Ignorance is Strength

James Hanley says:

A quick all-in-one response before I move on to helping my kids decorate the Christmas tree.

In general, I (apparently mistakenly) thought it was clear I wasn’t saying people had to have an academic degree to engage in public debate. My standard for being an appropriate participant in public debate is actually pretty low–if you’re interested and pay some real attention to a subject, I think it’s fine for you to participate in the debate. I’m just pointing out that some people are wont to say, “well, that’s what academics believe, but “real” people (e.g., lazy ass people who’ve never paid any serious attention at all to the issue, other than to engage in mutual reinforcement of beliefs with like-minded people who also have not studied the issue) know better.” Sometimes even relatively intelligent people do that. For instance, there’s one non-stupid person I’ve often argued with on-line who simply rejects social science knowledge as not being truly scientific, therefore not reliable. Fine, that’s a common claim that has some element of validity. But in its place he claims superiority his own ideologically biased beliefs, which he has never bothered to question in a rigorous manner. That person does, in fact, implicitly argue that his ignorance is the path to knowledge, at least in certain subject areas.

Now, a few specific responses.

Pat Cahalan: “The ideal academic who putters around in their office and has no real life experience is a made up character.”
Not entirely, but certainly far rarer than the public perception. And some of those putterers are in fields where putterering is the only real method, like philosophy. And many of those putterers never actually engage in the public debate because they’re too busy puttering. And other putterers who never go outside the walls of academe are doing important laboratory experiments (particularly in psych, poli sci, and econ), so that they’re contributing to real knowledge that has important implications for policy debate, but which few people know about. So while I think Pat overstates the matter empirically in his first post, I wholly support the point he’s making, as clarified it in his succeeding posts. And I wish him well in his graduate studies. And I wish I’d known his dad.

Scott: “Why not name the specific people? Are you afraid that you will hurt their feelings?”
Because it’s really none of your business. I’m making a substantive point, and you just want the voyeuristic thrill of knowing who I dislike.

Pat C. again: “it’s my opinion that very few humans understand their own experiences in any depth. Most people aren’t introspective. Awareness of your own condition and how it affects your relationships with the world is a very infrequent skill set.”
Thank you. A better statement of the case than I made.

Re: Jaybird’s comment about learning unix: I probably gave the impression that I think formal academic training is necessary. To clarify, I have no doubt that people can become not just qualified enough to participate intelligently in the public debate (for which I really don’t have that high a standard) but qualified enough to teach me new things, even without academic training. But it’s the rare person who does so on a truly self-educated basis. Almost all of us either need the formal academic training or the hands-on experiential learning. Most of those who think they’re adequately self-educated are not actually among that set of rare people who are. Contra the mythology of professors who push a narrow-minded ideology, one of the advantages of formal academic training is that it normally introduces students to a wider set of views, whereas most self-educated people don’t take the trouble to introduce themselves thoroughly to a diverse set of arguments.

MFarmer: “I’ve found the motivation to learn a better indicator of comprehensive knowledge than whether one gained that knowledge formally or informally.” Yes, agreed, although I argue there are advantages to the formal method, as I suggested in the preceding paragraph. The self-educated person may not be tipped off to some valuable lit in the field they’re studying, whereas contact with multiple profs in that field, in an academic setting, would bring it to their attention. The self-educated person who makes the effort to talk to other educated people and gets tipped off to, and explores, the diversity of that lit, is a person worthy of great admiration. But the person who reads every pamphlet put out by Lew Rockwell on the gold standard–that’s the self-“educated” person for whom I have no respect. At best only pity, and more normally deep antipathy.

MFarmer: “Many political issues are moral or personal issues: those are not about science or facts”Yes, but every person who argues a moral position in politics uses empirical claims to back them up (allowing gays to marry will do X, Y, and Z; abortion causes Q, R, and S). Empirical research can confirm or rebut those empirical claims. See the Federal Circuit Court decision on Prop 8 as exhibit A.

Scott: “The shortcuts the experts usually take is telling the rest of us that we should shut up, believe them and do whatever they tell us to do, simply they are experts and we are not.”
That’s a bullshit stereotype. I challenge you to prove that this is what they “usually” do, instead of “sometimes.” But maybe you should at least seriously consider believing what they tell you, when it’s the result of actual research you lack the skills or interest in conducting yourself.

Jaybird: “Do you inhabit a world that the plebes don’t?”
I don’t think any two people inhabit the same world. Even my wife and I don’t. The real question is how much our world overlaps with other people. For my own part, most of my close academic friends–through grad school and now into my professional life–are those who have lived, or still do live, a considerable life outside the academy. I rarely get along well with those who went straight from high school to college, straight through college, straight into grad school, and then straight into teaching. Most of my friends took detours along the way, whether it was several years working temp jobs, military, a few years in factory work, or in one case, several years as an executive in international shipping. For my part, I dropped out of college and worked as a bike messenger and cab driver before completing college and going to grad school. My neighbor two doors down is a chopper-riding factory worker, and my family and I often go to their house for cookouts with all his chopper-riding friends. I’m not sure there’s a college degree, or cumulatively the equivalent of one, among them. It’s a little hard for me to communicate with them, to be sure, but they’re good folks. And as a good (I like to think) social scientist, I listen to them to grasp what their concerns, interests, and beliefs are. But mostly I go for the brats, beer, and laughter. So what world do I inhabit? A bit of a complex one, like most people, that intersects different people’s lives in various ways. And I learn from those intersections–but what I learn is what people think, believe, and are concerned about. I don’t learn from them what is in fact true and accurate facts about the world.Report