From: Hermit (virus@hermit.net)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 17:43:17 MDT
[Kalkor] So, where would an argument such as, "His work is not regarded as exceptional by any significant academic group and his character is viewed as flawed." fit into our scheme? On the one hand, since it's an academic in discussion, whether he's viewed as correct by the rest of academia is surely relevant. On the other hand, not being regarded as exceptional does not necessarily imply being regarded as substandard (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Furthermore, would the argument "his character is viewed as flawed (by an
academic group)," have ANY relevance to any discussion other than about the character of a man?
[Hermit] Blunderov nailed it again with one of his beautifully short, clear summations.
[Hermit] We don't have time to study or read everything. Nobody does. So we rely on a process to filter material. Part of that filtering relates to the author.
[Hermit] Going in the reverse order to that asked, for reasons that will hopefully become apparent, "reputation" and by this I mean "academic reputation" is critical to acceptance by the academic community. It is much the same in journalism. If we cannot trust our authors to be honest, then it doesn't matter whether they argue for something we agree with or not. Nobody has the time to check all assertions, references, reports and connections made even in a small work. And if we cite something in error, then onus cannot be passed on, it is always the author's responsibility to check the sources - unless they come from a well accepted work representing the consensus position. So, particularly with material from outside the mainstream consensus, there is a well justified tendency to look very carefully at the authors of works before quoting from their scribblings. This brings us to the author's reputation - and as we have seen hints of here, academic reputations are generally held to a very high standard - hig
her than the man on the street - because it is critical to academics' careers that they be able to trust their sources. When there is even a shadow of doubt about an author, their works tend to be shunned. For good reason. The cost of involvement through association is too high.
[Hermit] So, as I have shown, there are excellent reasons for looking at the reputation of an author. When their integrity has been shown to be horribly flawed (as is the case with the author in question) you can usually stop there and draw a line.
[Hermit] More usually, there are no such simple answers, we have to dig further. We ask: "Who is the person writing?" "Is the person writing "recognized'? "Do others say that they are they saying something new, relevant or significant?" "Can we trust the person writing to do so with rigor and honesty?"
[Hermit] It is easier to do this with authors in academia. They tend to be known, and their in-field expertise recognised. The recognition primarily takes the form of post graduate degrees. I may joke about PhDs being measured on the mass of the pile, but no reputable institution grants a PhD without an awful lot of consensus that it is deserved, by other academics who put their reputation on-the-line behind their proteges. This leads inexorably to the question of which institution granted a degree, and who the sponsors were. Preferably, the degrees relate to the field of writing, so an out-of-field degree counts less, in that it does not validate the author's competence, even so, it does speak to their capability - and potentially to their integrity. When the author holds no higher degrees at all, as appears to be the case with the current author, no such validation process is possible.
[Hermit] Honarary degrees don't count. When the author holds nothing but honorary degrees from unknown institutes, the value of the award is impossible to evaluate. None of the usual checks and balances apply. For a small investment or a little publicity, many Eastern European institutions will award an honorary degree. For a larger endowment, even reputable Univerities can be persuaded to award an honorary degree. I'm thinking, for example, of Kellog's (the Cornflakes guys), persuading Oxford to award an honorary Doctrate to Bill Clinton in exchange for an endowed chair. But this is largely irrelevent. Every academic knows that an honorary degree isn't worth spit - and academic ettiquette precludes the use of an honorary degree except on the awarding campus during ceremonies where it is appropriate. The author under discussion does not seem to recognise the above.
[Hermit] The primary measures of academic recognition are twofold. Tenure is a significant milestone. Many Universities appoint visiting professors to their departments. Often such people have only experience in the real world which the University recognises may be helpful to their students. Sometimes a visiting professor is appointed because his presence will attract publicity or gifts. Against this, a tenured position is something very different. Once an academic is tenured, they become almost impossible to fire unless they engage in outrageous behavior - and sometimes, not even then. So tenure indicates that an academic's peers recognise expertise and ability and trust the person receiving tenure to the degree that they will grant a effectively unlimited platform from which to speak. Secondly the person will have published. This in itself may be somewhat significant, when their publications are made in refereed and peer reviewed journals, or when they appear as co-authors on pieces by recognised authorit
ies. Usually more important, is whether their works are cited by others - and how well regarded those citing it are. When this happens, it indicates that the work is regarded as significant or even seminal. Secondly it indicates that the people citing the work (except as a horrrible example) trust the author sufficiently to place their reputations on-the-line.
[Hermit] The author currently under discussion is not tenured, despite claiming to have visited in a number of academic environments. Most of these are not recognisable as centers of academic excellence (and for the reasons reflected above, it would not be very significant if they were). His works are not published in refereed or peer-reviewed journals. He does not reflect co-authorship by significant authors. I can't find any citations for him in the humanities index. These all indicate issues with trust.
[Hermit] Finally, there is a certain class of person who produces a work or works of such significance or seminal import, that all the above become less than important. Examples are a paper writen by an obscure customs clerk in 1905 which was accepted for publication by the "Annals of Physics." This despite the fact that he had been expelled from one institution, failed the entrance examinations for another and was regarded as a poor and disruptive student. His name was, of course, Alfred Einstein. Another example would be HG Wells, who, working as a novellist published works of history and sociology that gained him International recognition. So, when the works are exceptional, the author's credentials may be overlooked. But this does not happen very often.
[Hermit] This process might seem unfair, it sometimes is. Although most of the complaints tend to come from those unfamiliar with the academic process who don't understand why their writings - or favorite books are disparaged. Even when it isn't content related (and this case this may have a lot to do with it*) the process is effective. Given the huge volumes of nonsense out there, monuments to the futility of turning trees into paper, we need something effective to allow anyone to accomplish anything at all.
[Hermit] *There is so much material out there that is so "wrongminded", advocated by people who can't grasp why it is "wrongminded", that one could spend several lifetimes arguing the merits and demerits of just a few of them. The process detailed above filters out such dross without needing to address individual cases. Only idiots bother responding to windmills waving such flags.
Which probably says something about me.
Hermit (petting his donkey)
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29369> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 17:43:25 MDT