headers
Stephen C. Rose | 1 Oct 2011 01:02
Picon

Re: Sciences as Communicational Communities -- Academic Capitalism

As a confirmed long-term exile from academia and professional existence, I see Peirce as a role model for nomads of the universe - he might pluralize universe.  I think the best thing Peirce-inclined academics can do is demonstrate in readable prose - as here of late - ways Peirce anticipated precisely the issues with which we are wrestling now. Such pieces can be widely circulated and begin to tilt scales of public opinion and wake up the comatose. Gary F. does this in an exemplary manner. I try in my way. Anyone can do this.





On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Sally Ness <sally.ness <at> ucr.edu> wrote:
Jon,

Thank you for this reminder Jon--I should have mentioned it specifically in the last post.  And thanks also for identifying the additional resources.

I wish I had some word of consolation for you.  However, Peirce also faced very depressing circumstances and still managed to do the work he did.  Perhaps his example might provide a trace of hope.

Best,
Sally



Sally, Gene, & All,

In relation to the "purpose of a university" and what's been happening to it lately,
I earlier mentioned the themes of "academic capitalism" and the "war on science".

<JA 30 Aug 2011>
I think it is reasonable to be concerned with distorting influences
on research and scholarship, whether we find them in the sciences or
in the other disciplines.  Looking around, the conflicts of interest
appear to grow more pushy and more pervasive every day.  I'm thinking
of cautionary tales like Slaughter and Leslie on Academic Capitalism,
or Chris Mooney in "The Republican War on Science", just to name two
that other contexts of discussion are constantly bringing to mind.

But the question was:  What to do about it?

It appears that further inquiry is called for.
</JA>

Here is a paper that summarizes the issues of academic capitalism:

Susan M. Awbrey,
Making the 'Invisible Hand' Visible:
The Case for Dialogue About Academic Capitalism
http://www2.oakland.edu/oujournal/files/5_Awbrey.pdf

I fear that the situation has grown far worse since the time that
paper was written, but it depresses me too much to talk about it,
so I'll just leave it at that until I recover some trace of hope.

Regards,

Jon

--

facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
policy mic: www.policymic.com/profile/show?id=1110
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rafe Champion | 1 Oct 2011 01:04
Picon

Re: Academic Capitalism

A few points (hard to grapple with such a massive topic).
 
1. The debate on higher eduction, indeed all levels of education, might have gone better if more notice had  been taken of Jacques Barzun's contributions to it. This piece provides an overview of his life and career.
 
 
His life is not over, he turns 104 in November!
 
If we refuse to learn from history...in Australia we repeated the US experience with higher education, but without any reference to Barzun's account of the problems that arose from explosive growth of the system.
 
This is the preface to the 1983 edition of a book that he wrote about education across the US in 1946.
 
 
2. The role of public funding in research.
 
A very iconoclastic book by Terrence Kealey suggests that research will thrive in the private sector, even fundamental research! Not a view that I would have regarded as credible until I read the book.
 
 
3. Problems in Australian universites, especially the demand for "market relevance" have been directed at the people who we call "economic rationalists" over  here. Economic rationalists support free trade, deregulation, smaller government etc. I am an econonomic rationalist in economic policy but I also see the value of  the traditional liberal education program, including ancient history, and languages. It is possible to be a free trader and also a supporter of liberal education with a role for state funding in the same way that we can support state funding for a welfare safety net, even while we argue that largescale crade to grave welfare is unsustainable.
 
Rafe Champion
Sydney
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gary Fuhrman | 1 Oct 2011 15:06
Picon
Favicon

Re: Slow Read : "Sciences as Communicational Communities" Segment 6

Sally, i’d just like to say thanks for your leadership in the slow read of this paper – your probing questions and your introduction of other perspectives revealed aspects of its meaning that i wouldn’t otherwise have noticed.

 

On JR’s recommendation against “debate”, my guess at his point is that debate is not a mode of inquiry or communication at all, but rather a competitive game or power struggle, a parody of genuine argument. The spirit of debate is therefore alien to the life of science, which JR characterizes as an “idealistic” quest for truth -- definitely a Peircean view of science. As for Peirce’s use of the term “debate”, i did come across one passage seems to reflect the view i’m attributing to JR – CP 2.635 (1878):

[[[ Some persons fancy that bias and counter-bias are favorable to the extraction of truth—that hot and partisan debate is the way to investigate. This is the theory of our atrocious legal procedure. But Logic puts its heel upon this suggestion. It irrefragably demonstrates that knowledge can only be furthered by the real desire for it, and that the methods of obstinacy, of authority, and every mode of trying to reach a foregone conclusion, are absolutely of no value. ]]]

 

Gary F.

 

} Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself. [Eleanor Roosevelt] {

 

www.gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm }{ gnoxic studies: Peirce

 

From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Sally Ness
Sent: September-29-11 8:37 PM

...

 

*  JR recommends not to debate the topic of "what is true" with academic politicians (paragraph 24).  He justifies this by identifying debate as a political rather than a logical mode of discourse and, so, of no value ("one wins nothing").  This refusal to engage will short circuit the attempted interruptions of the interlopers.

 

*  JR recommends to focus communications on what science, in truth, is "all about"--what keeps the tradition of inquiry "healthy" as a form of life in the long-run.  This kind of communication, JR argues, will be attractive to non-scientists, as it will lay out what is inherently admirable in scientific life, its "adventurous and chance-taking spirit" and its "commitment to turning failure to success by treating mistakes as opportunities to correct one's course rather than as signs of defeat or incompetence." (paragraph 25)

 

Before returning to the question above, I can't help but say that JR's idea that debate--of any kind--could be illogical seems hard to fathom.  His recommendation that scientists refuse to communicate with academic politicians on the topic of truth as it relates to science, is even harder to swallow (swallowing in the spirit of Peirce here).  How can such a refusal be considered a sincere, logical response worthy of a scientist?   The recommendation seems to exaggerate the differences between the scientific and the political modes of life, dissociating them to a degree that is dehumanizing.  It also seems to discount the possibility that scientists could actually win such a debate and that their victory, if they did so, would have any meaningful consequences at all for their community as well as the political community involved.  Wouldn't a Peircean outlook see more potential for communication here?  Wouldn't it be more likely to place  scientific and  political forms of communication, logic, debate, and life in relation to one another and to situate them along a spectrum of human experience, rather than to dissociate them in such a radical way? In sum, I am having trouble imagining Peirce recommending this course of action, let alone following it himself.  Peirce wasn't one to refrain from engaging in debate of any kind, with scholars or with politicians, academic or otherwise, whether or not the topic was initially framed in accordance with his views.  Perhaps listers can supply some evidence in support of the Peircean spirit of JR's first recommendation--I'm drawing a blank.

 

...

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Jon Awbrey | 1 Oct 2011 19:04
Picon
Favicon

Re: Sciences as Communicational Communities -- War on Science

Gary,

Thanks for that quote from CP 2.635, which I think sums it perfectly.
In my experience with different modes of inquiry, very few questions
are settled by debate, not the formal debating team kind, much less
the joint public appearance kind, but only by accumulating so much
information relative to a hypothesis that the truth of the matter
becomes overwhelming clear.

The political situation in the U.S. -- and especially in my own neck of the woods --
has become so dire in recent months that I find myself engaged in more discussions
of public affairs than at any time since the late 60s and early 70s.  The ongoing
war on science has ramified itself into a full-scale war on the whole environs of
democracy and education that render authentic research, scholarship, and science
possible at all.

But it's Saturday ... more on this later ...

Jon

Gary Fuhrman wrote:
> Sally, i’d just like to say thanks for your leadership in the slow read of this paper – your probing
questions and your introduction of other perspectives revealed aspects of its meaning that i wouldn’t
otherwise have noticed.
> 
> On JR’s recommendation against “debate”, my guess at his point is that debate is not a mode of
inquiry or communication at all, but rather a competitive game or power struggle, a parody of genuine
argument. The spirit of debate is therefore alien to the life of science, which JR characterizes as an
“idealistic” quest for truth -- definitely a Peircean view of science. As for Peirce’s use of the
term “debate”, i did come across one passage seems to reflect the view i’m attributing to JR – CP
2.635 (1878):
> 
> [[[ Some persons fancy that bias and counter-bias are favorable to the extraction of truth—that hot and
partisan debate is the way to investigate. This is the theory of our atrocious legal procedure. But Logic
puts its heel upon this suggestion. It irrefragably demonstrates that knowledge can only be furthered by
the real desire for it, and that the methods of obstinacy, of authority, and every mode of trying to reach a
foregone conclusion, are absolutely of no value. ]]]
> 
> Gary F.

--

-- 

facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
policy mic: www.policymic.com/profile/show?id=1110
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To remove yourself
from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the
body of the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Benjamin Udell | 1 Oct 2011 20:23
Picon

Slow read: "Some Leading Ideas of Peirce's Semiotic"

Forwarded at Nathan Houser's request. Thank you for your persistence, Nathan! - Best, Ben.
===================
 
Message for Peirce-L
 
The last thing I want to do is intrude on a good ongoing discussion but I guess I'd better take a moment to introduce the October slow read of Joe's early paper on "Some Leading Ideas of Peirce's Semiotic."  JR originally presented this paper in 1976 in Atlanta at the inaugural meeting of the Semiotic Society of America and published it in the proceedings.  It was republished with revisions in 1977 in Semiotica.  It is worth remembering that in 1976 when Joe wrote this paper Peirce's semiotics was not widely known.  (Yesterday I composed and posted an earlier version of this introductory message but it disappeared in cyberspace.  I recomposed my message and tried sending it again twice failing both times.  I'll give up for now and send it to Ben (Gary is on vacation) and ask him to post it on the forum and I'll work with the tech people at IUPUI to find out why my posts aren't going through.  In the meantime, in case the cyber logjam breaks, you may receive three earlier versions of this post.  In at least one of them my signature routine reverted to my pre-retirement signature with titles I no longer hold — my apologies to André De Tienne and David Pfeifer.)
 
I should point out that shortly after agreeing to lead the October discussion, I lost contact with Peirce-L and only managed to restore my connectivity (apparently not entirely yet) in mid-September during the lively discussion of JR's "Sciences as Communicational Communities."  I missed all of the previous slow read discussions which probably dealt with many of the same issues I'll raise for the October read.  Let me know if I ask you to consider topics you've already poured over in earlier slow reads and, of course, bring your own questions to the forum.
 
As it happens, I'm just beginning an extended weekend family visit and won't be able to take up discussion of "Leading Ideas" until next Tuesday (the 4th).  But I'll make some introductory remarks now and will try to at least comment on any posts that come in before the 4th.
 
JR began this paper by pointing out that Peirce conceived of semiotics as a foundational theory capable of unifying sub-theories dealing with communication, meaning, and inference.  This may call for some discussion. He then claims that 90% of Peirce's "prodigious philosophical output" is directly concerned with semiotic."  This is an odd claim in a way since it does not seem to be straightforwardly true. How can we make sense of it?
 
Issues that may require clarification or revision in light of earlier slow read discussions and/or further development in Joe's later writings:
 
What are the so-called semiotical sciences (what JR also called "special semiotic")?
 
Why does JR equate mind with semiosis?  It seems to me that mind is generally regarded as something like a system of signs, or a semiotic system, while thought, as dynamic, not static, is equated with semiosis.
 
JR says that Peirce conceived of truth as "a more generic . . . conception, namely the conception of a goal-directed activity which normally moves from a state of dissatisfaction to a state of satisfaction."  Isn't this too broad? It seems to me that playing a game falls under this conception.  What is the “extra ingredient” that makes such goal-directed activity truth seeking?
 
More generally, what are the key elements, according to JR, of Peirce's "basic model" for science/semiosis/cybernetics, namely, "the truth-seeking tendency in human life"?  And, perhaps more importantly, is this really a universal tendency?
 
Is the end-state of every sign-interpretational process really the object of that process?  Perhaps, we might ask, does truth merge with reality at the end of semiosis?  This seems to be what JR is saying.  Some Peirce scholars (Hookway, for example) say that this is not Peirce's mature view.
 
A related question/concern is whether, as JR seems to have supposed, our only access to real objects is by way of the immediate objects of semiosis.
 
Other things we may want to consider (although it's mainly up to you to decide this) are JR's interesting and rather brilliant way of explaining how the concept of a semiotic object might be derived from the concept of an utterer (with reference to MS 318 — of which the relevant parts are published in EP2); his suggestion that "the need to account for the possibility of error in interpretation" is a "generic feature of all semiosis"; and his account of Peirce's conception of symbolic signs and their relation to iconic and indexical signs.
 
These are only suggestions to help focus your early reading of JR's "Some Leading Ideas."  We'll see where things go.
 
Remember that the slow read discussions are not intended to dominate the Peirce-L forum.  Joe would have been distressed over the thought that the normal give and take of Peirce-L might be suppressed by a discussion of his papers.  So fell free to raise independent questions whenever the urge strikes.
 
Nathan
 
____________________________________________________­­____________
Nathan Houser
Professor Emeritus of Philosophy
Senior Fellow, Institute for American Thought
Indiana University at Indianapolis

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Permalink | Reply | 26 comments |
headers
Eugene Halton | 1 Oct 2011 22:05
Picon
Favicon

Re: Sciences as Communicational Communities -- Academic Capitalism

Here is something I wrote earlier this week on centralized power that relates at another angle:
http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/09/the-megapower-elite/

Gene

-----Original Message-----
From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 3:28 PM
To: PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Sciences as Communicational Communities -- Academic Capitalism

Sadly I agree with Jon's sense of despondency concerning "the war on science." 

The problem, however, is the product of "central planning." As a consequence we are Serfs (Hayek). Looking
for a prescriptive solution that is other than the simple devolution of this centralized system will only
make matters worse. 

With respect,
Steven

On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:06 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:

> Sally, Gene, & All,
> 
> In relation to the "purpose of a university" and what's been happening to it lately,
> I earlier mentioned the themes of "academic capitalism" and the "war on science".
> 
> <JA 30 Aug 2011>
> I think it is reasonable to be concerned with distorting influences
> on research and scholarship, whether we find them in the sciences or
> in the other disciplines.  Looking around, the conflicts of interest
> appear to grow more pushy and more pervasive every day.  I'm thinking
> of cautionary tales like Slaughter and Leslie on Academic Capitalism,
> or Chris Mooney in "The Republican War on Science", just to name two
> that other contexts of discussion are constantly bringing to mind.
> 
> But the question was:  What to do about it?
> 
> It appears that further inquiry is called for.
> </JA>
> 
> Here is a paper that summarizes the issues of academic capitalism:
> 
> Susan M. Awbrey,
> Making the 'Invisible Hand' Visible:
> The Case for Dialogue About Academic Capitalism
> http://www2.oakland.edu/oujournal/files/5_Awbrey.pdf
> 
> I fear that the situation has grown far worse since the time that
> paper was written, but it depresses me too much to talk about it,
> so I'll just leave it at that until I recover some trace of hope.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jon
> 
> -- 
> 
> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
> policy mic: www.policymic.com/profile/show?id=1110
> inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
> mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
> knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To remove yourself
from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the
body of the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To remove yourself
from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the
body of the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To remove yourself
from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the
body of the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Sally Ness | 2 Oct 2011 03:49
Favicon

Re: Slow Read : "Sciences as Communicational Communities" Segment 6

Gary, Jon, and List,

Thank you for your generous acknowledgment, Gary. Regarding your comments on debate and Jon's as well, yes, it occurred to me after I posted that JR's remarks concerning debate would have referenced this political form of debate, not scholarly debate, and Peirce certainly does make a very strong distinction between the two.  This "legal procedure" in the quote cited would also be "sham-reasoning" in that the conclusion is foregone.  Thank you for bringing this out.

It has been a most rewarding experience for me, em-ceeing this paper.  However, I am delighted, now, to have the honor to pass the baton to Nathan Houser.  It's all yours, Professor Houser.

Sally



Sally, i'd just like to say thanks for your leadership in the slow read of this paper - your probing questions and your introduction of other perspectives revealed aspects of its meaning that i wouldn't otherwise have noticed.
 
On JR's recommendation against "debate", my guess at his point is that debate is not a mode of inquiry or communication at all, but rather a competitive game or power struggle, a parody of genuine argument. The spirit of debate is therefore alien to the life of science, which JR characterizes as an "idealistic" quest for truth -- definitely a Peircean view of science. As for Peirce's use of the term "debate", i did come across one passage seems to reflect the view i'm attributing to JR - CP 2.635 (1878):
[[[ Some persons fancy that bias and counter-bias are favorable to the extraction of truth-that hot and partisan debate is the way to investigate. This is the theory of our atrocious legal procedure. But Logic puts its heel upon this suggestion. It irrefragably demonstrates that knowledge can only be furthered by the real desire for it, and that the methods of obstinacy, of authority, and every mode of trying to reach a foregone conclusion, are absolutely of no value. ]]]
 
Gary F.
 
} Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself. [Eleanor Roosevelt] {
 
www.gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm }{ gnoxic studies: Peirce
 
From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Sally Ness
Sent: September-29-11 8:37 PM
...
 
*  JR recommends not to debate the topic of "what is true" with academic politicians (paragraph 24).  He justifies this by identifying debate as a political rather than a logical mode of discourse and, so, of no value ("one wins nothing").  This refusal to engage will short circuit the attempted interruptions of the interlopers.
 
*  JR recommends to focus communications on what science, in truth, is "all about"--what keeps the tradition of inquiry "healthy" as a form of life in the long-run.  This kind of communication, JR argues, will be attractive to non-scientists, as it will lay out what is inherently admirable in scientific life, its "adventurous and chance-taking spirit" and its "commitment to turning failure to success by treating mistakes as opportunities to correct one's course rather than as signs of defeat or incompetence." (paragraph 25)
 
Before returning to the question above, I can't help but say that JR's idea that debate--of any kind--could be illogical seems hard to fathom.  His recommendation that scientists refuse to communicate with academic politicians on the topic of truth as it relates to science, is even harder to swallow (swallowing in the spirit of Peirce here).  How can such a refusal be considered a sincere, logical response worthy of a scientist?   The recommendation seems to exaggerate the differences between the scientific and the political modes of life, dissociating them to a degree that is dehumanizing.  It also seems to discount the possibility that scientists could actually win such a debate and that their victory, if they did so, would have any meaningful consequences at all for their community as well as the political community involved.  Wouldn't a Peircean outlook see more potential for communication here?  Wouldn't it be more likely to place  scientific and  political forms of communication, logic, debate, and life in relation to one another and to situate them along a spectrum of human experience, rather than to dissociate them in such a radical way? In sum, I am having trouble imagining Peirce recommending this course of action, let alone following it himself.  Peirce wasn't one to refrain from engaging in debate of any kind, with scholars or with politicians, academic or otherwise, whether or not the topic was initially framed in accordance with his views.  Perhaps listers can supply some evidence in support of the Peircean spirit of JR's first recommendation--I'm drawing a blank.
 
...
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jon Awbrey | 2 Oct 2011 03:52
Picon
Favicon

Re: Sciences as Communicational Communities -- Academic Capitalism

Gene,

Thank you for the link to your insightful essay.
The paragraph from C. Wright Mills was so striking
that I couldn't resist re-citing it in another context
where we have been discussing these ever-recurring issues.

PolicyMic : "The Next Credit Crisis" : Mary Dowell-Jones
http://www.policymic.com/group/showCompetition/id/1806#comment-18643

Regards,

Jon

Eugene Halton wrote:
> Here is something I wrote earlier this week on centralized power that relates at another angle:
> http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/09/the-megapower-elite/
> 
> Gene
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 3:28 PM
> To: PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
> Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Sciences as Communicational Communities -- Academic Capitalism
> 
> Sadly I agree with Jon's sense of despondency concerning "the war on science." 
> 
> The problem, however, is the product of "central planning." As a consequence we are Serfs (Hayek).
Looking for a prescriptive solution that is other than the simple devolution of this centralized system
will only make matters worse. 
> 
> With respect,
> Steven
> 
> 
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:06 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> 
>> Sally, Gene, & All,
>>
>> In relation to the "purpose of a university" and what's been happening to it lately,
>> I earlier mentioned the themes of "academic capitalism" and the "war on science".
>>
>> <JA 30 Aug 2011>
>> I think it is reasonable to be concerned with distorting influences
>> on research and scholarship, whether we find them in the sciences or
>> in the other disciplines.  Looking around, the conflicts of interest
>> appear to grow more pushy and more pervasive every day.  I'm thinking
>> of cautionary tales like Slaughter and Leslie on Academic Capitalism,
>> or Chris Mooney in "The Republican War on Science", just to name two
>> that other contexts of discussion are constantly bringing to mind.
>>
>> But the question was:  What to do about it?
>>
>> It appears that further inquiry is called for.
>> </JA>
>>
>> Here is a paper that summarizes the issues of academic capitalism:
>>
>> Susan M. Awbrey,
>> Making the 'Invisible Hand' Visible:
>> The Case for Dialogue About Academic Capitalism
>> http://www2.oakland.edu/oujournal/files/5_Awbrey.pdf
>>
>> I fear that the situation has grown far worse since the time that
>> paper was written, but it depresses me too much to talk about it,
>> so I'll just leave it at that until I recover some trace of hope.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon

--

-- 

facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
policy mic: www.policymic.com/profile/show?id=1110
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To remove yourself
from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the
body of the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jerry LR Chandler | 2 Oct 2011 03:37

Re: Slow Read : "Sciences as Communicational Communities" Segment 6

Sally, Gary:

The exploration of the term 'debate' was of significant value.  The value of debate, it seems to me, is
heavily context dependent. I agree that often, when the bipolar opposites are firmly held, the act of
debating is often futile. More frequently, the polarizations are not so fixed and hence debate becomes a
way to inform ourselves. 

I do think some thought should be given to the "internal debate" within ourselves which I view as closely
related to inquiry. This can, on occasion, lead to stalemate.

For example, I have been debating with myself for the past month on the relations between "collective" and
"distributive"  in the context of 'communicational communities'. A complete stalemate exists. I have no
idea what this phrase might mean logically or socially.   

Good job! Sally!

Cheers

Jerry 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To remove yourself
from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the
body of the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Gary Fuhrman | 2 Oct 2011 17:06
Picon
Favicon

Re: Slow Read : "Sciences as Communicational Communities" Segment 6

Jerry,

[[ I have been debating with myself for the past month on the relations between "collective" and
"distributive"  in the context of 'communicational communities'. A complete stalemate exists. I have no
idea what this phrase might mean logically or socially. ]]

If you have no idea what the phrase " communicational communities" denotes, i wonder how you are able to
sustain a debate about the relations between terms in that context!  But just in case it might be helpful: a
proposition referring to a set (or group or class or community) is taken collectively if its subject is
*the set as a whole*, and is taken distributively if its subject is *each member* of the set. (Or it can be
taken selectively, in which case its subject is *some member* of the set.) In the case of a scientific
community, for instance, there's a big difference (and a logical relation of some kind) between the
behavior of the community and the behavior of its members. And the same goes for a political community.

Gary F.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To remove yourself
from this list, send a message to LISTSERV <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the
body of the message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L <at> LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |

Gmane