Academic Elitism ?

Academic Elitism ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aneirin -> Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 3:15:02 AM)
More and more on these forums I am coming across posters who quote other's words as their response to an issue, even to the point of cut and pasting large tracts of offsite writings, so what is it, one has to link an academic to have a valid point in discussion? What is wrong with your own point of view, is it not good enough ? In which case if it is not good enough, then we are self censoring and denying ourselves the right to comment. Which is heading down the path of we know nothing, only those who have academic qualifications or know how to write in an academic fashion will be heard. My summation of academic writing is one uses another's published point of view to illustrate one's own, but published is no indication that another's perspective is a correct persepective, it is just a perspective just like any other non academics perspective, but it is I feel an increasing concern that only those who write academically will be listened to as any who do not are perhaps not educated and therefore not worthy of attention. I can write academically but I choose not to, as I do not need others words to illustrate my perspective, I am quite capable of forming my own oppinions without qualifying them with published external works. At college I questioned the need to write in this fashion and I asked why the art word has to be done this way, and the answer given was elitism, another language of the elite So of the academics here and the non academics, do you have any views on this, is academic writing preferable to plain speech and if academic writing is preffereable is this damaging plain speech ?

rulemylife -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 3:42:35 AM)
It's called substantiating your argument, and those that do not do it are just plainly lazy.

gungadin09 -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 3:58:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin More and more on these forums I am coming across posters who quote other's words as their response to an issue, even to the point of cut and pasting large tracts of offsite writings, so what is it, one has to link an academic to have a valid point in discussion? What is wrong with your own point of view, is it not good enough ? ...is academic writing preferable to plain speech and if academic writing is preffereable is this damaging plain speech ? i don't think a person's opinion is any less valid because they don't quote an expert who says the same thing. i recognise a good argument for what it is, a good argument, regardless of who said it. i do think that certain facts that posters use to prove their argument need to be verifiable, which is where quoting and linking come in handy. When i post, i try to state my point as simply and as plainly as possible, so that i can be easily understood. i don't quote documents or provide links unless doing so adds something to the discussion, or unless i think what i say may be called into question. pam

Aneirin -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 4:05:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife It's called substantiating your argument, and those that do not do it are just plainly lazy. Why do you need to substantiate your argument, so others may believe you more, is it that important that you need to be recognised ? My approach to perspectives is I take them or leave them regardless as to whether the argument is substantiated by an academic or other recognised figure, as being recognised is no indication that perspectives are correct. I use my own moral compass, what feels right and what feels wrong, not published passages from the past.

tweakabelle -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 5:12:14 AM)
quote: Why do you need to substantiate your argument, so others may believe you more, is it that important that you need to be recognised ? The reason most people would offer is that an argument that describes the evidence, that complements or is compatible with the evidence (data), is superior to an position that fails to do this, or even worse, contradicts the evidence. Otherwise on what basis do we separate fact from fantasy? Our feelings? Our ideological/political beliefs? The weather? While backing up an argument with evidence isn’t a perfect system, it is demonstrably the best system that humans have devised to date to make decisions about what is factual and what is not. quote: My approach to perspectives is I take them or leave them regardless as to whether the argument is substantiated by an academic or other recognised figure, as being recognised is no indication that perspectives are correct. I use my own moral compass, what feels right and what feels wrong, not published passages from the past. If you find it works for you – go for it![:D] But please remember that others have the same choice too. Anyone can decide for themselves the grounds on which they accept or reject another's perspective on anything. Most people prefer evidence-based positions to those that aren’t, and reject perspectives that fail to describe the evidence. Generally, academics, working in their field of specialisation, hold several advantages over most people. They tend to be far more familiar with the available evidence, they are trained in analysing it, they’re aware of the major schools of thought in a given field (and their pros and cons), and know how to avoid the minefields. They can suffer from some disadvantages too – they can be (and often are) too narrow in their focus, too close to the forest to see the trees, they can (and often do) cling to outmoded orthodoxies through intellectual inertia, intransigence or sheer bloody-mindedness, they can (and often do) assume indefensible positions of superiority, elitism or arrogance and so on. Outside of their speciality field, they are no better or worse than any one else. What is important in a forum like this, I feel, is to remember that no academic is ever infallible, that there is no academic position that is above challenge or is unquestionable. Any one can construct a position on any subject provided they can back up that position persuasively. I think your remarks about elitism are pretty close to the truth. Academics often use highly technical specialised language to assume a position of power, to exclude others and to keep themselves in careers. Against this, academics are expected to be far more rigorous in their use of language and this often leads to awkward and unnatural forms of language. So my feeling is that academics are more likely to make better-quality educated guesses than most, but only in their speciality field. That isn’t ever a good reason to take their views for granted or as gospel. There's no reason to believe that academics are more gifted at forming conclusions than any one else. Or, as one of my favourite academics puts it in one of my fav quotes (which I've just added to my signature to remind myself [:D]): “*Scientists [and academics] don’t know better* than any one else, they just know more details**” PS: Did I mention that we tend to be long winded? Sorry for the long post!

rulemylife -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 5:17:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife It's called substantiating your argument, and those that do not do it are just plainly lazy. Why do you need to substantiate your argument, so others may believe you more, is it that important that you need to be recognised ? My approach to perspectives is I take them or leave them regardless as to whether the argument is substantiated by an academic or other recognised figure, as being recognised is no indication that perspectives are correct. I use my own moral compass, what feels right and what feels wrong, not published passages from the past. Stating your opinion is one thing, but if your opinion proclaims something as a fact then you need to back up that fact.

Phoenixpower -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 7:42:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Stating your opinion is one thing, but if your opinion proclaims something as a fact then you need to back up that fact. this [:)]

LaTigresse -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 7:48:23 AM)
Which is why nearly everything I post is stated as my opinion. I may note that it is based upon something I've read, but it is still my opinion. If people do not like my opinions, they can toss a temper tantrum for all I care. I do too much reading to remember where I've read everything and be able to retrieve it.

SlaveOwnerDave -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 9:13:15 AM)
quote: posters who quote other's words as their response to an issue, even to the point of cut and pasting large tracts of offsite writings If Joe Blow said what I want to say, but said it in a manner I believe to be superior to what I would say, then I quote him! His opinion is not better than Mine, not even different than Mine---merely better expressed. quote: published is no indication that another's perspective is a correct perspective, No, but one can read the other person, and learn whether that person has anything intelligent to say on the subject. quote: it is just a perspective just like any other non-academic's perspective... As in "I understand this very well, because I have avoided studying it"? This does not make sense. quote: as I do not need others' words to illustrate my perspectives, I am quite capable of forming my own opinions without qualifying them with published external works. Forming one's opinions, and illustrating one's opinions, are completely different operations. Other peoples' opinions might just have something worth knowing, in them, and that should be taken into account. If an opinion contains nothing, then why proffer it to the public? quote: I asked why the art word has to be done this way I am supposing you meant "art world", in the above. If so then I can understand your discussing opinions. I come from the engineering world, where fact can be demonstrated, and takes precedent over even the most fanciful opinions. In the process of writing a paper on negative feedback, I was discussing it with a writing-class teacher's assistant. She kept saying, "This is your opinion". To which I replied---until I had given three tries---"No, it's fact: Anyone can verify this, for himself". Later on, just to be sure, I looked up "fact", in the dictionary. At first, it said what I expected it to say. Toward the bottom, it said, "Social sciences: Consensus of opinion." My notion of fact was (and still is!) more rigid than hers. Note: Neither of us knew there was an error. (This was in the eighties...) And, yes, I do sometimes check the obvious: It might be wrong... On the other hand... quote: tweakabelle: Academics often use highly technical specialized language to assume a position of power, to exclude others and to keep themselves in careers. If I make a statement such as "The mu of the triodes in a cascode circuit is pretty much unimportant, as the transconductance is the important influence, just as with a pentode.", this is not about power. Those words have definite meanings, and can be learned by anyone---even by Myself! Someone who takes the time to annotate his work is usually someone who has worked with the items/processes under discussion, and who has read the materials in the references he gives. The references are there so that one can read the development of the concept the author is making at the point the reference was noted. I learned much of My electronics by following references. There is, however, a significant amount of pseudo-academic/professional "work", in the web. It sounds thorough and technical, but it is about nonsense. This is a different process than that used to spread lies on politics web-sites. Tellingly, the latter has no references! At the risk of setting you off, again: Be sure to read what tweakabelle said! I am not going to repeat her writing!

stellauk -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 9:59:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife It's called substantiating your argument, and those that do not do it are just plainly lazy. And you really believe this is true? A fact? Then where are your sources? Eh? I'm probably an anomaly because although I have taught and lectured at university level and held seminars my degree is a 'communist' abstract degree and I have never obtained a degree or completed studies and maybe one day I will go back to Warsaw University and finish my Polish degree or obtain a Slavonics degree elsewhere. But then again I feel that obtaining a degree is an extension to completing an education in a chosen field and that you don't become truly academic until you start studying for a Ph.D and start to give something back to the education system. The plain fact here - and I'm not going to back it up - is that not everything comes from a published source and just because you think citing an opinion from another source makes an opinion a fact, it doesn't. It's still an opinion. All it shows is that your opinion is consistent with an opinion which is published. The exception here is when you are discussing a physical science, what I term a 'hard science' such as engineering, technology, chemistry, physics and you are using empirical evidence to explain why something happens the way it does. Throw a hunk of sodium into water and you get a reaction. You can't argue with that. This is a fact. Explaining why is the opinion. A fact and an opinion are not interchangeable. Most people think they are because they are usually trying to win an argument and convince the other side that they are right. This is why we now have politicians who are more focussed on winning arguments and being right than they are on sitting down and discussing things and trying to reach a consensus on what the best thing to do is in any given situation. One side takes power increases taxes and spending and then the other side takes power and cuts the spending and and services. For some reason this rarely ever leads to a reduction in taxes. I'm not interested in being right but in seeing how my opinions are received by other people, and I'm interested in what other people think and I see all this as a sort of learning process, something which goes on constantly. Yes I can be wrong, but you know being wrong is just another opportunity to learn something. Besides, there's currently seven different theories trying to define truth, one of them is the consensus theory, they are all incompatible with one another but I think we can infer from this that there's no such thing as an absolute truth and nobody is always going to be right all the time.

Phoenixpower -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 10:09:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse If people do not like my opinions, they can toss a temper tantrum for all I care. I do too much reading to remember where I've read everything and be able to retrieve it. Lol, well said [:D][:D][:D] This shit happened to me at uni once or even twice...I read something and I considered that to be soooooo damn good for a particular essay...but I then did not manage to find that damn thing again on time to actually be able to use it [:(][>:][>:][>:] I then made sure to mark such sources to make sure I can find them again but it was a pain I can tell ya [>:][>:][>:]

PeonForHer -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 10:27:57 AM)
Aneirin, I'd just like to flag up the opposite kind of elitism - the anti-intellectual kind. It's been championed by various sorts and in various ways, over the years, by Hitler, by Hollywood, by both the far right and far left, by populists everywhere, anti-rationalists amongst the religious, new agers . . . . This has it that the finest kind of knowledge is that which comes from 'common sense', the 'university of life', some kind of non-reasoning, non-educated, un-learned 'intuition', or by virtue of having been 'untainted' by old, stuffed up thought-processes. Goose-stepping Nazi thugs were held up as the heroes of this view at one time, children at another (by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, for instance - because kids were held to have been innocent of the corruptive ideology of the past) and, more recently, Hollywood produced its ultimate example in Forrest Gump. Forrest taught us all that being simple was best and the less brain you had the better. This was now the new recipe for being healthy, wealthy and wise. I'll bet Palin and Bachmann loved that film. I've come across many, many people who snort in derision at evidence and reasoned arguments. They 'just know' that their opinion, no matter how cretinous, is 'right'. You admit once to them that you've actually studied a given subject, and your view is, ipso facto, wrong. Your years in college aren't just wasted, they're detrimental - they've served to decrease your knowledge, not increase it. Just to flag that up, as I said. There's snobbery and reverse snobbery - and I think there's elitism and 'reverse elitism' in terms of the intellect, too.

FullCircle -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 11:03:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin So of the academics here and the non academics, do you have any views on this, is academic writing preferable to plain speech and if academic writing is preffereable is this damaging plain speech ? I don't know what you mean by academic writing? In the academic world you provide references not to prove your argument but to provide a starting point to the knowledge you want to progress. It's not assumed that you'll be picking only the studies that suit your argument because if you did this it'll be obvious your research is rather narrow. To compare what goes on here in terms of war of the links to academic writing misses the entire point of being considered an academic i.e. the writing not done in a kind of point scoring way but to enhance everyone's understanding of a subject and to allow others to start where you left off.

popeye1250 -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 11:16:22 AM)
Aneirin, I've noticed that too. When I ask someone a question in here I want to hear their opinion not read some link to an article or newspaper op/ed and someone else's opinion! I don't do that and most people in here have a good idea where I stand on many issues. Do people think that maybe their opinions don't matter or something? Sometimes it''s ok to do it but not all the time! We're not in here writing research papers. "IBID" Imagine if I had three or four "links below this? That'd be kind of rude wouldn't it? I only have (one) "degree" and it's in business so I don't think you could consider me "an academic." Now if it was in "philosophy"... I'd be "academic as hell!"

rulemylife -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 11:31:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife It's called substantiating your argument, and those that do not do it are just plainly lazy. The exception here is when you are discussing a physical science, what I term a 'hard science' such as engineering, technology, chemistry, physics and you are using empirical evidence to explain why something happens the way it does. Throw a hunk of sodium into water and you get a reaction. You can't argue with that. This is a fact. Explaining why is the opinion. A fact and an opinion are not interchangeable. It could just be my opinion but I'm pretty sure I just said that.

rulemylife -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 11:39:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I don't do that and most people in here have a good idea where I stand on many issues Yeah, pretending you are an Independent moderate while your posts scream conservative Republican.

tweakabelle -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 11:59:58 AM)
quote: Popeye1250 Imagine if I had three or four "links below this? That'd be kind of rude wouldn't it? I'm unsure why you say that pops. If you set out a few links to support your opinions, I'd interpret that as you being thoughtful and kind. You would be offering everyone a means of assessing the quality and validity of your position, and saving them a lot of time in the process. OTOH not supplying links while proclaiming your opinion as factual might lead some suspicious minds to suspect that your opinion is just uninformed bluster, which is a look I personally prefer to avoid. quote: PeonForHer I'd just like to flag up the opposite kind of elitism - the anti-intellectual kind. It's been championed by various sorts and in various ways, over the years, by Hitler, by Hollywood, by both the far right and far left, by populists everywhere, anti-rationalists amongst the religious, new agers . . . . To me, this is an excellent, pertinent point. It's hard to think of an example where a perspective informed by knowledge is inferior to one informed by ignorance.

Edwynn -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 12:08:04 PM)
What I've only seen peripherally touched on here are basic logic and medium to long term observation as inputs. I'm not talking about the "it's just common sense that ... " type 'logic,' I mean when one lays out a fairly simple a > b > c scenario where the only thing to discuss is whether that flows properly to the final conclusion or not, then someone wants to make it into an academic exercise and refer to some philosopher or square-peg/round-hole the thing into some logic 102 framework with attendant latinization, etc. NO. Just deal with what's given on your own if you can. If not, move on then. There's nothing inherently wrong with general good sense, more pronounced observational ability, or especially a better developed sense of intuition, any more than there being anything inherently wrong with possessing various sorts of academic training. Either can be and often are abused for lesser or malignant purpose or can be wrongly applied, or be invoked by people who just plain aren't very good at it. Identifying a person as being guilty of lesser aptitude or misapplication in any of the forgoing does not disqualify the particular method itself. Someone using a screwdriver to pound a nail does not disqualify the use of screwdrivers for any purpose. Years ago I was all wound up with the process of education, how it was being done noticeably less effectively than possible, how the adult world and elementary education in particular seemed to be so blind as to how children actually responded to various inputs and learned, etc., just by my own numerous interactions with a variety of them (not a parent here, but enough nieces/nephews and lots of friends with young ones, etc. especially at the time, lots of live-in situations). The few occasions I got on the subject with others, someone with a degree in any of the social or philosophical etc. sciences might say "you must have read John Holt, that sounds so much like what he says." I'd never heard of the guy nor was I even aware of anything in the 'alternative education' realm, much less read any of it. I found out later who he was and indeed read his and several others' writings on the subject. But the point is that some just find it unfathomable that one can actually look, observe responses and processes, and be educated by that. Understand, this was just discussion, and by what proceeded there most people who heard me out could not disagree with what I presented. But if I were to be in a position of deciding matters that would affect others, you'd best believe I would actually take formal studies in it, read what lots of other people had to say about it etc. (the latter of which I actually did eventually, thanks to those people who mistakenly thought I already had done so bringing John Holt to my attention). This should not be considered unusual or unprecedented. I also found that some folks said nearly the same thing as John Holt many years before, and he wasn't aware of them either. All his early writings were based on his own experience as an elementary school teacher, not on anything he learned in obtaining his early education degree. Automobiles were invented nearly contemporaneously in at least three different far displaced regions, radio transmission in Europe and the US likewise, the inventors/developers unaware of others' efforts at the time. quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse I do too much reading to remember where I've read everything and be able to retrieve it. Yeah, welcome to the "show me a link!" age. Worse than is the case in what you say there, the vast majority of my non-stop read-anything-and-everything self education was years ago, when we used libraries and found where the good international news stands were, etc. I did my homework, they can do theirs. Any regards, I'm now going through the drudgery of copping a BA (and likely further beyond that) because I stumbled upon the fact that I was interested in a particular thing that indeed requires the degree to be able to move forward in the subject, and actually get a decent job while I'm at it. Thankfully, the degree will not "do it all for me" regarding every aspect of how to apply the processes I'm learning. All the things I've derived from my ability to observe and understand responses and results heretofore will be even more useful in the near future, I would hope. Just my half-educated opinion.

popeye1250 -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 12:22:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Popeye1250 Imagine if I had three or four "links below this? That'd be kind of rude wouldn't it? I'm unsure why you say that pops. If you set out a few links to support your opinions, I'd interpret that as you being thoughtful and kind. You would be offering everyone a means of assessing the quality and validity of your position, and saving them a lot of time in the process. OTOH not supplying links while proclaiming your opinion as factual might lead some suspicious minds to suspect that your opinion is just uninformed bluster, which is a look I personally prefer to avoid. Tweak, if I were talking with you in here I'd want to know YOUR opinion, not someone else's and "links" are just someone else's opinion. Now for clarifying facts about math, science, history or geograpgy etc yes, they can be usefull but not if someone is just going to find someone else in print who "agrees" with their opinion. Anyone and everyone can do that! That's worthless! I come into this site to get the opinions of the membership not of Time magazine.

popeye1250 -> RE: Academic Elitism ? (3/31/2011 12:27:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I don't do that and most people in here have a good idea where I stand on many issues Yeah, pretending you are an Independent moderate while your posts scream conservative Republican. Rule, but to you Keith Olberman would be a "conservative Republican." You can only think in "two sides." Here's a question for you, how many sides does a square have?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875