3 ms·
As a professor, I probably agree that a lot of academia probably isn't that valuable, and probably could be reorganized. However: 1. I think the same argument
by kem 10y ago
As a professor, I probably agree that a lot of academia probably isn't that valuable, and probably could be reorganized.
However:
1. I think the same arguments could be made about just about anything anywhere. People forget that.
2. I think there's a collision of reality with assumptions about how progress works. We tend to think that supergeniuses come in and revolutionize everything, and I think things are instead very piecemeal and incremental. As a result, we fret about worthless academics when the real problem is our expectations about how things work. I realize that sounds a bit like "we should downgrade our expectations" but what I really mean is that great work requires a lot of small contributions that don't look important at any given point in time, but we expect great work to be lots of big contributions all the time. It's sort of like expecting building construction to happen by waiting for one mutant superhuman to come in and put the pieces together, and then blaming the workers for not building quickly enough.
3. Relatedly, it's impossible to know what's important and what not at any given time. I'm struck by the number of times obscure results from decades ago are dragged out and used as the basis of some new finding.
4. About psychology and neuroscience: there's the bootstrapping problem. Let's say you want to explain something like attention. At some point you have to invoke neurons. But to get there you have to have a way of measuring attention, a definition of what attention even means. To do that you have to have a model of the thing you're explaining. We're nowhere near a clear framework for that sort of thing. Similar sorts of arguments could be made about philosophy. Sure, philosophy's great when it intersects with other fields. But there are some problems that wouldn't have any sort of outlet anywhere else other than philosophy publications. Emergence is a good example of this.
- ThomPete 10y agoYou cant say that about every other field though. You cant say it about physics you cant say it about chemistry you cant say it about math. Each of the have very applicable outputs. None of your examples require philosophy or psychology etc. to provide progress. Neuroscience is perfectly capable to ponder on its own problems. Emergence belongs to other fields too though systems theory, art, ai. And it isn't going to change philosophy itself like ex modernism or postmodernism did. Keep in mind I didn't say the fields weren't important, the point is that they are not uncovering fundamental properties of their own field. They cant because the tools they uses aren't allowing them to really dig deeper. Anyway I am not 100% certain about this but there is something that isn't sitting right IMO.