BS: Is Academic authority a lie?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,Bruce O.
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 10:01 AM

There's an old Zen maxim that says 'Unask the question; it is illelevant'.
Ph. Ds span the range of idiots (not even savant ones) to very knowledgable geniuses in their feild. Sometimes when they go outside their field of expertize they fall flat on their faces
{I'm a Ph. D. expert in a narrow field, which counts for nothing
here or elsewhere outside that field, and few of my friends know that I'm have Ph.D., with postdoctoral work under President Kennedy's science advisor, who was in Washington, DC, while I was his post-doc )

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 09:56 AM

Trying to talk sense with a Fool is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

A lot of frustration, a terrible noise, and it just annoys the pig.

Thanks to all those with sensible contributions.

Goodbye.

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 01:54 PM

I agree, Les. Ranting is not discussion. I'll not post here any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 01:39 PM

'Nowadays you can get a degree in pluming, in hacksaw shapening, in dog grooming,'

Is any of this any of this true?

I can't see the point or value of much of the last few posts. Perhaps we should all stop. I think Nerd et al made most sense and perhaps we should thank them and move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,troll
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 12:30 PM

Nerd
"It is, however, misapplied to English grammar,"

No comment needed ...jez look at all the commas, WHAT is it trying to say?

Stinkydrawers
"I think you have proved your argument,"

Stinkydrawers 'arguements' are won or lost - theories are proven.

haw haw haw haw haw haw

_|_

phewwwwieeee what a pong

;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 11:25 AM

Is Academic authority a lie?

not so much as a parallel reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 11:13 AM

Nowadays you can get a degree in pluming, in hacksaw shapening, in dog grooming, it that what yall did?

There is this dude out here that has an MA in house wiring. He teaches
a buch of other topics including English.

BTW Smellyfart, different usage in English writing is called style. What you are trying to do is called literary criticism, and you are not doing too good.

You are no longer welcome here, so why doncha go and troll in other threads?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 09:50 AM

Shucks, Nerd, a split infinitive makes great kindling.

Infinitives grow to be eight, sometime ten, feet tall out here in Idaho and the burn cleanly and well. Not the sort of thing you'd use to keep a fire going, as they burn too quickly, but a split infinitive, as I said, makes good kindling. Early settlers used them to make baskets and chair seats, too, and because they burn so quickly the sawdust was sometimes used as a substitute for gunpowder. The roots are edible -- they taste like chicken -- and a tea made from the bark is said to cure ague, female complaints, loss of manly vigor, miasma, consumption, blockage of the bowels, glanders, softening of the brain, jaundice, ringworm, drunkeness, blackleg, rheumatism, sleeplessness, tone deafness, botfly, liver complaints, headache, burning urination, and breathlessness. The leaves work very well as a substitute for both toilet paper and chewing gum.

All in all, infinitives are downright useful l'il things.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 04:02 AM

And so "sorefingers",

I think you have proved your argument, but not necessarily in the way you might have intended.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The question you submited for debate was "Is Academic authority a lie?"

Yes, we mostly basicly agree with you.

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

Probably. Most people who are ignorant in a field of knowledge would often believe those who merely shout the loudest. The trouble is that here many do have some considerable knowledge and can often detect when nonsense is being spouted. Others of us, find our "bullshit detector" triggers when people basicly start shouting, throwing tantrums, and are unable to back up THEIR personal OPINION with any reasonable attempt at documentation.

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

Many would say "NO!" and "YES!" respectively. Refer in other threads to which you have contributed as demonstration of the first part.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are postgrads now unemployable becuase they don't know what there are taking about?"

Many would say "YES!"

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

Improve our Education.

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

[scratches head] No, let's just all spell how ever we feel today, secure in the knowledge that having thus obfuscated our expressions of thought, no one can possibly understand what we are saying well enough to tell us that we are delusional in our belief structure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Finaly [sic] are people who collect letters after their names, sick in the head?;

Some well may be. But it would depend on the type of sickness. Many types of "head sickness" would obviate reasonable progress in almost any form of Academic Study, especially those with substantial components of abstract thought.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
is it a case of the more letters the more stupid the person, or is it childish insecurity in an otherwise normal intelligent person?"

Maybe.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"- and if so is it now time for the Global 'basic intelligence test', perhaps the 'basic topics tests' on everything from bagpipes to windmills?"

Definitely.

Oh, wait....

What makes you think that you would pass?

Oh, I see, you are the expert examiner...


Come again. No charge for Fools. Or even for you.

:-)

Robin
The Author
The Fooles Troupe
The Virtual Fooles Troupe

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 03:39 AM

>> Nerd,

Serious now ("sorefingers" has given me my share of mirth for today!)

Thanks for the details on the double negative stuff.

I'm a generalist, not a specialist - apart from being a "ecialising Generalist"

I knew I had stumbled over that sort of info a while ago...

>> GUEST,Les in Chorlton, Manchester : "I value all that people have contributed even though I can't really see the point of most of what sorefingers has posted."

ROFL

Now you're beginning to understand... Les, :-) I just love the delicate degree of subtleness that English can carry...

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 03:34 AM

Academic authority isn't a lie, but it has its limits. Like everything else.

I have an MFA, "Master of Fine Arts." This a "professional" degree, and means I can paint, draw, and stuff like that. It has less rank and prestige than an MA, "Master of Arts," which is academic: scholarly. An MA can go on and get a doctorate, but an MFA is (or was when I got it) a terminal degree. Sounds ominous, doesn't it?

If Rembrandt were to come back from the dead the highest degree he could get, based on his abilities, would be an MFA, but someone else could get a Phd by writing *about* Rembrandt.

If you want to learn *about* artists and art history, and capital-A Art, ask an Academic. He can tell you many interesting and useful things, but he may say foolish things when talking about the actual doing of art. If you want to learn *how to* draw or paint or sculpt, or play fiddle, ask someone who's doing it, whether he has a degree or not.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 03:26 AM

Aw...

sorefingers...

"Robin is a stinky drawered old fart with no teeth in the backend of crapwater creek nowhere Oz."

NO FAIR!




























You peeked!

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Nerd
Date: 14 Sep 03 - 01:17 AM

The other thing odd about forbidding the double negative in English is that in Anglo-Saxon, our most direct parent, the double negative served as emphasis, as in

ne beo ge nateshwon deade

You shall (not) not at all die.

In Middle English, sentences could carry double negatives ("he ne lefte nat" for he did not leave) or even triple or quadruple negatives. This was great for Chaucer, who in a negative sentence could practically stick a ne, nat, no or noght wherever he needed a syllable! ("He nevere yet no vilaynie ne sayde...unto no maner wight" means roughly "He never yet said not no villainy unto no-one" but means simply "he spoke ill to no one" or "he never spoke falsely to anyone."

Meanwhile, one of our other close ancestor-languages, French, has the double negative by default. You MUST say ne...pas (or ne...point, ne...plus, ne...personne, etc...) to form a grammatically correct French sentence.

As Rapaire says, it was only when grammarians got hold of modern English, and Latin rules were applied to English sentences, that double-negatives were disallowed. Much as the so-called "split infinitive" was often disallowed, because in Latin the infinitive is a single word. But again, our great writers of yore, like Chaucer and Shakespeare, freely split infinitives, and most enlightened grammarians today allow it as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 04:55 PM

The rule against double negatives is a carry-over from classical logic, where "two negatives make a positive" as in the statement "Harry is not nobody" or "Mary is not a non-drinker." It is, however, misapplied to English grammar, where such construction might be used to subtly convey information or to emphasize a point.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 03:09 PM

Don't ever let school interfere with your education !!

That said, this thread is merely another way to polarize folks. Do what you will and think what you think---and then live and let live. GET THE FACTS any way you can---but realize that many of those "true facts" are possibly/probably wrong.

For me, the sad part was when the specialized Doctors and their tunnelvision missed my diagnosis so often and so grievously. I trusted their so-called expertise---and I am now much the worse for it.

My advice is BE YOUR OWN BEST ADVOCATE.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,Les in Chorlton, Manchester
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 01:26 PM

I was just fascinated when Ben played the Uillean Pipes at Chorlton Folk Club, which meets on Thursday at the South West Manchester Cricket Club, om Ellesmere Road.

But what can I say? I love folk music and the history of science and technology and this and the Pipes thread have pulled out so much fascinating information and quality of thought. I value all that people have contributed even though I can't really see the point of most of what sorefingers has posted.

As Nerd tirelessly points out: evidence is what matters. In that sense I don't think the strategies involved in any accademic study vary much. Eveidence, evidence, evidence....... hypothesis ... testing testing... stands up .... falls down? Scienec, Humanities or whatever. The odd one out is religion. Peopel can believe what they like. L Ron Hubbard probably got bored and invented the Church of Scientology. When Watt improved the steam engine it was a different kind of event.

Thank you all!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 01:19 PM

"People like "sorefingers" are so much fun....
He is a Troll."

Just so long as you can irritate us to respond to your silly insults

Heres a real insult!

Robin is a stinky drawered old fart with no teeth in the backend of crapwater creek nowhere Oz.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 11:10 AM

Rapaire...

I too detest such things like "50cc3r rul3z" - which were supposed to be witticisms uttered by "Hackers"... but at least this is not as bad as things like "cLeVeRmE!"

While I won't repeat here the difference between "Hackers" & "Crackers", the "gem" above really only belongs to "Script Kiddies", those not doing anything creative, but just blindly following formulae. They can still cause much damage...

Interestingly the "double negative" expression thing much decried by Academics !!! (I AM aware of the thread I'm posting in!) has been collected and documented in Folklore (or do I mean Libguistics?) as a genuine different "class of speech" (can't think of the correct term right now) in which the speakers clearly know that they are simply meaning extra emphasis rather than ignorantly expressing a double negative. I seem to remember that some languages other than English do this sort of "Academically pronounced bad" thing anyway (was it german? can't remember!) Anyone telling such a speaker that they mean the opposite is obviously ignorant and stupid .. and well they may be in that particular culture.

Incidentally, while cliches may be frowned on, have you ever thought that Shakespeare is full of cliches? Of course, they weren't cliches at the time he created them.... :-)

Robin
(who now stands revealed as part of the secret plot to surreptiously steal this thread away from name callers and others with such limited debating skills!)
and is getting tired and a little silly...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 10:38 AM

I said, "remember the qualifications" that Dr. Arthur C. Clarke put into his "Law." Neither he nor I said that it is an absolute.

If, Sorefingers, you want to read about a world from which academics and thinkers have been effectively banished, I recommend Miller's "A Canticle For Leibowitz."

Except for those times when I deliberately chose to ignore the rules of grammar and spelling, I prefer not to look like a fool. They are tools which enhance our ability to communicate clearly, something which is sorely needed today. Moreover, I abhor the contemporary lack of emphasis placed on grammar and spelling. I lament atrocities as "Car 4 Sale" and "ic" and "50cc3r rul3z" and "more clearer" and the decline of the comparative and the rise of the redundant phrase ("this point in time" for example).

Language is not a cudgel with which to pound blindly; it is and has always been a rapier upon which to skewer the point you wish to make.

Rapaire,
(BA, MS, and a bunch of other academic and professional credentials.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 09:40 AM

Oh, Dear,

As a Plus 5 SD IQ with no completed Tertiary Studies, (and who has the knowledge of Grammar & Spelling but makes lots of typos due to a micro-motor problem since birth) I don't know whether to feel complimented or insulted!

I just MUST challenge this claim about the relative percentage of graduates in research in WWII. The "Boffins" WERE Graduates - I don't know of any who weren't... and that area has always been a centre point of my reading. Turing, who was the acknowledged genius of breaking cryptography was... wasn't he? He had lots of helpers who were not, who are credited with making little individual "sparks of genius" that contributed significantly, but, so what does that prove?

I am looking forqward to the carefully researched and documented background information which surely must have been relaesed under the 50 year rule by now - oh wait on, 1945 + 50 ... Maths isn't my speciality to be forwarded.

People like "sorefingers" are so much fun. Look at all the good hard intellectual work he has inspired in so many threads.

He is a Troll.

But I have my own theory. Come a little closer, so they don't hear...

You see, when things get a little quiet around here, people like Max and Joe, and others who have been around for a while and shall be nameless take turns to log into a Guest Account (the current one is "sorefingers") and start stirring the pot to stimulate the discussions.

My proof is simple. The line of "argument" that this GUEST takes is so simple and predictable, that it doesn't even have to be the same one person doing it.

So "sorefingers" isn't a real person!

Q.E.D.

Robin
Author of The Fooles Troupe.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Peter T.
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 09:17 AM

Much as I have problems with the academy (being a paid up member), I think it is worth considering that a world without universities would be infinitely poorer, and, with all of their flaws, I am glad they are there -- at their best as a possible counterpoint to much of everything else. They can provide a space for people to pause and reflect on the world around them -- though many forces internal and external naturally hate the prospect of such spaces. Who would willingly among the powers that be support the creation of a critical, thinking mass population? They begrudge that part, so that they can get the things they really want. So universities are usually betrayed (as Amos says) into factories of information processing.

Still, they are a curious anachronism -- why a medieval religious institution crossed with humanism should have staggered into the 21st century is strange. The moment when they sold much of their souls was when the Germans invented the research university (synthetic chemicals, weapons) in the late 19th century. We have been struggling with this ever since.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 03:46 AM

Well, Sorefingers, finally you've said something we can all agree with, to wit: We in America are afflicted with "too much drugs and sex and dyslexions."

I, like most other people with good grammar, am really "a lying nutcase with a highschool cert." (Not to mention a ruthless maniac who moonlights as a shrewd and calculating bookie!) And the sad thing is, many of us in America's universities, as you say, are just like me.

But in your great wisdom you provide a healthy solution! We will abolish all MAs and PhDs! We will also all affect verbal tics and poor grammar because that will make us sound smarter to your ears. Then we will all bow to your superior intellect and lap up your knowledge with our outstretched tongues.

Oh, and by the way: don't bother to provide any evidence for ANY of your claims. I know they're true just because YOU say they are!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Academic authority a lie?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 13 Sep 03 - 02:15 AM

Agrees with Rapaire, and loves the quotation; in fact without looking who dares even mention evidence?

Since public forums and society on the internet, I have learned that not only is ADHD common among US college students, other less known fixations - too much drugs and sex and dyslexions etc - often accompany higher intelligence.

Sooo instead of finding an intelligent person at the other end of the
perfectly scripted post, one often finds a lying nutcase with a highschool cert; and at the other end of the slapped-out badly organised misspelled post one finds real people with brains, some of which are gifted.

In fact during WW2 in the UK when the chips were down and genius had to be found, few if any were graduates and even less could speak let alone write perfect English prose.

Therefore I assert here that a persons ability to write textbook English is a sign of a fusspot not a genius, that people who seek and obtain with great labor letters after their name are weakminded nerds with an inferiority complex, and that those invited into research while yet undergraduates are the real brains who truely deserve the title 'Doctor'. ( standard procedure in the old days BSc > Phd otherwise the person got an MA and was regarded politely OC as an idiot with a degree )

I assert that those dweebs who hang on in College for half a lifetime to get MAs and Ph Ds devalue the University and its awards in our society.

Therefore I would like to see new standards which again enable the gifted to protect us from the insanity of Iraq, Enron, Nasa, Nato etc etc.

In short, if we allow these idiots to run society then when things go wrong we can only blame ourselves. I say kick em out, kick em down and bury them forever!

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."

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:13 PM

of course, I meant working on age so distant.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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