What are the real ideological
differences between Fallists and scientists at the University of Cape Town
(UCT)?
Emeritus Prof. Tim Crowe
They are about what constitutes
knowledge; how to obtain it; who should communicate it and what it means.
Knowledge is simply organized
information, the reasoned study of which is known as epistemology. http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2011/09/22/What-is-Knowledge.aspx
The fundamental ‘real’ (epistemological)
differences between intelligent Fallists and me plus the most of the “silent
majority” at UCT relate to how that ‘organization’ is done and how to interpret
the results. I am a scientist specializing
in evolutionary and conservation biology who has a spent half-century absorbing
information, testing current ideas/hypotheses and, where necessary, generating new
knowledge. I have approached this in two
ways. First and foremost, I have conducted
my research within the context of theory that has withstood the test of time
via theoretical and empirical/experimental testing. Second, I have structured my information
gathering to provide enough data to test and, if necessary, refute theory
experimentally or statistically. Having
said this, I honestly believe that my research was never based on the premise:
“I never would have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.” I can back this up with publications that
clearly reject theory I had previously defended.
My knowledge journey has been
characterized by three fundamental approaches.
First, learn/discover a lot about one thing. In my case, this has been the broad biology
of terrestrial gamebirds: Galliformes. As
a biologist, my first reaction to research that is data-limited, nebulously
formulated, theoretically miles wide and empirically millimetres thin is to distrust
it. I fully appreciate the effects of historical
contingency (phylogenetic evolutionary inertia) and the importance of
“context”, especially in my ecological research (i.e. there are more or fewer
gamebirds on a property because it rained at the right time of the year; it
didn’t rain; there was or was not a veld fire, etc.). But, in the end, no matter how elusive it is,
there is truth out there to be discovered.
Second, I have assiduously followed
the practice of subjecting my research finds to review by epistemic peers in
respected scientific publications, and at national and international scientific
meetings and in one-on-one debate with leading scientific adversaries. None of these adversaries ever became a
personal enemy. Indeed, many became
good friends. Third, I have translated
(without ‘dumbing down’) my and others’ research findings to make them
understandable to the general public.
Education is simply passing on
knowledge to the benefit of recipients.
Although an arrogant elitist and passionate ideological advocate by
nature, I have tried to ensure that my recipients were never ‘baffled’ or
‘bullied’ and always challenged. I saw
my students as developing potential colleagues (which many of them have
become), with the primary goal being to allow them to have successful,
independent careers. I saw colleagues as
both allies and adversaries to share a beer with after debates. Although I promoted my own ideas and research
ethos, I never consciously avoided or overtly denigrated ideas/people with
which/whom I disagreed. Proof of these
claims is the fact that none of my many students can be described as an Austin
Powersian “mini-me”.
At UCT, in the ‘bad old days’,
many scientists viewed the south side of the upper campus as the “soft side”,
characterized by lots of empty parking bays in the afternoon. Research conducted by colleagues in the
Faculty of Humanities was often parodied as Postmodern, reflecting my
adversary/friend philosopher Daniel
Dennett’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett
view that it stems from: "a school
of 'thought' that proclaims 'There are no truths, only interpretations' and has
largely played itself out in absurdity, because it is based on a distrust of the
very idea of truth and disrespect for evidence, settling for 'conversations' in
which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever
style you can muster."
Some (many?) left-leaning
academics and the few(?) knowledgeable Fallists, primarily from the social
sciences, view scientists as ‘nomotheists’ who relentlessly force reality to
conform to universal theories often based on quantitative studies of
populations. They self-identify as ‘idiographers’
who favour qualitative study of contingent, unique, and often cultural or subjective
phenomena
based on individuals’ “lived experiences”.
Truth, from their perspective is entirely contextually dependent. Following Marxist philosopher Antonio
Gramsci, they insist that academics should be "organic" intellectuals
who do not simply view life in accordance with scientific rules, but instead “articulate” it through the culture,
feelings and experiences of the masses who subject themselves to a hegemony
based on "consented" coercion.
A Trumpian “nasty” nomotheist
would describe ideographic research as “Mrs Brown’s Tuesday’s truth”. A retorting idiographer would describe
nomothetic research as: “I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it”.
Before I came to Africa, I was
probably a nomotheist product of what I had read and been taught. That is, I was a student. Within a decade of publishing my Ph.D.
research results, as a consequence of trying to understand the evolution,
ecology and conservation of African gamebirds and other wildlife, I was
infected with idiography.
A great piece that sheds much needed light on some of the great theoretical/ideological debates in the contemporary crypto space. At CleanApp Foundation, we appreciate the emphasis on pragmatism, and emphasis on Blockchain/DTL/Crypto projects that offer real social utility. Looking forward to engaging more with your crew!
ReplyDelete