next »

[grasshopper]

How do you claim to answer any of my questions without addressing a single issue with them.

SciencePhD was pointing out that your questions are flawed. The answer is in the question, young grasshopper.

[msparticularity]

That is good.  I'm actually glad to hear this finally.

But the question I have is: what is the bottom line? Do you work on ideas and work with students so that you can beef up your reputation?  Are you motivated to work on ideas and teaching because of how it might affect your reputation?

What is the main motivation?  Is it building a reputation, or helping make the world a better place?

How does this even matter? What is the impact of one's motivation on academic activity? Does it matter if you research out of selfish reasons or out of idealistic reasons, if the results are the same anyway?

Continuing on the theme of reputation, and whether I/we value it more than mentoring our students:

OP, here's the thing; there are a fair number of people out there who are 1) brilliant and insightful; 2) convinced that they have major insights into Truth that should be shared so others can benefit, and 3) also convinced that others are persecuting them and/or trying to shut down their insight into Truth.

To name just two possibilities that are not even mutually exclusive, individuals like this may be genuine geniuses with insights that can and will revolutionize the field, or paranoid schizophrenics. What helps make this clear is peer review. And peer review is not just a one-time event, since politics, ill-well, or whatever can definitely effect results; peer-review is a long-term process that relies upon a large community of scholars with enough shared rules of conduct that things will eventually clarify--good ideas, nutty-but-interesting-ideas, and ravings.

Much of a scholar's "reputation" has to do with remaining a viable member of this community, which includes not only doing good work, but maintaining respectful relations with others in the community. This doesn't mean we don't criticize the work of others, or encourage our students to do so. It does mean we conduct our critiques according to some shared norms. This is, apparently, the system you violated.

[symbolicsorcery]

OP, also, I am curious to know.  Joan Jett in the "Bad Reputation" video kindly provided by TRB serves to remind us of an eternal truth:  "Beauty is truth, truth beauty."  If people in academia are in the Truth business, does this mean we need to spend another 1/3 of our energy on hair, makeup, and wardrobe?

That figure was not meant to be realistic, only to show that we should be striving for balance and equilibrium between these three forces, because overemphasis on one means de-emphasis on the others.

[concordancia]

some of the truths we all hold dear are true from our own points of view

[grasshopper]

OP, also, I am curious to know.  Joan Jett in the "Bad Reputation" video kindly provided by TRB serves to remind us of an eternal truth:  "Beauty is truth, truth beauty."  If people in academia are in the Truth business, does this mean we need to spend another 1/3 of our energy on hair, makeup, and wardrobe?

That figure was not meant to be realistic, only to show that we should be striving for balance and equilibrium between these three forces, because overemphasis on one means de-emphasis on the others.

What would you know about it? You've never worked in academia. You sat on the sidelines for three years, and decided you knew more than your advisor about how things should be done.

Ah, young grasshopper. So much left to learn.

[european]

OP, also, I am curious to know.  Joan Jett in the "Bad Reputation" video kindly provided by TRB serves to remind us of an eternal truth:  "Beauty is truth, truth beauty."  If people in academia are in the Truth business, does this mean we need to spend another 1/3 of our energy on hair, makeup, and wardrobe?

That figure was not meant to be realistic, only to show that we should be striving for balance and equilibrium between these three forces, because overemphasis on one means de-emphasis on the others.

Does this mean that in solving the equation x + 2 = 3, in determining x, we should find a balance and equilibrium between the force of "1", the force of "100%", the force of "5-4" and the force of "8/8"?

[geonerd]

Do you do this in your academic work?  Make bold claims and offer no supporting evidence?

I wasn't trying to make those figures realistic.

One of the world's greatest ironies is that the people who generate the best irony are incapable of appreciating it.

[symbolicsorcery]

That is good.  I'm actually glad to hear this finally.

But the question I have is: what is the bottom line? Do you work on ideas and work with students so that you can beef up your reputation?  Are you motivated to work on ideas and teaching because of how it might affect your reputation?

What is the main motivation?  Is it building a reputation, or helping make the world a better place?

How does this even matter? What is the impact of one's motivation on academic activity? Does it matter if you research out of selfish reasons or out of idealistic reasons, if the results are the same anyway?

Continuing on the theme of reputation, and whether I/we value it more than mentoring our students:

OP, here's the thing; there are a fair number of people out there who are 1) brilliant and insightful; 2) convinced that they have major insights into Truth that should be shared so others can benefit, and 3) also convinced that others are persecuting them and/or trying to shut down their insight into Truth.

To name just two possibilities that are not even mutually exclusive, individuals like this may be genuine geniuses with insights that can and will revolutionize the field, or paranoid schizophrenics. What helps make this clear is peer review. And peer review is not just a one-time event, since politics, ill-well, or whatever can definitely effect results; peer-review is a long-term process that relies upon a large community of scholars with enough shared rules of conduct that things will eventually clarify--good ideas, nutty-but-interesting-ideas, and ravings.

Much of a scholar's "reputation" has to do with remaining a viable member of this community, which includes not only doing good work, but maintaining respectful relations with others in the community. This doesn't mean we don't criticize the work of others, or encourage our students to do so. It does mean we conduct our critiques according to some shared norms. This is, apparently, the system you violated.

Thank you for your intelligent reply and not directly attacking my character.

I think your view balances the opinions presented here.

I don't really have anything against reputation per se.  It's just those charlatan academics (probably the minority) that know they don't have real ideas, so replace true substance with smoke-and-mirrors tricks.

[symbolicsorcery]

OP, also, I am curious to know.  Joan Jett in the "Bad Reputation" video kindly provided by TRB serves to remind us of an eternal truth:  "Beauty is truth, truth beauty."  If people in academia are in the Truth business, does this mean we need to spend another 1/3 of our energy on hair, makeup, and wardrobe?

That figure was not meant to be realistic, only to show that we should be striving for balance and equilibrium between these three forces, because overemphasis on one means de-emphasis on the others.

What would you know about it? You've never worked in academia. You sat on the sidelines for three years, and decided you knew more than your advisor about how things should be done.

Ah, young grasshopper. So much left to learn.

Again, what does my character have to do with the issue?

The truth is that the rest of the world has suffered because of the stagnation of ideas coming out of academia.  The sole reason for this stagnation is the overemphasis on reputation, at the expense of education.

I'm growing tired of these repetitive replies.  I think I've made my point, so at this point I'll probably only reply to someone who can calmly address the issue of reputation over education.

[sciencephd]

I don't really have anything against reputation per se.  It's just those charlatan academics (probably the minority) that know they don't have real ideas, so replace true substance with smoke-and-mirrors tricks.

If you had chosen a top graduate school, perhaps you would not have encountered this.

[european]

I don't really have anything against reputation per se.  It's just those charlatan academics (probably the minority) that know they don't have real ideas, so replace true substance with smoke-and-mirrors tricks.

Allow me to interpret what happened here because it will reveal the truth about why academia is NOT primarily in the business of discovery and of acquiring knowledge for the benefit of man, but operates more like a priestly sect which reserves knowledge among the most initiated, for the sole reason that knowledge equals power.

[sciencephd]

The truth is that the rest of the world has suffered because of the stagnation of ideas coming out of academia.  The sole reason for this stagnation is the overemphasis on reputation, at the expense of education.

If you want to make sweeping statements, back them up.

[symbolicsorcery]

I don't really have anything against reputation per se.  It's just those charlatan academics (probably the minority) that know they don't have real ideas, so replace true substance with smoke-and-mirrors tricks.

If you had chosen a top graduate school, perhaps you would not have encountered this.

So it's only the "top" graduate schools that are devoid of corruption and charlatanism?  Isn't this admitting that the vast majority of academic institutions are not working their intended function?

Again, these are just questions.  I don't really know.  Just trying to make people think.

[symbolicsorcery]

I don't really have anything against reputation per se.  It's just those charlatan academics (probably the minority) that know they don't have real ideas, so replace true substance with smoke-and-mirrors tricks.

Allow me to interpret what happened here because it will reveal the truth about why academia is NOT primarily in the business of discovery and of acquiring knowledge for the benefit of man, but operates more like a priestly sect which reserves knowledge among the most initiated, for the sole reason that knowledge equals power.

So you think we're supposed to hold on to our statements for dear life, never changing our perspective in light of new information and discussion?

This seems to be how academia operates.  Fear of changing your ideas because your ideas are your reputation and your reputation is all that counts.

[european]

But you don't seem to have changed your mind at all. Even on the previous page you've suggested that academia is corrupted. If you have changed your mind, then affirm the following:

"For the major part, academia works very well. However, there are a very small number of troublesome individuals working within it."

And then nobody's going to discuss with you anymore.