academic language is often purposely obfuscated

i recommend reading Beatrice Cherrier & co. for non-insane but still critical history of economics

― flopson, Wednesday, April 4, 2018 3:10 PM (twenty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

thanks for the recommendation, I'm reading a paper of hers now "GUNNAR MYRDAL AND THE SCIENTIFIC WAY TO SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, 1914–1968" instead of working yay

/the knowledge we have lost in information: the history of information in modern economics/ by philip mirowksi and edward nik-khah

mirowski is honestly a Thomas Bernhard character, in the level of frothing hateful rants

also imo the economists, mathematicians, and operations researchers who developed the theories of information in modern economics in the 20th century were doing foundational work in theoretical social sciences that will survive centuries, and has applications far beyond economics. from quotes i've read i honestly doubt PM even understands a lot of that work

in his course he went on about the unverifiability of string theory and its group-theoretic foundation, science as conventionalism so we have to probe the reasons for the choices of conventions, which point to capital and in particular militarism.

the book reminds me of bernhard, flopson! good call. i’m quite enjoying it, albeit in a sort of pynchon mode, alternative narratives, crazified concepts. but it doesn’t come across as sane. useful to see knowledgeable people itt put a bit more substance to that.

and yes the dread helbatrawss can only be an ancient mariner ref. they use words like ilk and ken as well. it’s distracting, and finally all over the shop. still enjoying it tho.

that piece on Peterson was really well written, a refreshing read

that economics book sounds like something that should be given a dramatic reading

ken is a good word

HI DERE

http://cognitionandculture.net/blog/radu-umbres-blog/cultures-of-academic-disagreement

The impression I had as a participant observer in the anthropological conference was not that of witnessing a conflict. Most scholars in all fields are nice people in conference interaction, but anthropologists are especially nice during presentations. Almost never was a speaker challenged directly in terms of findings or interpretations. At worst, the audience expressed that they did a good job, but it could be even better if they did something else : additionally, not instead of what they had done.

I call this the “agglutinative style of academic argumentation.” An argument is not intended to displace another argument. As anthropologists are fond of saying (and not without a large dose of truth), social reality is complex. Many things are happening at once, real existing societies are different from lab settings. Informers are whole persons with social, political, economic, religious sides, with various positions, motivations, and social embeddings.

Whenever this topic comes up, I'm reminded of What Is Philosophy? by Deleuze and Guattari:

Every philosopher runs away when he or she hears someone say “Let’s discuss this.” Discussions are fine for roundtable talks, but philosophy throws its numbered dice on another table. The best one can say about discussions is that they take things no farther, since the participants never talk about the same thing. Of what concern is it to philosophy that someone has such a view, and thinks this or that, if the problems at stake are not stated? And when they are stated, it is no longer a matter of discussing but rather one of creating concepts for the undiscussible problem posed. Communication always comes too early or too late, and when it comes to creating, conversation is always superfluous. Sometimes philosophy is turned into the idea of a perpetual discussion, as “communicative rationality” or as “universal democratic conversation”. Nothing is less exact, and when philosophers criticize each other it is on the basis of problems and on a plane that is different from theirs and that melt down the old concepts in a way a canon can be melted down to make new weapons. It never takes place on the same plane. To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All these debaters and commentators are inspired by ressentiment. They speak only of themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do. Debate is unbearable to it, but not because it is too sure of itself. On the contrary, it is its uncertainties that take it down other, more solitary paths.