4 ms·

"This brings us to the most serious difficulty of this problem; namely, the dangers connected with the existence in a democracy of an overwhelming and concentra

"This brings us to the most serious difficulty of this problem; namely, the dangers connected with the existence in a democracy of an overwhelming and concentrated public opinion. The tendency of modern democracy is for men to think alike, to feel alike, and to speak alike. Any departure from the conventional standards is apt to be regarded with suspicion. Public opinion is at once the chief safeguard of a democracy, and the chief menace to the real liberty of the individual" "An inviolable refuge from such tyranny should be found in the university." So if one professor is a Marxist/capitalist, they are an asset. If all professors are either one, it is a liability to the mission of the university as a refuge of heterogeneous thought. Yet if we select professors based only on their idiosyncratic opinions we're as likely to fill the roster with well spoken insane people as with strong independent thinkers. I'd prefer to attend a university filled with insane but unique teachers -- who are otherwise competent in their fields -- than with a homogeneous mass who I happen to agree with. Sure, strong independent thinkers would be better, but if I could pick just one...

whatshisface 6y ago
It sounds like you might be looking at this with a little bit of humanities tunnel vision. In science, 99% of everything one person says will be agreed on by anyone else who knows what they're talking about. Even in cases where the truth is not yet known, among reasonable people you are more likely to find "they both agree that it could go either way," than "the two sides are each convinced the other is completely wrong."
- mdifrgechd 6y ago
  That may be true for introductory level material bu t in my experience is not true at all of research in the hard sciences. Where actual advances in the state of the art are involved, there are debates about everything from the best approach to the interpretation of results. Science as consensus is an oversimplification used by people who don't want to hear other opinions.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    The debate only happens over a tiny fraction of all claims, and reasonable people don't believe that fraction until it joins the high-confidence whole. The phenomenon of disjoint ideologies does not exist in science. In the humanities, you have things like how Analytic philosophers will reject everything ever written by a Continental philosopher. In contrast, while there is such a thing as an analytic chemist there is no such thing as a Continental chemist. ;)
    - hummmmm 6y ago
      It sounds like you might be looking at this with a little bit of hard-sciences, logocentric tunnel vision. In humanities, 99% of all claims one makes will be actively contemplated, to see if the argument holds. Even in cases where the truth seems totally certain, among reasonable people you are more likely to find "we should remain skeptical, critical, and open-minded about unverified truth claims" than "yep, that thing that seems certainly, definitely true is completely true."
      - whatshisface 6y ago
        I'm aware that reasonable humanities people don't really believe anything, but it cannot be denied that ideological adherents exist. In fact, there are a lot of them and they write a lot. A great deal of work happens within ideological camps (like "marxism" or "analytic philosophy") which are not valued at all to people outside of them. Within the camp, arguments are compared, but outside of it they are seen as having no merit. Using my example again, most analytic philosophers would find Foucault's writings totally uncompelling, to the point of seeing them as epistemically equivalent to blank paper. The only place you see that in science is with the so-called "crackpots," but they are actually wrong.
        TeaDrunk 6y ago
        I don't see this as that different compared to multiple opinions of how alzhimers functions or the multiple competing theories of many many fields of physics. There are even whole studies of mathematics that are derided by other mathematicians as illegitimate.
andyljones 6y ago
> well spoken insane people as with strong independent thinkers. Happily, I think these to correlate strongly. At least for my admittedly subjective definition of 'well-spoken'.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  And the boundary between them is permeable. Last generation's well spoken insane person can become the next generation's strong independent thinker, and vice versa.
text70 6y ago
Where do you draw the line? Criminal insanity? Chronically breaking laws, but otherwise competent in their fields.

whatshisface 6y ago

It sounds like you might be looking at this with a little bit of humanities tunnel vision. In science, 99% of everything one person says will be agreed on by anyone else who knows what they're talking about. Even in cases where the truth is not yet known, among reasonable people you are more likely to find "they both agree that it could go either way," than "the two sides are each convinced the other is completely wrong."

mdifrgechd 6y ago
That may be true for introductory level material bu t in my experience is not true at all of research in the hard sciences. Where actual advances in the state of the art are involved, there are debates about everything from the best approach to the interpretation of results. Science as consensus is an oversimplification used by people who don't want to hear other opinions.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  The debate only happens over a tiny fraction of all claims, and reasonable people don't believe that fraction until it joins the high-confidence whole. The phenomenon of disjoint ideologies does not exist in science. In the humanities, you have things like how Analytic philosophers will reject everything ever written by a Continental philosopher. In contrast, while there is such a thing as an analytic chemist there is no such thing as a Continental chemist. ;)
  - hummmmm 6y ago
    It sounds like you might be looking at this with a little bit of hard-sciences, logocentric tunnel vision. In humanities, 99% of all claims one makes will be actively contemplated, to see if the argument holds. Even in cases where the truth seems totally certain, among reasonable people you are more likely to find "we should remain skeptical, critical, and open-minded about unverified truth claims" than "yep, that thing that seems certainly, definitely true is completely true."
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      I'm aware that reasonable humanities people don't really believe anything, but it cannot be denied that ideological adherents exist. In fact, there are a lot of them and they write a lot. A great deal of work happens within ideological camps (like "marxism" or "analytic philosophy") which are not valued at all to people outside of them. Within the camp, arguments are compared, but outside of it they are seen as having no merit. Using my example again, most analytic philosophers would find Foucault's writings totally uncompelling, to the point of seeing them as epistemically equivalent to blank paper. The only place you see that in science is with the so-called "crackpots," but they are actually wrong.
      - TeaDrunk 6y ago
        I don't see this as that different compared to multiple opinions of how alzhimers functions or the multiple competing theories of many many fields of physics. There are even whole studies of mathematics that are derided by other mathematicians as illegitimate.

andyljones 6y ago

> well spoken insane people as with strong independent thinkers. Happily, I think these to correlate strongly. At least for my admittedly subjective definition of 'well-spoken'.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
And the boundary between them is permeable. Last generation's well spoken insane person can become the next generation's strong independent thinker, and vice versa.

text70 6y ago

Where do you draw the line? Criminal insanity? Chronically breaking laws, but otherwise competent in their fields.