Althouse's response is, if anything, less illuminating than your generalized expression of discontent here.
Fish's point about astrology would, I assume, be nearly impossible to misread, yet the Lundgren linked does exactly that.
Chomsky insists on the necessity of the depoliticized classroom, arguing, as I recall, that the state will inevitably assume an indoctrinating monopoly. This is an idea regarded as wildly naive in many pedagogical circles but one I've always favored on pragmatic grounds, as the innate cynicism of the student's lifeworld precludes indoctrination in all cases excepting maximum charisma or susceptibility.
Have you read Luther's piece on the Toledot Jeshu?
Fish's point about astrology is itself pretty bad, though, since it misses a sort of object language/metalanguage distinction between working in the astrological research program and working on the history and influence of that research program. HPS isn't actually a science department.
The point of the commenter's question is, as Fish points out, that it is as crazy to hire Barrett as it would be to hire an astrologer. By "astrologer," though, our wag clearly means someone working on the discredited project of astrology, not someone working in the history of ideas.
Fish claims he's distinguishing between studying astrology and proseltyzing for it, but that's not the distinction he's drawing with the example. Part of why this matters is that a big part of the Barrett question is whether the view he's clearly committed to (9/11: inside job!) is the kind of thing that should be taught in an intro to Islam course. Plausible: thinking about the dessemination and popularity of conspiracy theories of 9/11 will illuminate contemporary Middle Eastern culture in a way germane to a course on Islam. Much less plausible: thinking about whether 9/11 was an inside job will illuminate the same issues.
Fish:
Is the fact of this group’s growing presence on the Internet a reason for studying it in a course on 9/11? Sure. Is the instructor who discusses the group’s arguments thereby endorsing them? Not at all. It is perfectly possible to teach a viewpoint without embracing it and urging it. But the moment a professor does embrace and urge it, academic study has ceased and been replaced by partisan advocacy. And that is a moment no college administration should allow to occur.
The problem, for the people excited about this, isn't so much an academic freedom issue; it's about academic quality control. But once things have got to this point, there is an interesting question about the limits of instructor autonomy that's not answered by Fish's examine/endorse distinction, since (I hope everyone agrees) it would be completely stupid to spend an awful lot of time (even in a non-endorsing way) on the "was it an inside job?" question in a course that's on something else entirely. (Partly, but not only, because it's not really a live and interesting question.) As usual, I suspect the answer will rest on how much harm is caused by a general set of restrictions and how much good is generated by laxity.
Fish didn't seem to grasp that an person working in a history and philosophy of science department wouldn't actually be an astrologer, nor would she be a scientist. It would be bad if a scientist wasted time in a physics lecture on astrology, or a biologist on intelligent design, and it would have nothing to do with whether the instructor was forcing beliefs down a student's throat. It would be bad because it had nothing to do with the topic of the course.
But how to regulate it?
Standardized curricula are the obvious answer, and they've become pretty popular at the K-12 level, but you can see why universities would resist them.
But who said that "science is garbage, but the history of science is scholarship?"
I also think that most of the people exercised about this are concerned about the freedom of academic speech they disagree with. For many in this nexus, Barret et al. are only incrementally removed from any perceived critics of the ISA.
Necessity wrought by hyperspecialization is the only justification for a wholly presentist approach to teaching science or mathematics.
And also that astrology doesn't work and phlogiston doesn't exist.
That's more than a mite triumphalist, especially when faced with the baroque mysticism of some corners of theoretical physics, isn't it?
But a complete disregard of historical circumstance and nuance is probably a necessary precondition for being able to do meaningful scientific work. Many people seem to believe this is the case. Chomsky, for example.
We learned about phlogiston in my AP Chem class.
Wouldn't the ability to manipulate phlogiston be a neat power to have? Anything possible to be believed is an image, etc.
That's more than a mite triumphalist, especially when faced with the baroque mysticism of some corners of theoretical physics, isn't it?
Not really. Not every new research field will be fruitful, and it's certainly not the case that everything we learn now is fixed, but that doesn't entail that discredited theories should garner as much practical attention as newly developing fields.
We learned about astrology, phlogiston, early theories of genetics, early evolutionary theory, and the like, in all introductory courses I had, even at the university level. But learning the ins and outs of how to calculate astrological (the relevant comparison with Barrett, here) charts in an astronomy class? Or how, maybe, to turn lead into gold in introductory chemistry?
Learning the history is fine, just as touching on a 9/11 conspiracy in passing (or even delving into the whys) is fine. Arguing that astrology is just as valid today as superstring theory? Making your belief that 9/11 was a vast conspiracy the foundation of your course? Not so much.
But a complete disregard of historical circumstance and nuance is probably a necessary precondition for being able to do meaningful scientific work.
No one argued for a complete disregard of history, or that it's a necessary condition for scientific work. (Chomsky's wrong.) If that were so, we'd better move to shut down the HPS departments tout suite; they often share lecture space with the physicists.
Does Chomsky actually advocate disregarding historical circumstance? In practical terms that's exactly what he does, but I wasn't aware that he called for it explicitly as a general rule.
9/11 conspiracy theories are not much like alchemy. They're a politicized factual interpretation of current events, right or wrong, and not an abstruse theory. (Pretty much all theories of 9/11 are politicized, of course.)
I don't see the point of saying that 9/11 conspiracies can be taught objectively, but not as if they were true. (I even think that this is a copout in religious studies.) If the interpretation is true or has a chance of being true, it can be taught that way, without the requirement of distancing. Students will have the right to disagree or withhold judgement.
I'm not interested in these theories and don't think that they're possibly true (not the ones that allege Bush-Cheney foreknowledge or active involvement; neglect yes), but it's a bad precedent to suppress any current-events discussion.
I might just barely be able to accept the suppression of holocaust denial. In Soviet, Fascist, and theocratic countries all kinds of teachings have been forbidden as obviously false, including some true teachings.
around and around, and the point is in the center:
that Mr Barrett intends to present this particular subject
matter is what it's about .... "9/11 an inside job" cannot
be expressed anywhere, any time.
I mean, really, what's next? Oswald DIDN'T kill JFK?
What's with the trajectory of this guy's career? Berkeley -> Johns Hopkins -> Duke -> UIC -> FIU. It seems like one slow come down. Or does he have enough status from his publications that it doesn't matter which university employees him?
It doesn't matter. He probably wanted to spend his golden years in the sun.
16:Amusing to see what is considered beyond the pale of civilized discourse on a blog built on cock jokes.
Now I doubt that the group has decided that Bush/Cheney were not accomplices in the 9/11 event based on a careful weighing of all the evidence. It is simply battered wife syndrome; liberals show their special kind of courage by comparing bruises, split lips, and bleeding rectums.
I no longer give a flying about the truth; I just want the riot to begin.
9/11 Conspiracy Theorism is true.
That said, I once taught a high school math class for a couple weeks while the teacher had jury duty. I felt that it would have been much more effective if the students were presented with more history of how these concepts came about, why the problems were considered important, etc. From what I remember in high school, you do get some history, but it's like "Euler is a great mathematician and came up with this cool constant that you can plug into the equation for continuously compounded interest" or something.
Science does have more history stuff, because it has to be a triumphalist narrative -- "We sure overcame those ignorant bastards! How could anyone have believed that shit?!"
Science does have more history stuff, because it has to be a triumphalist narrative -- "We sure overcame those ignorant bastards! How could anyone have believed that shit?!"
Did scientists kill your pets on your birthday, Adam? Did they?
A present-day scientist doesn't laugh at Newton for being an eccentric boob (for example). Rather she continues to use Newtonian mechanics as long as relativistic effects aren't significant, which is pretty much all the time. The narrative that scientists tend to subscribe to is one of incremental advances. That probably has its own problems (any philosophers of science in the house?), but triumphalist it's not. It certainly doesn't "[have] to be" triumphalist.
(This is not to say that there aren't triumphalist scientists.)
Which is why your diet should contain at least the occasional scientist.
23 -- the text "triumphalist scientists should link to a bio of Richard Dawkins. (Whom I love, especially for The Ancestor's Tale -- but if the shoe fits.)
And I should close my quotes when I remember to open them.
Have I missed something here? Isn't the issue here not whether Barrett should be allowed to teach a course wherein he espouses questionable theories, but rather whether a faculty member can be fired for what he says in the public domain? Barrett made his comments on a right wing news show, right? Perhaps he does also teach this in his course, but this controversy started with his call in. It seems worrisome to me that faculty can be fired for what they say when they're not in the classroom. Don't get me wrong, I imagine that when someone speaks as a representative of the college, that, well, you can fire him or her if he/she acts totally inappropriately. But, what about if we got called out for the dumb shit we say on blogs?
if we got called out for the dumb shit we say on blogs?
I might never hold another job.
I might never hold another job.
Because you'd be appointed King of the universe.
philosophers of science in the house?
I suppose I sort of qualify.
Larry Laudan's 'A Confutation of Convergent Realism' {JSTOR link} is a well-known recent critique of the idea of science as involving incremental progress towards the truth.