2 ms·
You seem to think that academics just sit in ivory towers and don’t factor in “the real world” to their arguments. That’s…not how it works, it’s just a poor ant
by keiferski 3y ago
You seem to think that academics just sit in ivory towers and don’t factor in “the real world” to their arguments. That’s…not how it works, it’s just a poor anti-intellectual characterization.
Your supposed “real world alternative” is pop-philosophy writers and loud, attention-seeking people on social media influencing what we ought to do about seriously complex issues like abortion.
- FredPret 3y agoNo, I’m not comparing Harris to academic philosophers. I’m speaking in general: there is a class of ideas that aren’t worth anything until they are tried. Because you can’t fully “factor in the real world” in an argument - it’s far too surprising and complex. Examples include economic theories, military strategies, business plans, and getting people to do anything differently at all. Making these work requires attention-getting, sales, and mass attention, frequently on social media. Now if someone has a new theory about calculus or the atom, no ordinary person is going to care and no external factors are involved, and that idea stands alone from its implementation.
- keiferski 3y agoI'm not sure how this has anything to do with my comment.
- rrsmtz 3y agoUnlike other professions, academics rarely face consequences for being wrong. A doctor who makes a bad diagnosis risks malpractice, a civil engineer risks their license, and so on. Academics only really need to worry about the perception of their work by other academics, which isn't inherently tied to results (a notable exception is the hard sciences, which are conceptually much closer to industry).