I posted a link on Reddit, in the philosophy subreddit, to this blog post, which introduces Bollinger's Axiom -- "Don't assume, because someone is brilliant in one field, that they have useful insights about -- anything else at all." -- to the world.
Right away it received a positive response: upvotes, 100% upvotes, and some comments. Then, after the link had been on Reddit for about 2 hours, an admin in the philosophy subreddit removed it, and sent me a message saying that it was interesting but that it was sociological rather than philosophical.
I was about to link it in the sociology subreddit, but then I stopped, because I wasn't at all sure that the sociology admins would agree with the philosophy admin that it belonged in sociology.
I myself believe that the most interesting efforts of mankind in the arts and humanities defy categorization. And I certainly always try to be every bit as interesting as I can. Obviously, I am not an academic, and many philosophers and sociologists are.
I'm reminded of another axiom, almost 2000 years old and also difficult to categorize: "Cast not your pearls before swine."
My search for non-swine continues.
Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Thursday, August 15, 2013
University Of Rochester Paper: Atheists Iz Smarterz! Yes We Kan Haz Schadenfreude! (Or Kan We Haz?)
This paper, based on dozens of studies conducted over almost a century, flatters me and people like me; therefore, I think its research and methodology are sound and its results reliable. And also because religion is stupid.
Actually I don't know what to think of this. I don't know what to think of sociological surveys like this. I meant it when I said I found the results flattering, and I meant it when I said religion is stupid. But I neglected to mention that I think studies like this are stupid, too. How do you measure such things? How do you even begin to remove observer bias and other forms of bias? In short, I wouldn't be surprised if very soon a similarly wide-ranging analysis appears which asserts the very opposite, that intelligence and the level of one's piety rise hand in hand. And then a battle between the supporters of the conflicting studies will emerge, a debate almost as pointless and embarrassing to watch as theology itself. I agree with this study's major conclusion; I don't trust the methods by which it was achieved. The headline I'm still waiting for is: Sociological Study Proves Conclusively That Sociological Studies Are Stupid And That Sociologists Are Well-Meaning But Very Dull-Witted. Academic Discipline To Be Discontinued
Actually I don't know what to think of this. I don't know what to think of sociological surveys like this. I meant it when I said I found the results flattering, and I meant it when I said religion is stupid. But I neglected to mention that I think studies like this are stupid, too. How do you measure such things? How do you even begin to remove observer bias and other forms of bias? In short, I wouldn't be surprised if very soon a similarly wide-ranging analysis appears which asserts the very opposite, that intelligence and the level of one's piety rise hand in hand. And then a battle between the supporters of the conflicting studies will emerge, a debate almost as pointless and embarrassing to watch as theology itself. I agree with this study's major conclusion; I don't trust the methods by which it was achieved. The headline I'm still waiting for is: Sociological Study Proves Conclusively That Sociological Studies Are Stupid And That Sociologists Are Well-Meaning But Very Dull-Witted. Academic Discipline To Be Discontinued
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)