BS: Is Academic authority a lie?

Subject: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 07:45 AM

Without discussing Mr G W Bush's MA are we to ready to accept any crackpot theory offered by a Ph D?

Have Academic standards fallen to such new depths that the only requirement is good gramar and spelling but no care for truth and reason? Are postgrads now unemployable becuase they don't know what there are taking about?

If so what are we the rest of society with our humble Technnical and Educational College, older University degrees etc to do?

Should we establish Global plan to weed out the gramar nazis and vett in those who do know their stuff.

Finaly are people who collect letters after their names, sick in the head?; is it a case of the more letters the more stupid the person, or is it childish insecurity in an otherwise normal intelligent person?
- and if so is it now time for the Global 'basic intelligence test', perhaps the 'basic topics tests' on everything from bagpipes to windmills?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: TIA
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 08:28 AM

Actually, the higher the level of education, the less likely to support GW and his agenda. I've seen this first hand, and I believe it's supported by polls (I'll try to find a link).

Nevertheless, somehow the neocons do manage to find the (often) single butthead PhD that agrees with their upisdown theory du jour (e.g. there is no global warming, oil drilling helps caribou to breed, not requiring pollution control improves air quality, arsenic isn't really toxic, cutting forests saves them from burning, tax cuts for the rich create budget surpluses, tax cuts for the rich create jobs...) and trot him out as the expert - even if the other 99% of experts in the field roll their eyes. I've already posted this link in another thread, but it's a must-read.

the "War on Expertise"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 08:34 AM

Simple answer, sorefingers, is yes! Complicated answer is sometimes...

Look to when you were back at Primary school and all the crap they used to tell you was the truth then. We belived them because they were adults and figures in authority. Then we grew up into angry young people and began to doubt the validity of anything that anyone had ever told us. Then we get to mid life and we began to doubt what we once knew ourselves! Heaven only knows what I have in store when I am older still...;-)

In a fit of philosophy I once followed this train of thought. I still don't know where it is leading;-)

When I was young I was told that rain was angels crying. I knew the truth but wondered why the angels wept.

Then as I grew older I saw rain for what it was. I knew the truth for there were no angels.

Now I am grown I see tears in the rain once more. I know the truth. Because I know why the angels cry...

*Shiver* Blimey! Don't know what came over me then. Perhaps it is the memories of the day?

Cheers

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 08:39 AM

Let's see, in answer to the questions raised above:

PhD, MA, BA, BSc, City & Guilds HNC & HND - quite a marked "degree" in attainment level covered by the above, irrespective of where, or when, obtained. The one thing that is common to all is the ability of any particular student to clearly and accurately demonstrate to the examiner his/her knowledge of the chosen subject by putting their thoughts down on paper in the form of answers to examination questions and through work undertaken throughout the course of their studies. In general, therefore, the ability to write and to express oneself, clearly, correctly and accurately is extremely important.

Not all postgrads are unemployed, or unemployable.

Those with existing qualifications from years past - carry on as normal.

No.

Finally, in general; No; No & No.

Your basic intelligence test I would imagine relate to what is called "Common Sense" - That has nothing to do with formal education, individual quotient of it is derived from a whole rake of circumstances and conditions, one of which is from experiencing life and learning the lessons that life teaches us.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 09:02 AM

My undergraduate college has stopped offering degrees in Mathematics, Psychology, Theater, and Philosophy because there were too few students taking these major subjects to continue the departments. For instance, there was ONE math degree in five years. Nor is it required to take classes in logic or to pass a competency test in a language other than English, as was once the case. ("But how," I asked my old prof, "do the computer science majors test their programs if they don't know logic?" "I asked that, too," he replied.)

It seems as if no one wants to think or to do academic work anymore. The high schools, in many cases, ill prepare their graduates for college. Parents don't support their kids by requiring decent grades OR decent schools; instead they blame everyone save themselves and their children. And when their kids fail in college, because for all the problems there are still SOME standards, the parent sue the college (I've seen it, and I can tell some stories you won't believe).

I once had a job application from a high-school-age male who spelled his first name three different ways on the application. I didn't hire him.

It's not the authority. But standards seem to have fallen.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 09:15 AM

The modern folksong movement has definitely devalued the academic work of many of the deceased folklorists who did their great collecting and compiling work during the last century. This is a travesty.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 09:24 AM

Lots of you remember Severus Snape? I had a prof much like him, including telling us that we were all ignorant.

He wasn't the most personable teacher, but we did learn from him. Oh, boy, did we learn! He knew the subject dead cold and expected the same from us. When the semester finished, we too knew the subject.

Today he'd be out, since he didn't grade "on the curve." He contended -- correctly -- that the population represented in his class was too small to fit in the curve of random distribution and so: 92 to 100 was an A, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 09:30 AM

are we to ready to accept any crackpot theory offered by a Ph D?

Surely not. There are already too many crackpot theories in too many fields and many of them thought up by PhDs.

However, if research and study and cautious scrutiny should be replaced by anecdotes like I OTOH from my grandfathers generation having FIRST hand accounts which I have absolutely no doubt about we go a dangerous way of knowledge acquisition.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Peter T.
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 09:47 AM

The authority of a single academic is zero; the authority of a theory or experiment tested by the research community of which the academy is a part is stronger, but still fallible. There is still a presumption in the academy that you need to argue and present some evidence for your point of view. This remains a good thing, and not exactly widespread.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 10:01 AM

Sweeping generalizations are heard in our land. Clear thinking and an intelligent acquisition and analysis of good data are to be respected, whether high or low. Sorefingers: i tmay seem clearer after breakfast, I hope.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: greg stephens
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 10:12 AM

Well, we would all be wise to be very sceptical of people with Ph.D's. However, if all the science books say the earth is round,and seem to have quite well thought arguments for saying so: but,on the other side, you vaguely remember when you were a kid your grandfather saying that a friend of his had once said the earth is flat. In that case, while I might take a moment or two to review the evidence, I think I'd put money on the book version, for the time being anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Peg
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 10:20 AM

I have some very smart people with PhDs. And some very smart people who didn't finish high school. Best not to generalize too much.

I have to agree college students today are working at a much lower academic standard in general. But it is oftentimes the colleges who are sabotaging thier potential in this regard. Example: I just started teaching a course in the history of media. The college decided recently to downgrade this course from counting for two courses to counting for one. Which means: I, as the instructor, get half as much money to teach it, though I still have the same number of students. The adminstration decided to m ake things more fair that the course's one writing requeirement, a research essay, would be eliminated, since the professors should not be expected to grade all these papers for half the pay. In two years, these students will arrive in my higher-level criticism and theory course without having learned how to write an essay and do research properly. Everyone loses. I think the college saves just under twenty thousand dollars a year by doing this; though I am told the reason for doing it is not so much monetary as it is to create equity with other departments whose teachers had similar class sizes.

I try to grade tough and maintain high standards. I can't stand it when students think they can coast through doing the bare minimum.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 11:06 AM

We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Hey! Teacher! Leave those kids alone....

Celebrate ignorance, the guiding light of the 21st century.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 02:30 PM

There are fools in overalls and fools in thousand dollar suits.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 03:58 PM

Some will rob you wiht a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen, and some with a carefully cultured attitude of apathetic and abysmal ignorance...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 04:41 PM

And how many years did it take them to finally realize that even though they could mathematically prove a bee couldn't fly the damn things were still buzzing around? I know they finally explained it but I wish they would stop telling us things are possible/impossible when the truth is in their faces.

Theory is fine for the untouchable but it is just that theory. Until it can be proven it should be handled gently, not accepted as DOGMA!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 05:40 PM

Reading some of these responses is very rewarding since I had no idea other folks noticed the same things as I do. Very beautiful the little Poem 'Rain'. It should be a song :0). *Dave the Gnome*...

I notice everyone seems to think that intelligence is separate from education, I wonder? Second the pretentious use of the word Doctor in the title used by holders(boasters?) of the Ph D, no comment?

For fun have you ever witnessed the laughter when a crowd is asked 'is there a Doctor here' when somebody offers 'Me, but mine is Educational'

Finaly when a person claims to be a Doctor of Philosophy should they be required to solve just one mathematical problem so that we may have something useful to praise, and not a hollow empty void of English critic's parroting - even the BBC would be bored with it! - that is offered in an endless, breathless, avalanche of twaddle that informs us of nothing and confuses about we already know?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 06:20 PM

Sorefingers:

Your rhetoric is just as overweening as theirs, in a different key. Human pretentiousness is boring regardless of whether it is coming from Oxford or Cheapside. Requiring a Doctor of Philosphy to solve a maths puzzle? Oh, and the medicos should be required to compose a simple harmony before prescribing? And the veterinarians analyze an obscure Middle English quatrain?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 06:35 PM

I spent most of my career working in hospitals, where "Doctor" means something very specific, there is sometimes a bit of hesitation when using that title to refer to a PhD clinical psychologist, and a pharmacist with a PharmD is usually referred to as Ms./Mr. I recall the reaction...giggles and unbelief...when one of our social workers came in to get a new identification badge with Dr. in front of her name. As justification, she provided a diploma for a Doctorate in Theology from a mail-order Bible College.

Many Doctors...MDs and PhDs alike...easily qualify as idiots savant. That is, they know a lot about a very specific and tightly defined field, and significantly less than the proverbial "man on the street" about anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 06:42 PM

Sadly, I think my sparring partner Sorefingers is directing this mostly at me. On the Uilleann pipes thread, he contradicted me several times and then claimed that "my credentials lay in shreds" or something of the sort. I then mentioned that my credentials were not in question, as they included a PhD and a lot of published writings on the subject. He continued to contradict me, claiming firsthand accounts of his grandparents which contradicted the evidence I was presenting, although manty of my comments were about events before the thirteenth century. Even those comments about nineteenth century events would be hard to support with truly firsthand evidence; it would require his grandparent to be in the room when the first Irish bellows-blown pipe was adapted from a larger pipe, and to know definitively that this adaptation had never occurred before. I repeatedly asked him for whatever evidence he had, and he refused to give it. I therefore suspect it is not as "firsthand" as he claims.

Sorefingers then criticized my spelling, and I demonstrated that his spelling errors were more frequent than mine. An ally of his called "Guest, Hoss" then criticized my grammar, which I showed to have been correct in the first place.

So now, unable to impugn my grammar and spelling despite having tried, and having been all but laughed off that thread, Sorefingers weighs in with "Have Academic standards fallen to such new depths that the only requirement is good gramar and spelling but no care for truth and reason?"

Really, Sorefingers. You seem an intelligent chap, and this is surely beneath you.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 06:54 PM

That story about the bumblebee turns out to be an urban myth, which is rather disappointing. Ah well. Nobody likes to be told that their cherished beliefs are wrong, but the answer to that is not to make personal attacks on the messenger, but to disprove, if they can, the message. Unfortunately, that is often too much like hard work; and an anti-intellectual rant will always attract some support, though it won't change the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: TIA
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 07:27 PM

Chief Chaos - careful of that word "theory". In science, at least, it has a specific meaning that does not match the colloquial. It means a robust and rigorous explanation of why something is the way it is. Evolution is often challenged as "just a theory". Wrong. There is a theory of evolution that explains the workings of the overwhelmingly proven *fact* of evolution. A better example - the theory of gravity is very poor to non-existant, but there is certainly no arguing the *fact* of gravity (oops, just dropped my pencil).

Likewise in science at least there ain't no dogma. Everything, everything, everything is open to questioning and testing. Someone (Popper?) said "all theories are born scorned, live briefly, and die refuted". Best route to fame in science is to disprove a previously dearly believed proposition. Far from defending dogma, scientists are often set upon overturning the apple cart.

Can't speak for the humanities.

Teribus - I am delighted that I agree wholeheartedly with every word of your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 07:29 PM

I think the way to understand those lines from The Wall Greg F quoted is with a couple of extra hyphens:

We don't need no-education
We don't need no-thought control.
No dark sarcasm in the classroom!
Hey! Teacher! Leave those kids alone....

The song is not attacking education - it's attacking the way in which the school system often betrays its principles, and stifles rather than liberates. Gradgrindery.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 08:20 PM

GUEST Sorefingers seems to be defensive about his(?) language skills, since (s)he seems driven to make light of grammar and spelling. And indeed, from reading his missive,(s)he seems abundantly justified in feeling defensive.

Personally, if a putative "authority" (PhD or not) doesn't have the intellectual ability to develop an respectable command of his/her native language, I certainly feel it reasonable to question his/her competence in other areas further removed from ordinary life.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 08:48 PM

For sixteen years I lived in a ghetto. Not your average ghetto, but one inhabited by members of the faculty and staff of the University of Notre Dame. The ratio of PhDs to other folks was about 1.6 per household.

Most of them were nice, normal sorts of folks. They cut themselves, they bled. There were others, though...who seemed to feel that a PhD who wrote a dissertation on the use of the thorn in "Piers Plowman" made them an authority of everything, and the more remote from "Pier Plowman" the subject was the more of an authority they were.

I particularily liked the guy who drove an Acura with an oblong "GD" in the back window. My wife and I puzzled over it for about a year -- Grosse Deutschland? Greenland? -- and then she met him one day and asked him.

GD. Grateful Dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 08:55 PM

Mr Dave0 = megatroll

Heres hoping the muddies read this. Is this a great website or what?

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 09:52 PM

Rapaire

:0)

You have to be a musician not a bored academic!

I did not ask you for your opinion but you offered it here so here is mine.

Mr Nerd - go back to the other 'room'

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 12:23 AM

Yes, DaveO

In fact, his sentence:

"Have Academic standards fallen to such new depths that the only requirement is good gramar and spelling but no care for truth and reason?"

is remarkable for having poor grammar (agreement of number in "only requirement is good gramar and spelling") and spelling ("gramar") in a sentence about grammar and spelling. Maybe it's an avant-garde poem...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 01:52 AM

Sorefingers,

sorry to crash your prof-bashing session, and to rib you about your grammar and spelling to boot! But you're a big person and I know you can take it. I do have a few serious comments, however:

Few PhDs (at least in the US) insist on, or even like, being called "Dr." Since we are not medical doctors, it causes unnecessary confusion. Most of us prefer our students to call us "professor" or "Mr./Ms." or in many cases these days, just by our first names. And people outside our classes? Rarely "doctor." Still, the name "doctor" originally signified an academic degree, not a medical one. So we are technically as entitled to it as anyone. Lawyers in the US also technically have doctorates (JDs), but they never call themselves "doctor."

Among communities where advanced degrees are unusual, or in situations where prestige is important, many people with non-medical degrees will affect the title "Dr." Martin Luther King springs to mind...would you giggle at him as easily as at the "me, but mine is educational" guy? Also, within universities, when a person has an administrative rather than academic role, it is common to use "doctor." This is because "professor" is not accurate for these people, but the doctorate does carry connotations of achievement and rank within the university.

In some cases, people who receive honorary doctorates (which universities give out essentially for PR reasons, to honor VIPs) will even call themselves "Dr." including at times the bluegrass luminary Ralph Stanley.

Intelligence is surely separate from education. There is no doubt that there are some not-so-smart PhDs, and some very smart high school dropouts. But this does not mean that PhDs are identical as a group to everyone else. For one thing, getting a PhD, especially in the humanities, does require highly-developed skills of research and writing. If we take a humanities PhD, and (s)he knows nothing about, say, early Greek farming techniques, with access to a library (s)he can find out the current state of knowledge much faster and more accurately than the average person on the street. So when talking about arcane historical subjects, of which nobody is alive to really have firsthand knowledge, I would tend to trust the PhD. Not that we don't sometimes misremember or misconstrue, but we do have intense training in how to find stuff out, and how to separate good, well-supported research from outlandish claims with little evidence behind them.

Also, I believe [disclaimer--I have not actually done the research!] that George W. Bush has an MBA, not an MA. This is a Business Administration degree, generally considered a professional and not an academic degree. Business schools sometimes do offer PhDs as well. Newt Gingrich, however, has an honest-to-goodness PhD in History.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:08 AM

The bumble bee story is of course a myth, the way it usually is told and has been told here by chief chaos. But it is very instructive for it can show how science actually works.

Scientists never try to prove by way of a theory that something is possible (or not) of which they, like anybody else including bees themselves, know already it is possible. They try to model mathematically how it could be possible. If the model turns out not to be able to 'predict' an already known fact they blame the model, not the reality.

However, if the model can predict/describe what we know is true, it still could be wrong but it is a better basis to start off from. A highlight for each scientist is if she makes a theory that predicts something noone has observed yet and that prediction turns out to be true.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: mooman
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:55 AM

I believe Bushie actually has an M.BS!

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:59 AM

Its gramar to me, to you itz a means to grammar people to death.
-Nerd you are not welcome here, so buggar off, and take yer legalese friend with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 08:10 AM

Some of the gramarnazi's spew -
Nerd
"There is no evidence at all that the bagpipe that they have in Galicia is anywhere near as old as the early Gaelic migrations from
Spain to Ireland. Now THAT is nonsense"

Sure it is, might be good ... lol grammar, but its bullshit.

'There is no evidence =at all= '

Too funny - you were trying to say something like
There's no evidence the Galician BP is as old as Celtic invasion of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 09:03 AM

Sorefinger, rather than mocking Nerd, why not cite the proof of your assertions about bagpipes?

Nerd, you do likewise.

There is enough education, both formal and informal, on Mudcat that the members could easily make an informed decision. Moreover, you could both be correct, you know. As Charlie Hanson (Dr. Charles E. Hanson, Jr.) once said, "History doesn't happen like that. [Things] don't just appear and you can say, 'On this date this started to be used.'"

And Nerd -- while a PhD is taught to do research, upon whom do you think that they rely to organize the materials they research, or, for that matter, taught them the basics of library research in the first place? As you point out, a library (and by inference, a librarian) is essential.

Also, please do not fall into the trap (as I once did) of assuming that the Humanities are somehow superior to the Sciences. The research methods are different, but as least as rigorous.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 03:10 PM

Sorefingers,

Do you have some objection to the expression "at all?" If so, I've heard nothing =at all= about it until now!

Also, can you not see that your allegedly corrected version of my statement lacks an article? ("as old as Celtic invasion of Ireland") Why continue to embarrass yourself in this manner?


Rapaire,

I appreciate what you've said. I believe I have made my assertions clear on the other thread. I think proof is perhaps too strong a word, because the evidence is rather thin. But I will present some evidence.

In brief, Sorefingers expressed that

1) bagpipes came to Ireland with the original influx of Goidelic-speaking Celts from Galicia in Spain. He refers to this event as "Celtic invasion of Ireland," although there were many Celtic migrations to Ireland both before and after that one. He cited the existence of bagpipes in Galicia as evidence of this.

and

2) that it was Irish people, not Frenchmen or Scots, who originally attached a bellows to a set of pipes to create the ancestor of the uilleann pipes, changing the bore of the chanter and other characteristics, and that this adaptation was a response to harsh penal laws outlawing the playing of bagpipes, which necessitated a quieter bagpipe.

I countered that

1) there is no evidence of any bagpipes in Spain or Ireland as early as those Celtic migrations, or indeed for almost a millennium after them. (you can look in any good history of wind instruments for this information) What we now know as Galicia is populated by the descendants of a completely different group of Celts from the one who came to Ireland so long ago, so the existence of bagpipes among those people is irrelevant. (See, for example, the writings of Barry Cunliffe such as The Celtic World or The people of the Sea). The Galician bagpipe bears such close resemblance to other bagpipes descended from the one-droned medieval bagpipe (such as the Highland Pipes and the Flemish pipes) that it is obviously related to those pipes and developed from the same direct ancestors. (good evidence for this was presented by other contributors to that thread). Although some assert without much evidence that those pipes were spread by the Romans, most now believe that they became widespread after the first Crusade (the evidence for the Roman argument consists of one bronze statuette of a roman soldier with a bagpipe, along with such curiosities as a coin with an image of Nero piping; there is no extant set of Roman bagpipes from any of the regions we are discussing, nor any descriptions of the people there playing bagpipes for another millennium). All this makes Sorefingers' first position unlikely. Also, on this there is no possible firsthand account since this migration happened many centuries ago.

2)Although it is not impossible that Irish people developed the first bellows-blown bagpipes, (or at least developed them independently from previous makers) there is no evidence for it. The supposed influence of the anti-piping laws does not explain why there should be similar quiet, bellows-blown bagpipes in 17th century France, which predated those laws' enactment in Ireland. The Irish and French bellows pipes would have to be completely unrelated, but both contain the remarkable features of quietness, the bellows, and incidentally a common stock for the drones (which never came up on the other thread). It's unlikely for two sets of pipes, developed separately, to incorporate three relatively major morphological changes all at once.

Finally, there is the issue of the Scottish bellows pipes, including the "pastoral pipe," which also appear in the historical record before Irish bellows-blown pipes. These have drone pipes with keys, much like the Irish regulators. Again, it is not impossible that Irish pipes predated Scottish ones, but the evidence in Scotland appears earlier. Since the two instruments are clearly related, most scholars accept that the Irish pipes developed from the Scottish ones (or, more specifically I believe, from an English adaptation of the Scottish ones).

Even on this issue firsthand accounts are hard to imagine. Not only would one have to be in the room when a bellows bagpipe was designed, one would have to know definitively that

1) no other bellows pipes had been in Ireland before that

and that

2) the later development of the Uillean pipes was based on those pipes whose design you witnessed, and not another one which had come from Scotland.

I think it is unlikely that such a confident account exists, or that sorefingers' grandparents were alive ca. 1750 to make such an account. This is why I doubt that the account really is firsthand, as he claims.

Right now, then, the best evidence points to bellows pipes developing first in France, then spreading to England and Scotland, and thence to Ireland. I am aware, and conceded on that thread, that more evidence on any of these questions would change the appropriate conclusions immensely.

As to where one might look for this evidence, that is perhaps the funniest thing about this. There is no virtually no controversy about these issues in the scholarly world. (The main exception to this is the Romans spreading the bagpipes to Britain and other places, which is still repeated by some sources) I have never seen anyone claim what Sorefingers claims in any published work, particularly the bit about the Spanish migrations. So it matters not where you look in the annals of reputable history or ethnomusicology, I doubt if you will find corroboration for his claims.

Still, in the end I have been careful to say that what he claims is NOT IMPOSSIBLE. It's just that there isn't any evidence for it. I have challenged him repeatedly to provide the evidence, which he so far has not done.

Rapaire, you are 100% right about Librarians, without whom nothing would get done. And also about the Sciences and Humanities. I did not mean to imply superiority, just that my own experience, on which I was basing my statements, comes from the humanities. You see, I don't like to make statements for which I have no evidence...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:09 PM

Talk about thread creep.

Sorry, that's how I heard the story of the bumblebee. I didn't know it was urban myth. Unfortunately I heard it from a college professor. I having nothing against the PHDs regardless of what they actually are in. Whatever reason you have the PHD you should be proud of the accomplishment (although it doesn't necessarily merit deferral from others.)

I understand where you come from with the your definition of theory. Commonly though it is more used as a synonym for hypothesis. Unfortunately people often turn their theories into deeply held, almost religious principle, hence my use of the word Dogma.

My problem is that I am caught between experienced crews vs. lambskinned wet behind the ears academics and their theories. There's nothing wrong with change, but constant change in some circumstance is nothing more than orchestrated chaos.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:30 PM

Chief,

yes, I recognized the thread creep but Rapaire did ask...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:38 PM

Sorefingers:

I hope you have had the opportunity to unburden your ire sufficiently.

It sounds like you both have good points to make, but you both fell into various traps such as ad hominem and appeal-to-authority propositions which left you both swinging...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:48 PM

Now that everyone has been sent to their corners for a time-out....

The question is still legitimate and should be discussed. ARE the colleges and universities "dumbing down"? If so, what if anything should be done about it? And, of course, why is it happening?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:53 PM

Providing a link to the bagpipe thread might have been a better way to answer Rapaire's question, Nerd.

"...you are not welcome here, so bugger off..." That really is a bit strange coming from someone who evidently cannot be bothered to become a member of the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:54 PM

WEll, yes they are. It's a common side effect of mass market growth in any industry -- the original motives get lost, the numbers become th only criteria, mediocrity supplants the older criteria of quality, things get rushed, sloppy and second-rate. Education is now a commodity rather than an adventure into the stratosphere, at least for many of those in the machine; and the only way out is through individual; responsibility and insistence on one's own quality of effort. All of which is merely a hasty opinion of the sort that makes the decline happen! :>)



A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 05:13 PM

McGrath,

in most academic research, appeal to authority is not a sin and indeed is absolutely necessary. It is impossible to logically prove history. It simply happened, leaving traces of evidence behind. And since every historian cannot examine every piece of evidence, the common practice is to trust the research that has been previously published in reputable venues, unless there are inconsistencies. The reason for academic publishing is so that we don't have to repeat every experiment and archaeological dig.

I was very careful not to say sorefingers is necessarily wrong, merely that the preponderance of published evidence, some of which I then cited, did not support his theory. It would be irresponsible for any historian working in an age so distant to claim more certitude than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 05:13 PM

of course, I meant working on age so distant.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 05:51 PM

Appeal to authority is acceptable in general academic practice but it is not logically valid as such. The datum that X is an authority on subject S does not support or refute a proposition of fact about subject S, let alone about some other subject, regardless of WHO wants to be cowed by it. It is, logically, irrelevant. People accept it because it seems to them that if an "expert" or "authority" says something, it has a "high probability of being true" or at least accepted -- so it seems to be a safe bet.

Anyone who has been around the block a few times knows that can be a very risky assumption, and I speak as an authority on human experience!! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:45 PM

Amos,

It all comes down to evidence.

I am not proposing a logical proof. I am only claiming the absence of evidence. Logically, I cannot produce evidence for an absence of evidence, apart from the general authority of scholars who collectively have not found any evidence. Logically, my position can never be proven which once again is why I am so careful to say that sorefingers is not necessarily wrong, he simply needs to supply some evidence. Which he seems curiously reluctant to do.

I am in the same position as scholars who argue against the existence of flying saucers.   No matter how you try, you cannot create a logical proof of their non-existence. You can never prove that there are no flying saucers, only that the evidence that has been advanced for them is faulty. But what do you do when your interlocutor refuses even to provide any evidence? At that point, the argument becomes hopeless. That is where we are now, because sorefingers won't come forward with his supporting evidence.

Furthermore, generally it is the person who makes an extraordinary assertion who is asked to provide evidence. All I'm doing, as McGrath points out, is going with the generally accepted history as it exists across the discplines. If Sorefingers wants to challenge that, great! Where's the evidence?

Coincidentally, there is another thread right now on the logical impossibility of proving the absence of evidence: "Can you prove a negative?" In that case it refers to Iran being pressed to prove that there is no evidence of WMD programs there.

But I am in the same position. My only claim is that no reputable historian has found evidence of Sorefingers's proposition. Once again, I am not claiming that Sorefingers is wrong. Just that there is no evidence he is right.

The ball is now in his court.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:53 PM

Hey, here's a quote from that thread I just mentioned, by none other than Amos:

"For a large system such as a nation, a negative proposition pretty well leads to an unbounded set of test cases (infinite proving required to be conclusive). In general a negative requirement involves a huge number of possible conditions in which 'the system under consideration is NOT doing X' that it becomes practically impossible."

In other words, a logical proof that bagpipes did not exist in BC Ireland is impossible. However, a proof that they DID exist would be easy...if only there were some evidence!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 08:35 PM

So if some graves were found and the skeletons all had their fingers in their ears, would that evidence be good enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 09:44 PM

Applauds Amos ! Well said Sir.

Nerd if you want to argue about bagpipes do it in the other thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 10:15 PM

Well, danged! I probably shouldn't even wade into this one since I ain't got a PHd 'er M.D whatever.... just a couple of Bach'lers, with one being in Paintin' and Printamkin', so that don't count fir nuthin'...

But, being somewhat cynical, I just wonder if there isn't a subtle PR game going on by the Bush administration to discredit folks with a little education?

I mean, with NASCAR, Budweiser and country music takin' over the top 3 positions on the importance-things-to-know-about chart, it seems that intellegence and education are on the way out the door...

Well, thats the way me and the Wes Ginny slide rule see it...

Purdy sad commenetary on the sate of affairs in the US of A (as in more and more a**holes). (Pardon my French....)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 10:16 PM

Regarding the myth of bumblebees flying, read here.

I think too that it behooves us to remember Clarke's First Law, remembering the qualifications as we do:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."