3 ms·

> the most clueless people in those areas I know are tenured professors. Not about the subjects they research. That is the purpose of research. > are full of

> the most clueless people in those areas I know are tenured professors. Not about the subjects they research. That is the purpose of research. > are full of scorn for academia in general All of those people are academics par execellance. I'm not talking about business-ified institutional academica. I'm talking about spending a long time on a topic, researching it and thinking deeply, clearly on it before you offer your opinion as though it were valuable. > do a SPECIFIC critique of what he wrote somewhere I have on one of his essays, but I took it seriously to write that critique. The audience I would be targeting in a critique of the man (via a critique of his under-informed rants) are those who equate money with success and "money-making" with intelligence. I value my time too much to spend the amount required undoing that confusion.

coldtea 13y ago
>the most clueless people in those areas I know are tenured professors. >>Not about the subjects they research. That is the purpose of research. They are cluless _especially_ about the subjects they research. Most philosophy, political economy etc academics are beyond mediocre -- not only in advancing their field, but even in understanding the greats who contributed to it and rightfully presenting their knowledge. Most real development comes from outsiders to this system -- people incombatible with academic life, even if they happen to work as professors (like Adorno or Wittgenstein did for example). And that was true already in the '40s and '50s, were academic discourse and research freedom in those fields was extremelly better compared to (market driven, low quality, paper churn) today's reality. >The audience I would be targeting in a critique of the man (via a critique of his under-informed rants) are those who equate money with success and "money-making" with intelligence. Oh, those poor fools. Because there are other, proven, definitions of success that everybody should ascribe to, right? >I value my time too much to spend the amount required undoing that confusion Yep, I expected this part.
nordsieck 13y ago
> Not about the subjects they research. That is the purpose of research. The purpose of research is to farm grant money and citations. Any actual learning that happens during the process is beside the point.
sillysaurus2 13y ago
So, I should probably point out that pg went to Harvard specifically to study Philosophy. He earned a Doctor of Philosophy in 1990. Therefore your critique that he should have a degree before writing about philosophy is interesting. All of those people are academics par execellance. I'm not talking about business-ified institutional academica. I'm talking about spending a long time on a topic, researching it and thinking deeply, clearly on it before you offer your opinion as though it were valuable. pg spent weeks on each of his early essays. He spent a solid month writing What You Can't Say. He spent at least a couple days writing this one. They aren't opinion pieces.
- umanwizard 13y ago
  Do you honestly not know what a Ph.D is, or are you just making a flabbergastingly disingenuous argument? He has a doctorate in CS, not philosophy, despite the ceremonial Latin name of the degree.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    He seems to have made a mistake. pg has BA in philosophy.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Instead of going on about a "flabbergastingly disingenuous argument" and blaming it on him not understanding that a Ph.D is not a philosophy degree (seriously? you think he doesn't know that?), it would have been much more productive, and correct, to assume he made the simple mistake of thinking pg has a Ph.D in philosophy, where in fact he has a B.A.
    - jacalata 13y ago
      Yes, I think he doesn't know that, and the way the comment was written seems to make that the obvious reading. What makes you so certain he does?
- chris_wot 13y ago
  I would consider this to be the definitive comment that puts to bed the argument being pushed.

coldtea 13y ago

>the most clueless people in those areas I know are tenured professors. >>Not about the subjects they research. That is the purpose of research. They are cluless _especially_ about the subjects they research. Most philosophy, political economy etc academics are beyond mediocre -- not only in advancing their field, but even in understanding the greats who contributed to it and rightfully presenting their knowledge. Most real development comes from outsiders to this system -- people incombatible with academic life, even if they happen to work as professors (like Adorno or Wittgenstein did for example). And that was true already in the '40s and '50s, were academic discourse and research freedom in those fields was extremelly better compared to (market driven, low quality, paper churn) today's reality. >The audience I would be targeting in a critique of the man (via a critique of his under-informed rants) are those who equate money with success and "money-making" with intelligence. Oh, those poor fools. Because there are other, proven, definitions of success that everybody should ascribe to, right? >I value my time too much to spend the amount required undoing that confusion Yep, I expected this part.

nordsieck 13y ago

> Not about the subjects they research. That is the purpose of research. The purpose of research is to farm grant money and citations. Any actual learning that happens during the process is beside the point.

sillysaurus2 13y ago

So, I should probably point out that pg went to Harvard specifically to study Philosophy. He earned a Doctor of Philosophy in 1990. Therefore your critique that he should have a degree before writing about philosophy is interesting. All of those people are academics par execellance. I'm not talking about business-ified institutional academica. I'm talking about spending a long time on a topic, researching it and thinking deeply, clearly on it before you offer your opinion as though it were valuable. pg spent weeks on each of his early essays. He spent a solid month writing What You Can't Say. He spent at least a couple days writing this one. They aren't opinion pieces.

umanwizard 13y ago
Do you honestly not know what a Ph.D is, or are you just making a flabbergastingly disingenuous argument? He has a doctorate in CS, not philosophy, despite the ceremonial Latin name of the degree.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  He seems to have made a mistake. pg has BA in philosophy.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Instead of going on about a "flabbergastingly disingenuous argument" and blaming it on him not understanding that a Ph.D is not a philosophy degree (seriously? you think he doesn't know that?), it would have been much more productive, and correct, to assume he made the simple mistake of thinking pg has a Ph.D in philosophy, where in fact he has a B.A.
  - jacalata 13y ago
    Yes, I think he doesn't know that, and the way the comment was written seems to make that the obvious reading. What makes you so certain he does?
chris_wot 13y ago
I would consider this to be the definitive comment that puts to bed the argument being pushed.