tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post3056774393659316630..comments2023-10-30T12:26:15.822+01:00Comments on Research as a Second Language: Academic VirtuesThomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-54724655160338734092014-09-03T08:19:48.274+02:002014-09-03T08:19:48.274+02:00I would actually like to argue that academia is on...I would actually like to argue that academia is one place where Russell's "the essential business of language is to assert and deny facts" (i.e., to express beliefs) has some validity. It's certainly the essential business of scholarly writing. Maybe I want to say that academic ("scientific") beliefs are the sorts of things that can be made explicit by means, not of a giant questionaire, but a giant literature. The grammar of that literature is what people like Bolzano and Frege were trying to understanding. Wittgenstein is (to my mind) the Einstein of that project. Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-49609771824324669332014-09-03T01:40:41.065+02:002014-09-03T01:40:41.065+02:00This is a great story, which I've already had ...This is a great story, which I've already had to the urge to retell several times. And I am all with you on staying within the confines of the ivory tower. <br /><br />And I'm also with you on the point that pragmatism should only by embraced within the confines of Pound's warning of its cheapening effects on ideas. And your juxtaposition of the Wittgenstein and Pound quote in the post that you link to is just brilliant. After all, OC does not, despite rumors to the contrary (sometimes I even spread such rumours!), embrace (vulgar) pragmatism, cf. OC§94. The Pound quote, I think, is a quite clear explication of what Wittgenstein felt "thwarted" or alarmed by in pragmatism.<br /><br />But there is also something right in pressing you on the issue of pragmatism and knowledge, as Brad does. In specific, I am thinking of what I worried about in your concept of knowledge in my comments to your previous post. <br /><br />Sometimes your model of academic writing can make it seem like beliefs were the sort of thing that could be made explicit by means of giant questionnaire, which would have questions like "Do you believe that Caesar passed the Rubicon?" and "Do you believe that there are tigers in South America?”. Answer the questionaire and put them into writing by justifying them. But beliefs, I would like to say, are not like that. Not even in the ivory tower. Or perhaps more to the point: Pragmatism has taught us that that picture of belief has a very limited applicability.<br /><br />But I don’t know. Perhaps academic writing is one those contexts, where it might have applicability. Perhaps I am just being thwarted by a Weltanschauung or perhaps even worse by the unprofessional Weltschmerz of late night writing.Presskornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03480116067878605339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-37917325794765250472014-08-27T10:24:46.872+02:002014-08-27T10:24:46.872+02:00Thanks for the comment, Brad. You might find this ...Thanks for the comment, Brad. You might find <a href="http://secondlanguage.blogspot.dk/2009/02/knowledge.html" rel="nofollow">this post from a few years ago</a> interesting.<br /><br />I'm basically a pragmatist, I think, which is to say I don't believe in an "ultimate truth". I also don't believe there is anything such thing as <i>perfectly</i> coping with the environment.<br /><br />To use your formula, I would, then, I'd say that universities (where academics work) are <i>more</i> about discovering ultimate truths and <i>less</i> about coping with the immediate environment.<br /><br />Basically, academic, "universal" knowledge (i.e., the kind of knowledge that belongs in universe), removes itself from immediate contingencies and seeks more ultimate verities.<br /><br />There's a difference between learning from an experienced entrepreneur how YOU can go out and start a business NOW, and what the general conditions (historical, political, economic) for successful entrepreneurial activity are. The "academic" who knows that more IT startups succeed in California than in Nebraska does not thereby know how to be a successful app developer. But she may well know something that politicians in Nebraska could use to attract entrepreneurs, or something that entrepreneurs could use in locating their businesses. So, whether you're thinking of going into business or politics, and especially if you're undecided, this scholar will be "useful" to you because you're learning something that is more theoretical, less practical, more ultimate, less immediate.<br /><br />Academic journals vet ideas that need to be more than merely inspiring for someone who's thinking about quitting his job and breaking out on his own. I like to put it this way: they're basically a way of facilitating communication among teachers about what it's a good idea to tell students ... whose "practical" interests are not fully formed yet, and the formation of which it is the purpose of an education to support.<br /><br />For this reason, I see your "new dimension" more as a threat than an opportunity. What it does is to impose the contingencies of the immediate environment on research agendas and curricula. We need a place that operates on a different time scale, and at a higher level.<br /><br />I have some experience with Wikipedia. Don't get me started! ;-) I don't think pitching yoru knowledge claims so as to get past whatever Wikipedians happen to be working in your area of expertise is an effective way developing knowledge. Not in my experience.<br /><br />For me, in any case, it's a question of degree, and a division of labor. Let practically minded business people spend their careers coping with the (relatively) immediate environment and let theoretically minded academics seek those (more) ultimate truths. And then let their be some commerce between them. The classroom is a great place for that. As is the pretty common practice of hiring experienced business people back into academia, sometimes having them go back and earn a PhD.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-83198663948168523952014-08-26T19:21:35.639+02:002014-08-26T19:21:35.639+02:00Thank you, Thomas, for courageously standing up fo...Thank you, Thomas, for courageously standing up for what you believed in at the AoM venue.<br /> <br />I noticed in your post that, while we hope for critical engagement, ‘we’ offer up our current belief about truth. I am wondering if it is not time for significant change in our prevailing epistemological assumptions to accompany the changes in our social environment. I offer for consideration, reflection on the tenets of Pragmatism which is less about discovering the ultimate truth and more about coping better with our environment (I hold an expanded view of this original objective).<br /> <br />I find Pragmatism particularly relevant to my field of research (entrepreneurship) where there is some debate about the ontology of opportunities: objective existence vs. creation (I believe both can be appropriate). The point is, we could become paralyzed in searching for truth, when the rest of the world moves on creating a state where such a truth may ultimately prove irrelevant.<br /> <br />Any humble academic must embrace the fallibility of her/his knowledge, perhaps even some of their beliefs, as new knowledge is discovered / created that is worthy of our trust, and as a premise for action, for the time. The social world seems to be evolving by adding a new dimension: the capabilities of ‘the crowd’ (a.k.a. society) contribute to assessing the value of information / knowledge and contributing to its development (consider Wikipedia, other ‘open source’ forms of knowledge development, and crowdfunding for financing new ventures, testing acceptability of new products and initiatives). For me, the issue is whether or not putting our knowledge ‘out there’ can improve it. I grant you, we may not consider this ‘peer review’, but do you think this notion has some validity? What are the pros and cons? Is there a possible net benefit? How does protecting it in journals not read by non-academics benefit society (which is indirectly footing the bill)?Brad MacMasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01580334881406772958noreply@blogger.com