5 ms·
I don't trust a scientist who's "usually fuming inside". People who fume inside are people who are already pretty sure they're right about everything, which is
by ellyagg 17y ago
I don't trust a scientist who's "usually fuming inside". People who fume inside are people who are already pretty sure they're right about everything, which is not an appropriate disposition for a scholar.
- jwvgoethe 17y agoI passionately disagree that the intellectual must remain dispassionate. But what you are saying is in fact considered a rarely challenged truism in humanities departments. It is considered very distasteful for an academic to speak publicly about current events, politics, or really anything controversial. But I think, and I know there is a very strong anti-academic current here on HN, that the intellectual plays a similar role to the free press in a democratic society. He is morally obliged to speak out when he sees the society being duped, coerced by the powerful, or being robbed of its freedoms. The academic intellectuals repeatedly fail us in this in the United States, and I admire Chomsky because he is one of the very few with the integrity to perform his moral duty.
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoBeing passionate != thinking you're right about everything.
- falsestprophet 17y agoThinking you're right about one thing is more than enough.
- mnemonicsloth 17y agoI know there is a very strong anti-academic current here on HN... You know. Really? How? What's the basis for your claim? I confess I'm having a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt here. Three of YCombinator's founders have PhD's from Harvard. A number of other users are graduate students, professors, or researchers in industry, and I've never noticed any animus toward them. A significant fraction of the submissions to this site deal with new research, and generally cast it in a positive light. Doesn't all this suggest HN would be more than ordinarily sympathetic to academics, not less?
- Alex3917 17y agoSorry, but that's wrong. If two people have read a book and disagree about the meaning of a given section, then it's perfectly reasonable to expect both sides to be dispassionate as they dissect the passage in question. But what Chomsky is saying (in the context of this article) is that it makes him angry when people disagree with his interpretations of books they haven't read. When you say scholars should be dispassionate about this, you're basically saying that a book review written by someone who hasn't read the book should be treated with equal respect as a book review written by someone who has. This seems profoundly anti-intellectual to me.
- cia_plant 17y ago"People who fume inside are people who are already pretty sure they're right about everything" How does that follow?
- calambrac 17y agoAside from the fact that you're isolating a quote out of context, I think you're wrong. I won't speak for Mr. Chomsky, but personally, I don't get angry with people because I'm pretty sure I'm right about everything (I know I'm not), but because I'm pretty sure that they're wrong. It's a very different reason, and I think it is wholly legitimate to be upset by people who are insistent about their ignorance and stupidity.