The Latest Theory Is That Theory Doesn't Matter

New York Times (Arts Section) ^ | April 19, 2003 | EMILY EAKIN

[Farnham]

Surely, this is a joke.

These guys have never gotten it before, and people only change their attitudes in time of crisis.

What gives ?

(Read the tag line !!)

[ontos-on]

You are right about this bunch of leftist intellectuals. Read marxist for leftist. They have corrupted what philosophy is; and they have captured the university. Real philosphy is not practiced at the university at present. Yet it still lives, though away from the marketplace, as always.

[TopQuark]

It is nothing short of amazing.

[TopQuark]

"I think one must be careful in assuming that intellectuals have some kind of insight. In fact, if the track record of intellectuals is any indication, not only have intellectuals been wrong almost all of the time, but they have been wrong in corrosive and destructive ways."

This is precisely because they are not.

It is often said that 5% of physicists have created 95% of physics. The engineers use a 20-80 rule, I think.

Such is the rule of progress. It is not correct to say that they have been wrong most of the time.

The idea of a representative government is an idea that is with us for centuries. It is right all the time.

[JaimeD2]

I'm loathe to say this, but I think that Chomsky deserves his reputation at the father of modern linguistics. As the saying goes, though, he should stay out of politics and stick to linguistics, where he actually knows something.

[HIDEK6]

"So is theory simply just a nice, simple intellectual exercise, or something that should be transformative?"

Bingo.

I asked this question myself, 30 years ago, in my philosophy oral.

Then, as now, the mandarins (love that word) dodged the question.

[pickemuphere]

But it doesn't have to be this way. Picture a world--let's call it the Millennium--in which all professors of philosophy are Christian and theistic.

Been there, done that. It was called the Middle Ages.

[ido_now]

ONLY THE NEW YORK TIMES COULD PUBLISH SUCH BS. WHAT IS A THEORY THAT DECLARES THAT ALL THEORIES ARE WRONG?

OXYMORON IS TOO KIND OF A TERM, SOMETHING LIKE GOOD OLD AMERICAN BULL "S WITH A HIT" SEEMS MORE REALISTIC.

[Pukka Puck]

True, but linguistics is just the science of gassing, isn't it? The study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics hardly qualifies as actions.

[Free Vulcan]

Intellectualism in my opinion is the academic equivalent of organized crime using legitimate businesses to launder money. It is nothing but trying to make totalitarian statism look credible.

[IronJack]

Good analogy. "Ideological money laundering." I like that.

[plusone]

On a similar topic, I remember when I was majoring in economics going up to the section in the social sciences building that housed the profs offices. On one of the doors was taped an article clipped from some sociologist journal. It told of an experiment which compared the response (to some economic stimulus) of a group of pigeons to a group of people. The pigeons reponded exactly according to the economic theory, whilst the people did not. The article concluded that the birds were more rational than the people, since the birds did as predicted. Of course, the article got it backwards. The true conclusion was that the economic theory underpinning the experiment was literally 'for the birds'. Afterall, theory is designed to predict behaviour. Since only the birds responded as hoped, the theory quite nicely predicted bird behaviour, but was useless at forecasting human response. That is what theory is for, trying to anticipate outcomes. But from the tone of the article, the human subjects were considered irrational...they didn't do what the theory said they should. It never dawned on these 'social scientists' that they had their theory wrong. Instead of changing their theory to fit the facts, they wanted to change human behaviour to fit their model. Typical of the left. They have all the answers, and it is up to them to save humanity from itself.

[MattAMiller]

I think it depends on what you mean by "intellecualism." I tend to think of it as just being smart folk thinking about stuff, and that doesn't neccesarily have anything to do with leftism.

[Dumb_Ox]

"I wish to deny the effectiveness of intellectual work. And especially, I always wish to counsel people against the decision to go into the academy because they hope to be effective beyond it."

This calls to mind what Auden said about poetry doing nothing. It is a tragic distortion to attempt to make the liberal arts do something in the worldly sense. After all, the liberal arts are what a free man is supposed to do in his leisure time, not while on the timeclock.

[Prolixus]

Theory and practice are more alike in theory than theory and practice are in practice.

[My2Cents]

Good story. How DARE we humans violate the precious predicted behavior of academic theory?! I think this is why people who hold to various theories of human behavior hang out in university liberal arts departments -- in how they think and operate, they would never survive in the real world with a real job.

[plusone]

Ivory towers are good hideouts from reality...