When and if members of the establishment take it, they have the opportunity to answer the questions freely and honestly, and in the end the data will speak for itself irrespective of "bias." It seems, for example, that the survey has an anti-PGR bias. Guess what? Surveys are always "biased." Fortunately for us, however, the people who take them have something called "free will." So far as I can tell, Jun invited the entire "analytic philosophic establishment" and then some to take this survey. Otherwise the surveys in questions are very clearly biased or intended to "attack analytic philosophic establishment," whatever that even means. And in any case, only Brian Leiter or "x-phi" people are allowed to administer surveys in the profession. Yes, because we all know that the PGR isn't biased. That I see happening with an alarming frequency. The problem is when someone isn't all that bright and they try to ask a "gotcha" question that's kind of stupid. I don't think the problem is the "gotcha" questions and the people that ask them. Also, one of the most combative questioners (if that is a word) that I've witnessed was a historian. I've been to a great number of biology colloquia where people have taken presenters to task in an arguably mean-spirited manner. That said, I don't think that philosophers are the only people that are guilty of being a little over enthusiastic in their critical comments. Now, granted there are folks (pretty much everyone who attends the Eastern APA meeting for example) who are a bit jerkish when it comes to questions/comments/criticisms but for the most part, I think the "gotcha" questions forces people to really consider the sort of commitments and assumptions that might sneak in with their work. It seems to me that other fields could gain from being a little more aggressive (in regards to being combatively critical). I'm sort of an interdisciplinarian, if that's a word, so I go to a lot of talks in different fields. I actually have the opposite sentiment to many people who commented on this thread. Could you respond as follows?." BTW, the discussion that follows this post is interesting and has some relevance here. I would find colloquia much more stimulating if I heard comments of the following sort with greater frequency: "I worry that one will complain against your argument/thesis in such-and-such a way. More importantly though, there is great value to constructive remarks, even when they involve critical ideas. With rare exceptions, I find that philosophers at colloquia looking for the "gotcha" moment end up looking like asses not so much because they are uncivil, but because their criticism turns out to have less bite than they thought it would. In addition to lacking a measure of civility, "gotcha" attacks tend to be intellectually unproductive. The choice between combative ("critical") and non-philosophical (non-critical) grossly oversimplifies matters. It's worth noting however that many of us who call for a less combative attitude in colloquia are not asking for philosophers not to be critical. I've found that the contrast Swartz speaks of-the difference in tone between philosophy colloquia and colloquia in other disciplines-is indeed quite striking.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |