building bombs and weapons, even people who might seem anti-science when it comes to other things.

 

[Valjean]

Lol my cousin does that to me now. Every time I talk to him, he always tries to get me to argue a position (any position) by asking me a deliberately undermining question to my stance. He’s a high school teacher.

Excellent!
Among intellectuals, the respectful response to a proposition is immediately to attack it. Not attacking shows disrespect and dismissiveness.
Intellectuals value veracity. Attacking an idea - testing it -- assists one's interlocutor in collecting and analyzing his data, and introduces other, perhaps contrary data, for consideration. Attack assists him to achieve this highest goal.

 

[SomeRandom]

Excellent!
Among intellectuals, the respectful response to a proposition is immediately to attack it. Not attacking shows disrespect and dismissiveness.
Intellectuals value veracity. Attacking an idea - testing it -- assists one's interlocutor in collecting and analyzing his data, and introduces other, perhaps contrary data, for consideration. Attack assists him to achieve this highest goal.

But does he have to do that at the family BBQ when we’re all sloshed? Lol

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But does he have to do that at the family BBQ when we’re all sloshed? Lol

Hahaha!!!

 

[Kooky]

By this logic, Shakespeare is a plot.

Fun fact: Shakespeare had been almost completely forgotten until his works saw a massive popularity surge in the 19th century. So arguably, his central importance for the English language is a claim that was originally pushed by a particularly dedicated cabal of English Lit professors. Clearly, academia is plots all the way down.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In recent years, there seems to have been an increasingly dogmatic, virulent attack on academia under the pretense of "keeping politics out of academia." This pretense, of course, isn't based on a solid, objective criterion for what qualifies as "politics": from the theory of evolution and psychological analysis of gender dysphoria to climate science and renewable energy, demagogues and ideologues have found various ways to attempt to undermine the credibility of scientific and academic fields they deem undesirable for one reason or another.

Essentially, any scholarly research and scientific facts deemed inconvenient by demagogues and pseudo-intellectuals could easily be dismissed--and face opposition from followers of said demagogues and pseudo-intellectuals--under the guise of promoting freethought and accuracy, or under the banner of any number of bombastic but hollow claims. And because much of the public is misinformed or uninformed about exactly how academia works, it is relatively easy to propagate hyperbole and inaccuracies about how it functions compared to fields that are more familiar to most laypeople.

It seems to me that these attacks on academic research and researchers largely amount to shooting the messenger. When someone claims that a course on evolution has a "liberal bias," for example, the underlying idea is usually that to eliminate this "bias," the course must not teach evolution as a scientific fact--thereby ignoring long-established facts and findings of biology. It is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario for academics, then: either forgo intellectual and scientific integrity or keep facing accusations of "bias," "politicizing academia," "campus politics," etc.

So, essentially, it is not scholars that the demagogues and their followers have a problem with but rather the findings thereof and the facts revealed and studied by scholars. The scholars are merely the messengers of facts and knowledge that are inconvenient and politically problematic for certain people, and what better way to propose an alternative version of facts than to attempt to poison the well and undermine the credibility of those who spend their whole lives studying and expanding their and others' knowledge of facts?

"Shoot the messenger to undermine the inconvenient message--whether or not it is accurate and honest." That seems to be the motto of some public figures and their followers nowadays, and academia is one of the primary targets of this simple yet pernicious motto.

If only academia can put things in layman's terms. Heh.

Academic Language vs. Colloquial Language - Writing Commons

 

[Revoltingest]

If only academia can put things in layman's terms. Heh.

Academic Language vs. Colloquial Language - Writing Commons

A problem with academic & legal writing is needless complexity.
Why Is Academic Writing So Needlessly Complex?
When I write contracts, I strive for clarity & unambiguity above
all. This means avoiding complexity. One useful technique is
to use outline format instead of a sentence containing a list.
It takes up more room, but it's far more readable.

 

[Jacob25]

In recent years, there seems to have been an increasingly dogmatic, virulent attack on academia under the pretense of "keeping politics out of academia." This pretense, of course, isn't based on a solid, objective criterion for what qualifies as "politics": from the theory of evolution and psychological analysis of gender dysphoria to climate science and renewable energy, demagogues and ideologues have found various ways to attempt to undermine the credibility of scientific and academic fields they deem undesirable for one reason or another.

Essentially, any scholarly research and scientific facts deemed inconvenient by demagogues and pseudo-intellectuals could easily be dismissed--and face opposition from followers of said demagogues and pseudo-intellectuals--under the guise of promoting freethought and accuracy, or under the banner of any number of bombastic but hollow claims. And because much of the public is misinformed or uninformed about exactly how academia works, it is relatively easy to propagate hyperbole and inaccuracies about how it functions compared to fields that are more familiar to most laypeople.

It seems to me that these attacks on academic research and researchers largely amount to shooting the messenger. When someone claims that a course on evolution has a "liberal bias," for example, the underlying idea is usually that to eliminate this "bias," the course must not teach evolution as a scientific fact--thereby ignoring long-established facts and findings of biology. It is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario for academics, then: either forgo intellectual and scientific integrity or keep facing accusations of "bias," "politicizing academia," "campus politics," etc.

So, essentially, it is not scholars that the demagogues and their followers have a problem with but rather the findings thereof and the facts revealed and studied by scholars. The scholars are merely the messengers of facts and knowledge that are inconvenient and politically problematic for certain people, and what better way to propose an alternative version of facts than to attempt to poison the well and undermine the credibility of those who spend their whole lives studying and expanding their and others' knowledge of facts?

"Shoot the messenger to undermine the inconvenient message--whether or not it is accurate and honest." That seems to be the motto of some public figures and their followers nowadays, and academia is one of the primary targets of this simple yet pernicious motto.

It is an error to assume Science in itself has any sort of message. Science only gathers data, places and tests hypothesis, attempts to predict material activity, and rearranges existing matter. It neither creates reality nor gives significance.

An assumed World View is required to assign any message from Science.

Thanks for sharing how things seem to be.

 

[Stevicus]

A problem with academic & legal writing is needless complexity.
Why Is Academic Writing So Needlessly Complex?
When I write contracts, I strive for clarity & unambiguity above
all. This means avoiding complexity. One useful technique is
to use outline format instead of a sentence containing a list.
It takes up more room, but it's far more readable.

Reminds me of this exchange from the movie The Verdict:


Ed Concannon : Why wasn't she getting oxygen?

Dr. Towler : Well, many reasons, really...

Ed Concannon : Tell me one.

Dr. Towler : She'd aspirated vomitus into her mask.

Ed Concannon : She threw up in her mask. Now cut the bull****, please. Just say it: She threw up in her mask.

In this case, highfalutin language is dismissed as "BS," which would imply it's used to deceive or confuse people. That's why they always tell people to have a lawyer read over any contract before signing, since someone may be trying to pull a fast one. That's why many prefer straight talk over legalese or jargon.

 

[Kooky]

It is an error to assume Science in itself has any sort of message. Science only gathers data, places and tests hypothesis, attempts to predict material activity, and rearranges existing matter. It neither creates reality nor gives significance.

An assumed World View is required to assign any message from Science.

Thanks for sharing how things seem to be.

Science does not happen all by itself, however - it is generally conducted by, and for, human beings, who come pre-built with bias, prejudices, and frequently conflicting worldviews that cannot simply be turned "off", even if it may be inconvenient or an outright hindrance at times.

The notion of a science devoid of these human foibles appears to me like it would be borne largely out of wishful thinking.

 

[SomeRandom]

If only academia can put things in layman's terms. Heh.

Academic Language vs. Colloquial Language - Writing Commons

Colloquial is how language evolves and stays alive. But Academic is important to show off that one is erudite. Or at least pretend that one is erudite. Especially important for impressing gullible bosses

 

[Kooky]

Colloquial is how language evolves and stays alive. But Academic is important to show off that one is erudite. Or at least pretend that one is erudite. Especially important for impressing gullible bosses

It also uses technical terms to avoid muddling highly specialized academic discussions and papers with the ambiguity of everyday language. Most academic texts are being written for an audience of academics, who presumably already understand these highly specific technical terms and don't neeed to have it explained to them what an "albedo" is and how it is relevant to their chosen field of research. I'm sure you could find common language words for such terms, but would that actually improve understanding among the people most likely to be confronted with them?

 

[Jacob25]

Science does not happen all by itself, however - it is generally conducted by, and for, human beings, who come pre-built with bias, prejudices, and frequently conflicting worldviews that cannot simply be turned "off", even if it may be inconvenient or an outright hindrance at times.

The notion of a science devoid of these human foibles appears to me like it would be borne largely out of wishful thinking.

Wrong notion reaction.

Science is controlled by he who controls the wisdom of the Fallen Ones described in the Book of Enoch. You know, the Book of Enoch extensively quoted by Jude. Maybe not quite apparent for some still in costume.

 

[SomeRandom]

It also uses technical terms to avoid muddling highly specialized academic discussions and papers with the ambiguity of everyday language. Most academic texts are being written for an audience of academics, who presumably already understand these highly specific technical terms and don't neeed to have it explained to them what an "albedo" is and how it is relevant to their chosen field of research. I'm sure you could find common language words for such terms, but would that actually improve understanding among the people most likely to be confronted with them?

Yeah I know. I was merely being flippant.
I grew up around teachers. One thing I quickly learnt is they do not accept you speaking “lazily.” You use the language “properly.” Its a right pain in the *** talking to them lol