Society/Culture The Humanities: A cesspool of academic fraud

[Snake_Baker]

Awesome. I look forward to reading it.

I do have a question, though. If we cannot reach a consensus on what each individual word means or signifies, how then can I understand your autoethnographic exploration?

You've clearly got your gripes here, and based on the 20 seconds of research I've done concerning autoethnographic exploration it's kind of dumb (as well as has its own critics from within it's area) but you're kind of objecting to the nature of language and how it functions as knowledge transference.

That is just as silly, really.

Do you think you're going to get somewhere or prove some point by carping on with this reductionist drivel?

Does this fill you with some sort of intellectual superiority?

 

[pugsville]

You're keeping a very narrow focus upon Peterson himself and are basically ignoring the premise of this thread.

I also get why you're doing that. The embarrassment that the humanities has become cannot be made to go away with a simple band aid fix. Peterson is not the only person who is calling out this charade.

The Embarrassment is Peterson making a complete arse of himself quoting reserach that is fundamentally flawed and misleading. And you using like it's some sort actual evdeince. Which you have yet to address. You keaidng argument got holed and vashihed without a trace and yet you fail to address it in any fashion at all.

You have provided no evidence that the humanities are a cesspool opf fraud. A few individual instances doe snot advance the argument in any way. You have ve not presented anything which would count as reaosnable evdience to support your thesis,

You are wearing no pants. Until you address this how can teh debate progress at all.

Evidence, Substance.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Teh Embarssmentis Peterson making a complete arse of himself quoting reserach that is fundamentally flawed and misleading. And you using like it's some sort actual evdeince. Which you have yet to address. You keaidng argument got holed and vashihed without a trace and yet you fail to address it in any fashion at all.,

You have provdied no evdience that the humanaties are a cesspool opf fraud. A few individual instances doe snot advance the argument in any way. You have ve not presented anything which would count as reaosnable evdience to support your thesis,

You are wearing no pants. Until you address this how can teh debate progress at all.

Evidence, Substance.

Get help.

 

[pugsville]

Get help.

Substance? Evidence for your claims. You have produced nothing.

You still wearing no pants.

 

[Gethelred]

Do you think you're going to get somewhere or prove some point by carping on with this reductionist drivel?

Does this fill you with some sort of intellectual superiority?

Do you think you're satisfactorily disguising the fact that you haven't answered my question?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Do you think you're satisfactorily disguising the fact that you haven't answered my question?

LOL, there you go with the disingenuous postmodernist framing again.

You're definitely immersed in this crap.

 

[Gethelred]

LOL, there you go with the disingenuous postmodernist framing again.

You're definitely immersed in this crap.

...

You repeatedly refusing to answer more or less the same question put to you is postmodernist framing?

This is extremely silly.

 

[Snake_Baker]

...
You repeatedly refusing to answer more or less the same question put to you is postmodernist framing?

I will not play postmodernist humanities context-lotto with you.

Pointing out the useless absurdity of this dung is the entire point of my thread!!!

This is extremely silly.

Indeed.

 

[Gough]

...

You repeatedly refusing to answer more or less the same question put to you is postmodernist framing?

This is extremely silly.

This is why the only examiners ever faced by the op was a parole board. You're debating an idiot.

 

[Snake_Baker]

This is why the only examiners ever faced by the op was a parole board. You're debating an idiot.

Let me guess, you have a degree in applied outrage?

Care to present an exhibition for the viewing audience via interpretive dance?

 

[Gethelred]

I will not play postmodernist humanities context-lotto with you.

Pointing out the useless absurdity of this dung is the entire point of my thread!!!

Indeed.

You jumped into this particular argument because someone else used a term he didn't understand, before cracking the shits about postmodernism despite it being peripheral at best to what I posted. You then decided that (for whatever reason) you want to undermine the basis for language, because postmodernism.

Without collective agreement on what a word means, language doesn't exist. This is barely postmodernist, because it's so obvious as to be redundant. You don't like this, or you don't like this being pointed out. Just because an idea or a concept was elaborated on and discussed at length by postmodernists does not mean an idea is inherently postmodernist.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You jumped into this particular argument because someone else used a term he didn't understand, before cracking the shits about postmodernism despite it being peripheral at best to what I posted. You then decided that (for whatever reason) you want to undermine the basis for language, because postmodernism.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

Is that what happened?

Okay, I'll run all of my future posts past you first.

 

[Gethelred]

Is that what happened?

Okay, I'll run all of my future posts past you first.

Probably for the best.

 

[FireKrakouer]

The simple solution here seems to be to defund government loans made to made-up pseudo-sciences. People can still go ahead and waste their time studying courses that the free market has determined to be valueless, but they must fund it all themselves, upfront.

 

[Gethelred]

The simple solution here seems to be to defund government loans made to made-up pseudo-sciences. People can still go ahead and waste their time studying courses that the free market has determined to be valueless, but they must fund it all themselves, upfront.

I have a question. How are you going to know what will be valuable in the future?

There hasn't been a time in history in which cutting edge physics has paid the bills without grants.

 

[FireKrakouer]

I have a question. How are you going to know what will be valuable in the future?

There hasn't been a time in history in which cutting edge physics has paid the bills without grants.

Common sense. Studying rocket science leads to cool innovations. Studying heteronormative behaviour of dogs at dog parks just means some parasite is getting paid for nonsense.

 

[Gethelred]

Common sense. Studying rocket science leads to cool innovations. Studying heteronormative behaviour of dogs at dog parks just means some parasite is getting paid for nonsense.

I'm sorry, but to leave potentially vital progress up to the 'common sense' that can and will be seized by government or business is extremely stupid.

For the sake of argument, take climate change and say it's actually happening and we need do something about it. Under your status quo, whose common sense is channelling funds into researching whether the planet is warming as a result of human intervention?

 

[sorted]

I have a question. How are you going to know what will be valuable in the future?

There hasn't been a time in history in which cutting edge physics has paid the bills without grants.

The same question to you. How do you determine that studying heteronormative behaviour of dogs at dog parks won't have value in the future?

I don't know the answer, but a good start would be a rejection of the bollocks that has crept in from certain schools of academic philosophy. That there is no objective truth, no natural reality, only social constructs. They attack logic and reason themselves, as ‘patriarchal’ weapons of domination. Some women’s studies students are being taught that logic is a tool of male domination and that the standard norms and methods of scientific inquiry are sexist because they are incompatible with subjective 'women’s ways of knowing'.

 

[Gethelred]

The same question to you. How do you determine that studying heteronormative behaviour of dogs at dog parks won't have value in the future?

I don't know the answer, but a good start would be a rejection of the bollocks that has crept in from certain schools of academic philosophy. That there is no objective truth, no natural reality, only social constructs. They attack logic and reason themselves, as ‘patriarchal’ weapons of domination. Some women’s studies students are being taught that logic is a tool of male domination and that the standard norms and methods of scientific inquiry are sexist because they are incompatible with subjective 'women’s ways of knowing'.

I think that the scientific method is robust enough to oppose the nonsense you're talking about.

 

[sorted]

I think that the scientific method is robust enough to oppose the nonsense you're talking about.

Back to common sense then?

 

[owen87]

Back to common sense then?

Only if you feel like it though. So maybe tomorrow, maybe not Tuesday.

 

[Gethelred]

Back to common sense then?

Not really.

Following FireKrakouer's logic through to its end point is the defunding of all education that doesn't fit the 'common sense' criteria (if you object to that characterisation, FK, feel free to chirp up). I don't agree with that at all; if anything, it's why we should enshrine education funding to a greater degree in society.

Science has not been something that pays the bills over the course of history.

What I meant by my reply to you is that if those people doing those things are expected to be taken seriously, they need to be able to demonstrate what they're saying; it's not so easy to undermine the scientific method or logic as you state in that post.

 

[Grin]

In order for a right wing party, that represents the interests of maybe 5% of the population at best, to get elected, it needs to con a sizeable proportion of the population to vote against their own interests. Obviously to achieve this their ignorance, fears, small mindedness, bigotries etc are appealed to and validated. But also quality journalism and education etc. needs to be demonised so that they can be dismissed. As Snake_Baker demonstrates here, this is apparently quite easy to do.

 

[Snake_Baker]

In order for a right wing party, that represents the interests of maybe 5% of the population at best, to get elected, it needs to con a sizeable proportion of the population to vote against their own interests. Obviously to achieve this their ignorance, fears, small mindedness, bigotries etc are appealed to and validated.

This bit is good.

But also quality journalism and education etc. needs to be demonised so that they can be dismissed. As Snake_Baker demonstrates here, this is apparently quite easy to do.

This bit is pure double standards.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Common sense. Studying rocket science leads to cool innovations. Studying heteronormative behaviour of dogs at dog parks just means some parasite is getting paid for nonsense.

and this attitude is why australia sucks at investing in science today.

back in the day, companies like 3M and IBM required their tech heads to spend a certain amount of time each month on blue sky projects. Nothing with a specific commercial aim, but just pure science which they funded and which was solely inspired by the researcher.

the reason why was not because of altruism, it was because often these projects would go into unforeseen directions which would have commercial benefits.

for us, the biggest moment of stupidity we had was when we decided to defund the CSIRO from nearly all pure science research, and have them only focus on making a better type of yarn. And we wonder why 300-600 australian scientists are flocking to china (which is an absolute disgrace, because those patents they create are our future, and we are basically giving them away - as we did with the likes of solar technology to the USA)