Hard News: Limping Onwards
968 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 23 24 25 26 27 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
Megan Wegan, in reply to
It’s like a bollocks millefeuille.
New favourite phrase. Can I put in a pre-emptive WOTY nomination?
-
Is Danyl suggesting historical research be carried out by amateurs?
I think so. Because it's really not that difficult to, say, spend months or years in archives reading thousands of utterly illegible handwritten manuscripts in order to create a compelling and original narrative from hugely disparate sources, all the while maintaining a working knowledge of the secondary literature in order to make sure you aren't misunderstanding the significance of everything you're looking at.
I know a lot of academic history may fail the readability test - believe me, there's quite a lot of hand-wringing over this issue within the ivory tower - but frankly, I'm surprised *any* of it is readable, considering the amount of information you have to process and analyse. It's fucking hard work.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Can I put in a pre-emptive WOTY nomination?
I would be obliged. I'm still kicking myself for not nominating Michael Lhaws last year - now everyone uses it! I'm so dumb I could cry.
-
Neil Morrison, in reply to
However, I'm not convinced the opposition had any role in extending SCF's coverage after in-depth advice of the risk.
David Cunliffe in Audust 2009 on why Labour voted to support National's extension of the scheme:
The extension of the former Labour Government’s Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme until the end of 2011 should provide renewed confidence for depositors and institutions, says Labour Finance spokesperson David Cunliffe.
Labour had no problem with the legisation.
We may never know all the back room dealing and special interest pleading involved.
You're refering to why Cunliffe changed his position so dramatically and won such support from the Hubbard Cult?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Extending SCF's coverage, Neil, not the whole scheme. And others more plugged in than you or I have started unravelling some of the wheeling and dealing.
-
recordari, in reply to
It’s like a bollocks millefeuille.
That is indeed a mellifluous phrase. [redacted]
There wasn't enough room in the innuendo almanac for that one.
-
Danyl’s argument represents the most shallow form of utilitarianism – “If it is not of immediate discernible benefit to me, then it is no benefit whatsoever.”
This is otherwise known as solipsism. Maybe philistinism. Perhaps reductionism. Very probably egotism.
The hysteria speaks for itself. If you ask professionals or scientists what society gains from their training then they just laugh, because the answer is so obvious. If you ask people who study philosophy or literature why the rest of us should fund their studies then they fly into a rage. Philistinism! Egotism! It's hugely important! In abstract ways that can never be quantified! But nevertheless put our entire civilisation at risk if they are ever questioned!
Also, I think that many of the words you used to describe me don't mean what you think they mean.
if nobody was trained to be, say, a historian, it's not very clear who would get to write the books that you could read in your spare time and be as good as somebody who's had to study the stuff. Is Danyl suggesting historical research be carried out by amateurs?
There's a very vigorous attack going on against a straw-man argument I never made. I'm all for professional historians, post-graduates learning research skills etc. My original post was a response to this comment:
a society where a scattering of folk have made an intellectual investment in history, art, literature philosophy et al, knowing it's not leading to any specific career or ability to improve their earnings, but just because they want to know more about cultural stuff.
If someone is passionate about history and wants to become a professional historian then I'm all for that, and happy for my tax-dollars to subsidise it. If someone thinks it would cool to learn about the French Revolution, because they've always been kind of curious about it, then I'm lost as to why my tax dollars should pay for that, when they can just go to the library instead.
Personally I feel history is in a separate category to the other humanities in terms of social value. Historians play a role in the national conversation in ways that modern literary critics, art-historians, philosophers etc generally don't, for reasons I don't really understand.
-
Neil Morrison, in reply to
And others more plugged in than you or I have started unravelling some of the wheeling and dealing.
If you're refering to foreign investors in SFC then they were included so the govt would have complete control over the receivership process. It wasn't a secret.
But Cunliffe has been going on about the total bailout, a process he voted for twice.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
If you ask professionals or scientists what society gains from their training then they just laugh, because the answer is so obvious.
Because they think the answer is so obvious. There, fixed it for you.
art-historians, philosophers etc generally don't, for reasons I don't really understand.
Yes, that is painfully clear.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The hysteria speaks for itself. If you ask professionals or scientists what society gains from their training then they just laugh, because the answer is so obvious. If you ask people who study philosophy or literature why the rest of us should fund their studies then they fly into a rage. Philistinism! Egotism! It’s hugely important! In abstract ways that can never be quantified! But nevertheless put our entire civilisation at risk if they are ever questioned!
To be fair, you didn't ask as such, you merely dismissed the humanities as worthless. Not quite the same thing.
FWIW, I seem to recall quite a bit of anguished defence of science lately, with the Ken Ring thing and all.
-
I'm still not sure we're there. If the end game is the negation of humanities study for the sake of it, rather than as a basis for a professional career, then isn't that just the solipsists argument as suggested above?
If your study plan has a tangible financial return to 'me' as a taxpayer in the foreseeable future, then carry on. Otherwise go to the library, you burden to society who is wasting our meagre resources.
Even from my slightly right of centre stand point, this seems like extremism.
Historians play a role in the national conversation in ways that modern literary critics, art-historians, philosophers etc generally don't, for reasons I don't really understand.
That much is entirely clear, as they so categorically do, for reasons you may wish to look into.
ETA: Snap, crackle, pop.
-
To be fair, you didn't ask as such, you merely dismissed the humanities as worthless. Not quite the same thing.
To be slightly fairer, I didn't dismiss them as worthless - I quite laek that thar William Faulkner feller, etc - just questioned the wisdom of paying for people to dabble in them.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
To be slightly fairer, I didn’t dismiss them as worthless – I quite laek that thar William Faulkner feller, etc – just questioned the wisdom of paying for people to dabble in them.
I'm not sure that "dabbling" is actually specified in the employment contract.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
FWIW, I seem to recall quite a bit of anguished defence of science lately, with the Ken Ring thing and all.
The irony there, is that you actually need philosophers to defend science. Like I always say, it's not a grounding in science itself that journalists need to cover the stuff - since they can't be expected to acquire the specialised knowledge of each field - but rather training in recognising and evaluating the relative merits of rational arguments. On which count I found this article by Kerre Woodham spectacularly off the mark.
-
Neil Morrison, in reply to
The irony there, is that you actually need philosophers to defend science.
such as Feyerabend?
-
Sacha, in reply to
If you're refering to foreign investors in SFC
No
-
If your study plan has a tangible financial return to 'me' as a taxpayer in the foreseeable future, then carry on. Otherwise go to the library, you burden to society who is wasting our meagre resources.
I'd replace the word 'tangible' with the word 'probable' but yeah, that's pretty much it. Perhaps it helps if you bear in mind the opportunity cost: ie each year paying someone to study Lacan, or contemplate Middlemarch is a sum of money that don't go into health and welfare, or into training doctors, engineers, research scientists (cough) etc.
-
you actually need philosophers to defend science
But the public defenders of science in New Zealand are Paul Callaghan and Peter Gluckman, ie scientists.
Do we have any public philosophers, the way we have public historians, economist and even political scientists?
Specifically, if I search the online media (Stuff, the Herald etc) for people like Peter Gluckman, Brian Easton or Michael King then I get loads of hits. This is because these are/were local experts in their field who are - like I said - part of the national conversation. Can anyone name a local philosopher who carries similar weight?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
such as Feyerabend?
Such as Lyotard, who understood ahead of his time what is now one of our main challenges - how to counteract the arguments of deniers and truthers. Which happens to be a matter of life or death on a planetary scale. The idea that you win that argument by convincing everyone to listen to science is just wrong - you need to teach critical thinking. And that's the domain of the humanities, not of your science teacher.
research scientists (cough) etc.
Yes. Research scientists. People Who Do Only Good.
-
recordari, in reply to
...is a sum of money that don't go into health and welfare, or into training doctors, engineers, research scientists (cough) etc.
Bingo. The chestnuts aren't falling far from the tree today.
-
Parliamentary Question Time today:
7. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Is it correct that Treasury was in the Prime Minister’s office “week after week, month after month” telling him South Canterbury Finance was going bankrupt?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
But the public defenders of science in New Zealand are Paul Callaghan and Peter Gluckman, ie scientists.
Do we have any public philosophers, the way we have public historians, economist and even political scientists?
We don't, because we don't believe in their value. And we are wrong.
Incidentally, when I wrote about the truther conference in Wellington a couple of years ago, I got quite a lot of supportive mail and links, and much of it by scientists who recognised the value of a humanities approach to the issue, and that you cannot easily disprove those 'theories' - in fact they are almost impossible to disprove on scientific grounds alone, as our own Matthew Dentith could tell you.
-
Megan Wegan, in reply to
If someone thinks it would cool to learn about the French Revolution, because they’ve always been kind of curious about it, then I’m lost as to why my tax dollars should pay for that, when they can just go to the library instead.
Yes, because every person knows *exactly* what they want to do with the rest of their lives at every given moment.
But then I have a humanities and social science masters degree, that only became even vaguely useful to my career in the past 3 years, so I would say that.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Can anyone name a local philosopher who carries similar weight?
Most of the big problems we still need to solve involve understanding people and ideas, not just last century's science and technology. Our nation's lack of prominent and respected philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, teachers, etc is a weakness rather than a good or natural thing.
-
Sacha, in reply to
We don't, because we don't believe in their value. And we are wrong.
snap
Post your response…
This topic is closed.