Christopher Orlett is certainly correct in his assessment of the decline of the essay. Very few writers today work in the genre with any wit or flair. Though I do recommend expat essayist D.A. Blyler as a tonic against the sludge:
Thanks for the essay on essays. I never knew that form to be beneath the respect of the brahminocracy. I have found that when limited to few words, I\’ve been able to jam in more meaning, sense and provocative coinage than I expected.
I enjoyed Christopher Orlett\’s essay on essays — yet was confused by his basic premise, that essays had become trivial and marginalized. Then I figured it out; today\’s great essayists don\’t publish in literary magazines. The late Stephen J. Gould wrote for \”Natural History\”; his spectacular, and very personal, essays routinely hit the bestseller list. P.J. O\’Rourke publishes his not-particularly sober essays in everything but little journals. Dave Barry (like G.K. Chesterton a century ago) publishes exclusively in newspapers; however, he has put himself Beyond the Pale by appearing on Jay Leno. Bill Bryson publishes his sharp and funny travel essays in book form — very confusing if you think essays have to appear in magazines. And how about John McPhee\’s essays in \”The New Yorker\”? I have a whole shelf of McPhees, going back to the early 1960\’s \”Oranges\” (which you can buy from Wal-Mart, BTW).
There\’s lots of good essayists out there, and many of them are respected and successful. Just drop the navel-gazing stuff and start reading some real magazines.
This is very well done, and it made me laugh out loud several times. But when you list the best of today\’s essayists, aren\’t you forgetting someone–Gore Vidal?
Reading through the \’Poetry and the Politics of Self Expression\’ argument, I have to admit that I did agree with some of the statements.
I\’m 15 and regularly read poety by published poets. However I also delve into the world of the poetry of my peers and I\’m shocked (saddened, angered) to see people writing about their angst etc etc etc. However, I remember starting to write poetry in exactly the same way… I\’d sit in my room (still do, in fact) and think \’now how can I show the world what I think?\’ and out popped what I thought was poetry.
However, I developed, and started to write readable (and eventually enjoyable) poetry. If I had read your article even six months ago I would have buried my pen into my eye in complete and utter shame. If a teenager is seen writing the typical teen-angsty poetry, encourage them because with the tiniest of helpful pushes they will come on in huge leaps and bounds. Six months ago I wrote a poem with the line, \”I hate myself, my blood will stain the tiled floors\” and now I\’ve won a national poetry competition, and am writing poetry that competes with that of the adult poets in my area.
So while I see your point (and agree with it to an extent) I do have to stress that every young poet starts out writing self involved, expressive poetry. And while this poetry is poorly executed, it will get better. It has to, or we\’re all doomed.
I\’m sorry if none of that made sense, I was just incensed by the sudden need to defend myself and my peers.
Writing an essay about essay writing tells me that the essayist is running out of ideas to write about. When one has nothing to say, talking about the death or revival of any item of popular usage and interest, is a sure fire way of spinning your wheels, like mental whittling of wood – aimless, mindless, but gives the appearance of doing something.
Essays are particularly enjoyable to those of us who find ourselves unable to relate to the convoluted reasoning and self-indulgence that passes off as critically acclaimed prose. Well written essays are the Big Macs of thinking. You may frown upon it as being nutritionless, mass produced, uninspired fare, but, billions (or is it trillions) have been bought and consumed.
Well written essays are a genre. They are only two kinds of essayists, bad and good. The good ones are a perenial joy and source of comfort to us ordinary people who like reading but not being played with.
I checked out the Brights website and I confess I don\’t quite get what the criteria for being a Bright are because of that pesky word \”worldview\” that keeps popping up. If the idea is that a Bright deny the existence of supernatural beings, properties, events, states of affairs or whatever, I understand that. But what exactly is this \”worldview\” business?
The suggestion seems to be that Brights views about how the natural world operates and their confictions about how things should go aren\’t influenced by assumptions about supernatural beings, events, etc. But I suspect they want more than this: one can be a theist but hold that religious belief has nothing to do with ones beliefs about the origin or operation of the natural world or the origen of species. A theist can be a materialist on the mind-body problem and a utilitarian in ethics. Is this good enough for the Brights? I doubt it.
There\’s a fudge here–the missionary zeal to unite Brights in the interest of promoting a better world assumes that to be or not to be a Bright makes a difference when it comes to practical action (though the website doesn\’t make it clear exactly what kind of difference that might be). But theism as such doesn\’t seem to make any more practical difference to one\’s \”worldview\” than other metaphysical theses. I\’m a four-dimensionalist and I have a whole raft of views about how to deal with the Tib-Tibbles puzzle, about counterpart theory, about worlds and times and this sort of thing. But it doesn\’t make any difference to my ethical views, my political commitments or my beliefs about how the natural world operates, so in an important sense it doesn\’t affect my \”worldview.\”Neither does my theism.
Those who found interesed in Christopher Orlet\’s \”In Defense of the Essay\” will probably enjoy reading the essay, \”Our Essays, Ourselves, In Defense of the Big Idea\” by Cristina Nehring that appeared in the May 2003 issue of Harpers.
The arbitrariness of the choice of the word ‘bright’ […] one of the established uses of the word […].
In this context, I wonder why the word \”gay\”, wich seems to me just as arbitrary as a label for homosexuals, as \”bright\” as a label for atheists, and wich also has established uses, gained so universal an usage. To the point where nobody dares to use \”gay\” anymore in any context.
How can Jeremy Stangroom write what he apparently considers a cogent analysis of the term \”Bright\” as applied to the \”movement\” seeking a term for those who reject supernaturalism as part of their worldview without once considering the term as an analogy to the term adopted by homosexuals, \”gay\”?
Had he done so, he might well have reconsidered his view that \”bright\” would not be able to shake the connotation \”intelligent.\” After all, who thinks of all \”gays\” as \”happy.\”
I\’ll let pass his other incomplete or irrelevant objections.
The analogy fails since it misconceives the nature of attitude change. It hardly seems likely that a little label cosmetology will do what the \”brights\” founders want it to. Changes of this sort are vastly more likely to occur when atheists come out of their self-imposed closets and make their lack of supernatural religious belief known to their friends and relatives. With personal familiarity will come a softening of attitudes and possibily acceptance.
Even if \”bright\” can shake the connotation of intellectual superiority, which I doubt, this doesn\’t address the main issue–atheism and atheists leave a bad taste in the mouths of many (unjustified in my view). Are we to suppose that relabeling atheist with bright will somehow obscure or distract people from the underlying atheism? Does \”gay\” somehow erase or minimize the homosexual reality?
One of the ironies of the bright campaign is that in trying to win greater public acceptance of atheists, it gives the public reason to think that there is something questionable about atheists or atheism to begin with. If this is not the case, then why would its adherents be trying to put it out of view?
Another irony is that the term served a second function as umbrella term. At least in the U.S., where freethinker, agnostic, atheist, humanist, secular humanist, religious humanist, skeptic, rationalist and other terms are common, it was hoped that \”bright\” would clean up the clutter by providing a term everyone could agree on. Given the poor reception of \”bright\” by nearly all atheists and agnostics I know, it\’s a reasonable prediction that this new term will not become an umbrella term (which the other terms purport to be depending on the user), but will nudge itself onto the shelf along with the more familiar labels, adding yet more confusion for the general public to sort out.
I don\’t tend to think that authors should respond to criticisms of their work (since one\’s work should stand on its own merits).
But I think there should be some correction here of what is a factual error.
The history of the term \’gay\’ is not analogous to that of \’bright\’. It had pejorative connotations in the nineteenth century, and had been associated with homosexuality in a negative sense in the early part of the twentieth century (though not, as I understand it, in a widespread way), before it was appropriated by the gay rights movement in the 1960s.
Paradigms U Like is a great article, thank you Ophelia. Richard, the fundamentalist right – be it in Islam, Christianity or Judaism – is indeed a powerful force for corrupting healthy, reasoned views of the world that are informed in part by science; but to a reasonable person your argument is a given. What appears to astound some people on the left however is the idea that many of us are dismayed that Humanities departments in univerities world-wide are riven with the kind of anti-science pomo psychobabble that is on display as evidence in Ophelia’s important argument. When used as an integral part of a tertiary-educative process for our kids, this relitavistic twaddle is just as insudious as the brand of US Christo-fascism that is pumped out by hardcore fundamentalists via tvs in trailer parks across the developed world; we shouldn\’t underestimate how much it is devaluing and undermining their education.
I think it’s a mistake to lump situatedness and perspectivism and social constructionism all together. Most of Ophelia Benson’s argument in ‘Paradigms U Like’ critiques a fashionable pomo disdain for science which is based on epistemological relativism. I’m 100% with her on that, beause I agree that science/rationality does have a better method of establishing what’s what than other methods (tradition, authority, inspiration/revelation, copying the cool people etc.). But I’m also a social constructionist. That is to say, I believe that we acquire most of the more abstract and moral notions in our head from our culture. Indeed, the kind of people we are—our subjectivity, as the pomos like to call it—is acquired through culture. So we can have social constructionism within a rational realist framework.
When Allen Sokal tricked the Social Text editors–including Ross–into printing a nonsensical piece he made this writer\’s point.
Perhaps it is worthwhile to remember that a good deal of very harmful and well-funded nonsense, does go on in scientific research (including Sokal\’s less than brilliant work in his own field, physics).
Funds for the humanities, meanwhile, go begging.
We haven\’t found a way to bring scientists and humanists together very often to increase the value of the efforts of both groups.
\”…it is easy to jump to the conclusion that what is being suggested is that it is more intelligent to embrace naturalism than it is to embrace supernaturalism.\”
Absolutely that is what is being suggested and the fact that people like Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins are amongst the first to embrace this label shows just how appropriate the word is.
Blair as Bambi – no way
Dennet as Bright – certainly
Clearly the word is homage to those great writers who have helped to establish modern enlightenment thought.
If like me you are of moderate intelligence and are wary of saying that you are a \”Bright\” for fear of sounding arrogant perhaps this shift of focus on to those elevated members of the movement will help.
\”Good to know – there\’s nonsense in Norway, too.\”
That\’s a little unkind. Most governments offer assistance to small business start-ups for various reasons, though mainly to get people off benefits.
If this woman has done her homework and turned in well reasoned projections that enough people are going to buy her herbal remedies and tea leaf readings for her to turn a profit in a couple of years, then she\’s as entitled to her £5000 as any web designer or maker of a better mousetrap.
OK, it may be a pity that there\’s a customer base for this stuff, but while there is it seems reasonable that somebody is going to sell to them.
\”Good to know – there\’s nonsense in Norway, too.\”
Is there any evidence that this witch\’s products or services work? On the assumption that there is not, then her trade is a form of confidence trick.
Surely the Norwegian government should be prosecuting her for taking money from people by misrepresentation, rather than subsidising her criminal activities.
Chris\’s comment
\”OK, it may be a pity that there\’s a customer base for this stuff, but while there is it seems reasonable that somebody is going to sell to them.\”
could be interpreted as
\”A fool and his money are soon parted and it is a function of government to pay people to part them\”
You may take issue as to whether it\’s a function of government to support small business start-ups if you like, but the Norwegian government, like many others, has decided that it is. Once you grant that, it is then certainly no business of government to deny funding on the basis that it fears a business\’s customers may be rather silly.
The logic of your position is that you should outlaw any business whose marketing strategy takes account of the fact that its customers aren\’t all fearless logicians. The editor of USA Today should be worried.
You cannot legislate for human folly, not even the New Age variety. People regard fortune telling as a kind of harmless entertainment. If they want to cross this woman\’s palm with silver, good luck to her. I\’ve no idea whether her potions are any good, but assuming they\’re not toxic, there\’s probably at worst a minor placebo effect and at best, if she uses traditional remedies based on herbalism, they might be mildly efficaceous. Would you close down all the acupuncturists and homeopaths as well?
\”Your pretended fear lest error should step in, is like the man that would keep all the wine out of the country lest men should be drunk. It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy, to deny a man the liberty he hath by nature upon a supposition that he may abuse it.\” – Oliver Cromwell (well known c17. libertarian)
Chris – is there not a considerable difference between \’closing down\’ acupuncturists and witches, and actively funding them? Blurring distinctions is an unworthy ploy.
The scienific method is as viable a \” spiritual sytem\” as the worship of Sitala. The scientific should not be outwardly rejected, but seen as a viable system in the evolution (growth, progess?) of Man.
No I\’m not trying to blur didtinctions. If some civil servant has a remit to give small sums of money to start-ups, then she should award the cash to the people with the most cogent business plans (i.e. most likely to become a going concern, create wealth and return revenue to the treasury), and no other consideration should apply unless and only unless there is a reason in law or morality why the proposed business should not not exist.
If you or Roger think it is immoral that someone should charge the public to mutter about tall dark strangers, or that it should be illegal to sell tincture of St Johns wort in a tin, then you are right to oppose this (trivial) grant.
If like me you would much prefer that there wasn\’t a market for this rubbish, but feel it would be over-stepping the line for the government actively to stop it happening, then you have no choice but to hold your nose and sign the cheque.
This could go on forever, so I\’m going to stop after this one. this is about government grants, by the way – private funders can do what they like with their money.
Once a government has made the decision to fund small businesses, it has no subsequent right to apply any criterion to choosing which business to fund except:
that it has a real chance of success;
that its proposed business is not illegal in the country in which it is going to trade;
that its proposed business is not immoral by the common standards of ditto.
If we do not insist on this, then the way becomes open for governments to make partisan or programmatic judgements in allocating its disbursements, and that has ramifications I don\’t need to point out in this forum.
In the case of this wretched woman, what she wants to do is legal in Norway; in the judgement of most people it is not immoral. Therefore, if her business plan offers more chance of success that her competitors\’ (and this will be evaluated against a matrix which will have been drawn up with some care), what would you have them do?
It is a pity that Ophelia Benson concludes her otherwise excellent article with a gratuitous attack on \”Holocaust deniers\”.
It is precisely the scholars upon whom this invidious label has been placed who have based their research program on a strict adherence to the scientific method. They must be easily refutable since it is illegal to own their works in much of Europe.
The issue of whether governments should give grants for new businesses is one I should love to discuss, having spent some years in venture capital, but let us leave that to one side.
My argument was based on the idea that many governments regulate against people selling goods or services which do not fulfil their claims. I do not believe that the witch\’s products and services will fulfil their claims so there is a greater case for banning them than for subsidising them.
But I have a more preferable suggestion. There are cases where goods and services are very clearly extremely bad value because either they raise unfulfillable expectations or the goods or services are deleterious to the consumer. I mean lotteries, usually run by or for governments, or tobacco which is so heavily taxed that it becomes a significant source of revenue.
So: Permit the provision of witch services, but either nationalise the industry or tax it to the hilt.
Since I have yet to meet a polite and unassuming atheist I find this article hilarious. Atheists have arrogated to themselves the right of their anti-faith as the sole determinant of truth. I can respect an agnostic, but not an atheist. An agnostic doesn\’t believe there is a god, but might be convinced. Atheism is closed-mindedness defined. Their battle-cry is \”I have faith that there is no God.\” Forgive me if I don\’t see this as being particularly enlightened. It is intellectually indefensible as much now as ever. Since atheism is inherently unscientitific it is very amusing for atheists to claim there is some insoluble difference between science and religion, as if their own beliefs aren\’t entirely religious in nature. What is faith but the belief without absolute proof?
As for the supposed kindly attitude that bemused, gentle atheists have towards believers, does attempting to force all of America to bow to atheists beliefs count? How about the most popular and populous of atheists–socialists. Does their treatment of religious people count? Very kindly indeed. It only goes to prove the point–atheists are fanatical religionists who live in a fantasy world and demand that everyone join them there. As for me, no thank you. I prefer to keep my mind open.
Christopher Orlett is certainly correct in his assessment of the decline of the essay. Very few writers today work in the genre with any wit or flair. Though I do recommend expat essayist D.A. Blyler as a tonic against the sludge:
http://www.getunderground.com/underground/features/article.cfm?Article_ID=1355
Thanks for the essay on essays. I never knew that form to be beneath the respect of the brahminocracy. I have found that when limited to few words, I\’ve been able to jam in more meaning, sense and provocative coinage than I expected.
I enjoyed Christopher Orlett\’s essay on essays — yet was confused by his basic premise, that essays had become trivial and marginalized. Then I figured it out; today\’s great essayists don\’t publish in literary magazines. The late Stephen J. Gould wrote for \”Natural History\”; his spectacular, and very personal, essays routinely hit the bestseller list. P.J. O\’Rourke publishes his not-particularly sober essays in everything but little journals. Dave Barry (like G.K. Chesterton a century ago) publishes exclusively in newspapers; however, he has put himself Beyond the Pale by appearing on Jay Leno. Bill Bryson publishes his sharp and funny travel essays in book form — very confusing if you think essays have to appear in magazines. And how about John McPhee\’s essays in \”The New Yorker\”? I have a whole shelf of McPhees, going back to the early 1960\’s \”Oranges\” (which you can buy from Wal-Mart, BTW).
There\’s lots of good essayists out there, and many of them are respected and successful. Just drop the navel-gazing stuff and start reading some real magazines.
This is very well done, and it made me laugh out loud several times. But when you list the best of today\’s essayists, aren\’t you forgetting someone–Gore Vidal?
Reading through the \’Poetry and the Politics of Self Expression\’ argument, I have to admit that I did agree with some of the statements.
I\’m 15 and regularly read poety by published poets. However I also delve into the world of the poetry of my peers and I\’m shocked (saddened, angered) to see people writing about their angst etc etc etc. However, I remember starting to write poetry in exactly the same way… I\’d sit in my room (still do, in fact) and think \’now how can I show the world what I think?\’ and out popped what I thought was poetry.
However, I developed, and started to write readable (and eventually enjoyable) poetry. If I had read your article even six months ago I would have buried my pen into my eye in complete and utter shame. If a teenager is seen writing the typical teen-angsty poetry, encourage them because with the tiniest of helpful pushes they will come on in huge leaps and bounds. Six months ago I wrote a poem with the line, \”I hate myself, my blood will stain the tiled floors\” and now I\’ve won a national poetry competition, and am writing poetry that competes with that of the adult poets in my area.
So while I see your point (and agree with it to an extent) I do have to stress that every young poet starts out writing self involved, expressive poetry. And while this poetry is poorly executed, it will get better. It has to, or we\’re all doomed.
I\’m sorry if none of that made sense, I was just incensed by the sudden need to defend myself and my peers.
what to do about dowry murder…
usually a most indirect solution
is the only possible one… given
the conditions here in the usa we should
be caring citizens and hopefully under
the nature and qualities of this
secular and materialistic society of
self governing \’proletarian\’… in a
people to people way persons from the
\’dowry murder\’ societies who learn
usa society can share with their
home society or their first society
what they learn here…
that is what has been done and can
continue to be done to address the
problem of \’dowry murder\’.
the causes for the progress in arriving
at solutions to the social problem are
closely related to the american experience of self government for
material benefits in contrast to
the common government of \’church\’
and traditional state over citizens.
to send young americans to other societies with some idea of dong good
and being a good influence for the
change of \’dowry murder\’ is a serious
neglect or misunderstanding about
the nature of usa which is a place
where nationals from \’dowry murder\’
societies can work out a solution to
such social problems.
Many americans have similar problems to
work out… in a \’free society\’.
Writing an essay about essay writing tells me that the essayist is running out of ideas to write about. When one has nothing to say, talking about the death or revival of any item of popular usage and interest, is a sure fire way of spinning your wheels, like mental whittling of wood – aimless, mindless, but gives the appearance of doing something.
Essays are particularly enjoyable to those of us who find ourselves unable to relate to the convoluted reasoning and self-indulgence that passes off as critically acclaimed prose. Well written essays are the Big Macs of thinking. You may frown upon it as being nutritionless, mass produced, uninspired fare, but, billions (or is it trillions) have been bought and consumed.
Well written essays are a genre. They are only two kinds of essayists, bad and good. The good ones are a perenial joy and source of comfort to us ordinary people who like reading but not being played with.
I checked out the Brights website and I confess I don\’t quite get what the criteria for being a Bright are because of that pesky word \”worldview\” that keeps popping up. If the idea is that a Bright deny the existence of supernatural beings, properties, events, states of affairs or whatever, I understand that. But what exactly is this \”worldview\” business?
The suggestion seems to be that Brights views about how the natural world operates and their confictions about how things should go aren\’t influenced by assumptions about supernatural beings, events, etc. But I suspect they want more than this: one can be a theist but hold that religious belief has nothing to do with ones beliefs about the origin or operation of the natural world or the origen of species. A theist can be a materialist on the mind-body problem and a utilitarian in ethics. Is this good enough for the Brights? I doubt it.
There\’s a fudge here–the missionary zeal to unite Brights in the interest of promoting a better world assumes that to be or not to be a Bright makes a difference when it comes to practical action (though the website doesn\’t make it clear exactly what kind of difference that might be). But theism as such doesn\’t seem to make any more practical difference to one\’s \”worldview\” than other metaphysical theses. I\’m a four-dimensionalist and I have a whole raft of views about how to deal with the Tib-Tibbles puzzle, about counterpart theory, about worlds and times and this sort of thing. But it doesn\’t make any difference to my ethical views, my political commitments or my beliefs about how the natural world operates, so in an important sense it doesn\’t affect my \”worldview.\”Neither does my theism.
Those who found interesed in Christopher Orlet\’s \”In Defense of the Essay\” will probably enjoy reading the essay, \”Our Essays, Ourselves, In Defense of the Big Idea\” by Cristina Nehring that appeared in the May 2003 issue of Harpers.
The arbitrariness of the choice of the word ‘bright’ […] one of the established uses of the word […].
In this context, I wonder why the word \”gay\”, wich seems to me just as arbitrary as a label for homosexuals, as \”bright\” as a label for atheists, and wich also has established uses, gained so universal an usage. To the point where nobody dares to use \”gay\” anymore in any context.
How can Jeremy Stangroom write what he apparently considers a cogent analysis of the term \”Bright\” as applied to the \”movement\” seeking a term for those who reject supernaturalism as part of their worldview without once considering the term as an analogy to the term adopted by homosexuals, \”gay\”?
Had he done so, he might well have reconsidered his view that \”bright\” would not be able to shake the connotation \”intelligent.\” After all, who thinks of all \”gays\” as \”happy.\”
I\’ll let pass his other incomplete or irrelevant objections.
BRIGHTS AND THE GAY ANALOGY
The analogy fails since it misconceives the nature of attitude change. It hardly seems likely that a little label cosmetology will do what the \”brights\” founders want it to. Changes of this sort are vastly more likely to occur when atheists come out of their self-imposed closets and make their lack of supernatural religious belief known to their friends and relatives. With personal familiarity will come a softening of attitudes and possibily acceptance.
Even if \”bright\” can shake the connotation of intellectual superiority, which I doubt, this doesn\’t address the main issue–atheism and atheists leave a bad taste in the mouths of many (unjustified in my view). Are we to suppose that relabeling atheist with bright will somehow obscure or distract people from the underlying atheism? Does \”gay\” somehow erase or minimize the homosexual reality?
One of the ironies of the bright campaign is that in trying to win greater public acceptance of atheists, it gives the public reason to think that there is something questionable about atheists or atheism to begin with. If this is not the case, then why would its adherents be trying to put it out of view?
Another irony is that the term served a second function as umbrella term. At least in the U.S., where freethinker, agnostic, atheist, humanist, secular humanist, religious humanist, skeptic, rationalist and other terms are common, it was hoped that \”bright\” would clean up the clutter by providing a term everyone could agree on. Given the poor reception of \”bright\” by nearly all atheists and agnostics I know, it\’s a reasonable prediction that this new term will not become an umbrella term (which the other terms purport to be depending on the user), but will nudge itself onto the shelf along with the more familiar labels, adding yet more confusion for the general public to sort out.
I don\’t tend to think that authors should respond to criticisms of their work (since one\’s work should stand on its own merits).
But I think there should be some correction here of what is a factual error.
The history of the term \’gay\’ is not analogous to that of \’bright\’. It had pejorative connotations in the nineteenth century, and had been associated with homosexuality in a negative sense in the early part of the twentieth century (though not, as I understand it, in a widespread way), before it was appropriated by the gay rights movement in the 1960s.
Ophelia Benson kicks at the left for its attack on science and rationalism. But to a large extent the right, or religious
right in particular also kicks at science and seeks to make the two equal when insisting that the Biblical story of Creation be
taught alongside Darwinian Evolution All I want to say is that for their own reasons, both left and right
like to undermine the value of science and reason.
Paradigms U Like is a great article, thank you Ophelia. Richard, the fundamentalist right – be it in Islam, Christianity or Judaism – is indeed a powerful force for corrupting healthy, reasoned views of the world that are informed in part by science; but to a reasonable person your argument is a given. What appears to astound some people on the left however is the idea that many of us are dismayed that Humanities departments in univerities world-wide are riven with the kind of anti-science pomo psychobabble that is on display as evidence in Ophelia’s important argument. When used as an integral part of a tertiary-educative process for our kids, this relitavistic twaddle is just as insudious as the brand of US Christo-fascism that is pumped out by hardcore fundamentalists via tvs in trailer parks across the developed world; we shouldn\’t underestimate how much it is devaluing and undermining their education.
I think it’s a mistake to lump situatedness and perspectivism and social constructionism all together. Most of Ophelia Benson’s argument in ‘Paradigms U Like’ critiques a fashionable pomo disdain for science which is based on epistemological relativism. I’m 100% with her on that, beause I agree that science/rationality does have a better method of establishing what’s what than other methods (tradition, authority, inspiration/revelation, copying the cool people etc.). But I’m also a social constructionist. That is to say, I believe that we acquire most of the more abstract and moral notions in our head from our culture. Indeed, the kind of people we are—our subjectivity, as the pomos like to call it—is acquired through culture. So we can have social constructionism within a rational realist framework.
When Allen Sokal tricked the Social Text editors–including Ross–into printing a nonsensical piece he made this writer\’s point.
Perhaps it is worthwhile to remember that a good deal of very harmful and well-funded nonsense, does go on in scientific research (including Sokal\’s less than brilliant work in his own field, physics).
Funds for the humanities, meanwhile, go begging.
We haven\’t found a way to bring scientists and humanists together very often to increase the value of the efforts of both groups.
Re: Paradigm u Like
Your article is all true! But what can we do to stop the rot?
At least, I can relate my own experience in the world of physics, for
what it might be worth. One example: many years ago I wrote a paper in
nuclear physics with two co-authors, one a South African of Afrikaner
background, who I suspected of having rather illiberal feelings beneath
his liberal veneer; the other was a devout Hindu from the holy city
of Vanarasi (Benares) on Mother Ganga; he told me how he worshipped
at the shrine in his house in the holy city. I cannot say that our
paper was very widely cited, but it was a good piece of work in which the
three of us contributed our specialised knowledge to do calculations
that none of us could have done on our own. We worked to a common goal,
with a common understanding. The vast cultural differences between us
were unnoticed when we were doing physics. It never seemed necessary to
tell my South African friend that my first political act as student in New
Zealand in about 1961, was to march in the front row of demonstration through
Auckland against the All Blacks touring South Africa.
There was nothing at all unusual about that collaboration. Over the years
I have co-authored papers with people born in USA, Canada, Australia, UK,
Peru, France, Norway, Russia, Poland, Hungary, India, Turkey, Algeria and
Japan. I hadn\’t really even noticed this fact until I started framimg this note.
My book on nuclear physics aimed at a popular market has co-authors born
in Iraq, Sweden and Portugal (see Amazon). So when I read about the social determination
of science, I don\’t know whether to think its funny or tragic. A bit of both.
There is actually, an element of truth in cultural determination of `science\’, and
it is worth explaining it, since it might explain why the post-modern narrative
seems plausible to some. The point comes down to different meanings of the word
`science\’: science as knowledge, science as methods, science as cultural activity,
and so on. I like to tell a little story to explain it. Scott and Amundsen both
wanted to reach the South Pole first. Scott\’s cultural background conditioned him
to the use of machines. He took many tractors (first generation tractors, I suppose
we would call them) to the Antarctic with him. Amundsen\’s cultural background
led him to prefer dogs. As we know, dogs won. Amundsen got to the South Pole before
Scott, who had to complete the journey on human power alone, the tractors long
having failed. But when Scott reached the pole, it was the same pole Amundsen had
reached first. You would really have to do some metaphysical knicker twisting
to claim that it was somehow a different pole! Yes, cultural differences can lead
us to the truth in different ways, but it\’s the same bloody truth once we reach it!
In fact, it has been like that in physics. For some time the Russians were noted
for their formal and mathematical style. But this was natural in a country where
for many years access to computers was extremely difficult. But that in no way meant
that there was a Russian `truth\’ distinct from a Western truth. This is not to say that
scientists at the frontier all agree about everything… the scientific frontier
is always a place of uncertainty and doubt, but that is another story.
There is one proviso concerning what I have written. Things do get somewhow different as
one crosses the continuum of sciences in the direction of the human sciences.
This is not to deny the existence of truth, but to say that establishing it gets
harder the closer one gets to the human sciences.
It is another reason why statements about `science\’ can be misleading.
This is especially true of statements by radical biologists (a Rose by any other
would tell it differently!) Consider the statement `Fish swim in the Red Sea\’.
Is it true? Yes, there are fish swimming in the Red Sea. No, it\’s false, since
there are fish that have never been in the Red Sea. Many statements about Science
and scientists must be considered in the light of that kind of ambiguity.
Ray Mackintosh
\”…it is easy to jump to the conclusion that what is being suggested is that it is more intelligent to embrace naturalism than it is to embrace supernaturalism.\”
Absolutely that is what is being suggested and the fact that people like Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins are amongst the first to embrace this label shows just how appropriate the word is.
Blair as Bambi – no way
Dennet as Bright – certainly
Clearly the word is homage to those great writers who have helped to establish modern enlightenment thought.
If like me you are of moderate intelligence and are wary of saying that you are a \”Bright\” for fear of sounding arrogant perhaps this shift of focus on to those elevated members of the movement will help.
It works for the religious.
\”Good to know – there\’s nonsense in Norway, too.\”
That\’s a little unkind. Most governments offer assistance to small business start-ups for various reasons, though mainly to get people off benefits.
If this woman has done her homework and turned in well reasoned projections that enough people are going to buy her herbal remedies and tea leaf readings for her to turn a profit in a couple of years, then she\’s as entitled to her £5000 as any web designer or maker of a better mousetrap.
OK, it may be a pity that there\’s a customer base for this stuff, but while there is it seems reasonable that somebody is going to sell to them.
\”Good to know – there\’s nonsense in Norway, too.\”
Is there any evidence that this witch\’s products or services work? On the assumption that there is not, then her trade is a form of confidence trick.
Surely the Norwegian government should be prosecuting her for taking money from people by misrepresentation, rather than subsidising her criminal activities.
Chris\’s comment
\”OK, it may be a pity that there\’s a customer base for this stuff, but while there is it seems reasonable that somebody is going to sell to them.\”
could be interpreted as
\”A fool and his money are soon parted and it is a function of government to pay people to part them\”
Roger – Blimey! How authoritarian can you get?
You may take issue as to whether it\’s a function of government to support small business start-ups if you like, but the Norwegian government, like many others, has decided that it is. Once you grant that, it is then certainly no business of government to deny funding on the basis that it fears a business\’s customers may be rather silly.
The logic of your position is that you should outlaw any business whose marketing strategy takes account of the fact that its customers aren\’t all fearless logicians. The editor of USA Today should be worried.
You cannot legislate for human folly, not even the New Age variety. People regard fortune telling as a kind of harmless entertainment. If they want to cross this woman\’s palm with silver, good luck to her. I\’ve no idea whether her potions are any good, but assuming they\’re not toxic, there\’s probably at worst a minor placebo effect and at best, if she uses traditional remedies based on herbalism, they might be mildly efficaceous. Would you close down all the acupuncturists and homeopaths as well?
\”Your pretended fear lest error should step in, is like the man that would keep all the wine out of the country lest men should be drunk. It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy, to deny a man the liberty he hath by nature upon a supposition that he may abuse it.\” – Oliver Cromwell (well known c17. libertarian)
Chris – is there not a considerable difference between \’closing down\’ acupuncturists and witches, and actively funding them? Blurring distinctions is an unworthy ploy.
The scienific method is as viable a \” spiritual sytem\” as the worship of Sitala. The scientific should not be outwardly rejected, but seen as a viable system in the evolution (growth, progess?) of Man.
Ophelia,
No I\’m not trying to blur didtinctions. If some civil servant has a remit to give small sums of money to start-ups, then she should award the cash to the people with the most cogent business plans (i.e. most likely to become a going concern, create wealth and return revenue to the treasury), and no other consideration should apply unless and only unless there is a reason in law or morality why the proposed business should not not exist.
If you or Roger think it is immoral that someone should charge the public to mutter about tall dark strangers, or that it should be illegal to sell tincture of St Johns wort in a tin, then you are right to oppose this (trivial) grant.
If like me you would much prefer that there wasn\’t a market for this rubbish, but feel it would be over-stepping the line for the government actively to stop it happening, then you have no choice but to hold your nose and sign the cheque.
Chris,
Sorry, but yes you are blurring distinctions. You\’re blurring the distinction between not funding something and \’actively stop[ping] it happening.\’
This could go on forever, so I\’m going to stop after this one. this is about government grants, by the way – private funders can do what they like with their money.
Once a government has made the decision to fund small businesses, it has no subsequent right to apply any criterion to choosing which business to fund except:
that it has a real chance of success;
that its proposed business is not illegal in the country in which it is going to trade;
that its proposed business is not immoral by the common standards of ditto.
If we do not insist on this, then the way becomes open for governments to make partisan or programmatic judgements in allocating its disbursements, and that has ramifications I don\’t need to point out in this forum.
In the case of this wretched woman, what she wants to do is legal in Norway; in the judgement of most people it is not immoral. Therefore, if her business plan offers more chance of success that her competitors\’ (and this will be evaluated against a matrix which will have been drawn up with some care), what would you have them do?
Paradigms U Like
By Ophelia Benson
It is a pity that Ophelia Benson concludes her otherwise excellent article with a gratuitous attack on \”Holocaust deniers\”.
It is precisely the scholars upon whom this invidious label has been placed who have based their research program on a strict adherence to the scientific method. They must be easily refutable since it is illegal to own their works in much of Europe.
Cheers,
R.E. Reis
Norwegian witches.
The issue of whether governments should give grants for new businesses is one I should love to discuss, having spent some years in venture capital, but let us leave that to one side.
My argument was based on the idea that many governments regulate against people selling goods or services which do not fulfil their claims. I do not believe that the witch\’s products and services will fulfil their claims so there is a greater case for banning them than for subsidising them.
But I have a more preferable suggestion. There are cases where goods and services are very clearly extremely bad value because either they raise unfulfillable expectations or the goods or services are deleterious to the consumer. I mean lotteries, usually run by or for governments, or tobacco which is so heavily taxed that it becomes a significant source of revenue.
So: Permit the provision of witch services, but either nationalise the industry or tax it to the hilt.
It is great to see someone talking sense about the rDNA Oh that commonsense could prevail.
RE: In Focus: Science and Religion
Since I have yet to meet a polite and unassuming atheist I find this article hilarious. Atheists have arrogated to themselves the right of their anti-faith as the sole determinant of truth. I can respect an agnostic, but not an atheist. An agnostic doesn\’t believe there is a god, but might be convinced. Atheism is closed-mindedness defined. Their battle-cry is \”I have faith that there is no God.\” Forgive me if I don\’t see this as being particularly enlightened. It is intellectually indefensible as much now as ever. Since atheism is inherently unscientitific it is very amusing for atheists to claim there is some insoluble difference between science and religion, as if their own beliefs aren\’t entirely religious in nature. What is faith but the belief without absolute proof?
As for the supposed kindly attitude that bemused, gentle atheists have towards believers, does attempting to force all of America to bow to atheists beliefs count? How about the most popular and populous of atheists–socialists. Does their treatment of religious people count? Very kindly indeed. It only goes to prove the point–atheists are fanatical religionists who live in a fantasy world and demand that everyone join them there. As for me, no thank you. I prefer to keep my mind open.