4 ms·

It's an anti-intellectual stance. These become more and more popular today, even among scholars. The same attitude is often behind rejecting foreign lean words

It's an anti-intellectual stance. These become more and more popular today, even among scholars. The same attitude is often behind rejecting foreign lean words or technical jargon, it's often based on the idea that dumbing things down could somehow make you smarter. It won't. You are as smart as you are, getting gradually a bit dumber but also more experienced over the years, and the rest is education. If you reject education, the only result is that you'll be uneducated. In my opinion, a real intellectual is interested in the topic and assorted problems and will critically read whatever fuels their interest. Even papers that are not good can be interesting and worthwhile reading. Wise men know the principle "garbage in, garbage out", though, and that their time during life is limited, so they choose their readings carefully. However, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't include fairly bad literature, too. For example, it's necessary to read seminal papers that are part of a canon, no matter how stupid they seem to be. When I started studying philosophy a long time ago, some tutor whose name I've forgotten gave us two pieces of advice that would have been very valuable to me if I had taken them seriously earlier: 1. Never dismiss a book or paper quickly because you believe you've found a mistake. Read them until the end and take the authors seriously! 2. Aim for writing 1 DIN A4 page a day, no matter what you write (could be personal, could be professional, doesn't matter). You will write much less but as a goal about 1 page a day is good.

mattmanser 8y ago
I'm curious if you read the reasoning as you seem to be presenting an argument based purely on the title. Certainly the original proposal doesn't seem anti-intellectual. For example he says "full of mistakes", not one mistake.
- jonathanstrange 8y ago
  To me it is. You read the paper and then make up your mind on it. You do not dismiss a whole bunch of literature on the basis of two papers someone has provided to you. There is nothing wrong with choosing your literature carefully, but that's far from the original suggestion. You can and should use your bullshit detector.
  - mcherm 8y ago
    The original proposal was not, "For any field of study, I will dismiss it if anyone provides me with two papers that do not meet my standards." Rather, the original proposal was "If you wish to assert a field of study is worthy of my attention, I will acquiesce and spend time studying it so long as you can provide me with two papers that meet my standards." Because of this formulation, the standards are set rather high. Bryan Caplan's point is that if the best two papers out of a field of hundreds are not above these standards, then there is little value to be gained by slogging through the hundreds.
    - jonathanstrange 8y ago
      Not very laudable either. First you rely on someone else to give you the best papers and assume that this person knows them, instead of using your own brain. Second, anyone can wish to assert a field of study is worth someone's attention and that still doesn't oblige you to consider it worthy of your attention. Just tell them "fine, do your stuff, I'm not very interested in it" What's wrong with that? >Bryan Caplan's point is that if the best two papers out of a field of hundreds are not above these standards, then there is little value to be gained by slogging through the hundreds. And why would anyone need criteria for that? What kind of person would need to justify to themselves or others that they prefer to study topology instead of, say, financial mathematics? Caplan apparently needs some criterion to be able to be dismissive about someone else's work or discipline rather than pursuing his own scientific goals and interests. Yes, I find that kind of anti-intellectual, or at least small-minded.
      - gliboc 8y ago
        The original proposal, which is not by Caplan, tries to optimize time spent reading, which is crucial as a researcher. > And why would anyone need criteria for that? What kind of person would need to justify to themselves or others that they prefer to study topology instead of, say, financial mathematics? We need criteria to assess the value to papers, because generally the whole assumed point of writing a paper is to add value. > Caplan apparently needs some criterion to be able to be dismissive about someone else's work or discipline rather than pursuing his own scientific goals and interests. Yes, I find that kind of anti-intellectual, or at least small-minded. Ad hominem much. Also, Caplan doesn't say that, and you are talking about the original proposal. You don't seem to have read the article further than the title and the premise, though interestingly you seem able to judge the author itself and convict him with bad thinking. This very much contradicts your own previous piece of advice > 1. Never dismiss a book or paper quickly because you believe you've found a mistake. Read them until the end and take the authors seriously! which, to me, seem rather like virtue signaling than a real advice; all the more when you don't apply it thoroughly in reality.
JackFr 8y ago
> It's an anti-intellectual stance. It's not - it's a realization that life is short and much research is just writing.

mattmanser 8y ago

I'm curious if you read the reasoning as you seem to be presenting an argument based purely on the title. Certainly the original proposal doesn't seem anti-intellectual. For example he says "full of mistakes", not one mistake.

jonathanstrange 8y ago
To me it is. You read the paper and then make up your mind on it. You do not dismiss a whole bunch of literature on the basis of two papers someone has provided to you. There is nothing wrong with choosing your literature carefully, but that's far from the original suggestion. You can and should use your bullshit detector.
- mcherm 8y ago
  The original proposal was not, "For any field of study, I will dismiss it if anyone provides me with two papers that do not meet my standards." Rather, the original proposal was "If you wish to assert a field of study is worthy of my attention, I will acquiesce and spend time studying it so long as you can provide me with two papers that meet my standards." Because of this formulation, the standards are set rather high. Bryan Caplan's point is that if the best two papers out of a field of hundreds are not above these standards, then there is little value to be gained by slogging through the hundreds.
  - jonathanstrange 8y ago
    Not very laudable either. First you rely on someone else to give you the best papers and assume that this person knows them, instead of using your own brain. Second, anyone can wish to assert a field of study is worth someone's attention and that still doesn't oblige you to consider it worthy of your attention. Just tell them "fine, do your stuff, I'm not very interested in it" What's wrong with that? >Bryan Caplan's point is that if the best two papers out of a field of hundreds are not above these standards, then there is little value to be gained by slogging through the hundreds. And why would anyone need criteria for that? What kind of person would need to justify to themselves or others that they prefer to study topology instead of, say, financial mathematics? Caplan apparently needs some criterion to be able to be dismissive about someone else's work or discipline rather than pursuing his own scientific goals and interests. Yes, I find that kind of anti-intellectual, or at least small-minded.
    - gliboc 8y ago
      The original proposal, which is not by Caplan, tries to optimize time spent reading, which is crucial as a researcher. > And why would anyone need criteria for that? What kind of person would need to justify to themselves or others that they prefer to study topology instead of, say, financial mathematics? We need criteria to assess the value to papers, because generally the whole assumed point of writing a paper is to add value. > Caplan apparently needs some criterion to be able to be dismissive about someone else's work or discipline rather than pursuing his own scientific goals and interests. Yes, I find that kind of anti-intellectual, or at least small-minded. Ad hominem much. Also, Caplan doesn't say that, and you are talking about the original proposal. You don't seem to have read the article further than the title and the premise, though interestingly you seem able to judge the author itself and convict him with bad thinking. This very much contradicts your own previous piece of advice > 1. Never dismiss a book or paper quickly because you believe you've found a mistake. Read them until the end and take the authors seriously! which, to me, seem rather like virtue signaling than a real advice; all the more when you don't apply it thoroughly in reality.

JackFr 8y ago

> It's an anti-intellectual stance. It's not - it's a realization that life is short and much research is just writing.