[Stones] scholarship

Sun Jun 15 15:53:13 BST 2008

Here is a chime-in. I would like to say that I think these people are not
intentionally deceptive, just sure that they are the only geniuses in their
field.

It will seem odd, but here is an article that applies pretty closely to this
thread, and yet it comes from a different walk of life:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/health/20prof.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&em
c=th&pagewanted=all

As everyone knows, surgeons bring their favorite music to the operating
rooms. The lead surgeon gets to "call the tune." Here, a surgeon has
convinced himself that his musical inclinations equate to some conclusions
such as (a) patients are calmed by Mozart's music; (b) Mozart wrote such
soothing music because he himself was constantly sick and in pain.

Surgeons are legendary for their egos.

Objectively, you would want to test whether Mozart's music predictably
soothes patients, and you would certainly want to look at the complete life
of Mozart, which was very productive in early years when there was no
particular issue of sickness. IMHO, a good test of these questions is sure
to reveal that the surgeon is full of himself.

Regards,

Dave S.
Newtown, CT

On 6/15/08 4:07 AM, "Merryn Dineley" <merryn at dineley.com> wrote:

> hi Rob,
> 
> I did not find the 'squishy women and babies' concept amusing at first -
> but my sense of humour soon returned! Could he just be seeing how far he
> can take these far fetched ideas? As for the rest, I completely agree
> with your analysis.
> 
> It really is about time that this kind of insubstantial argument based
> upon no evidence at all was recognised and challenged. I did my M.Phil
> at Manchester at around the time that these ideas of post processualism
> were considered to be relevent and very important. I recall going to a
> conference - it was the European Archaeolgy Association in Bournemouth
> 1999 - and the 'Hermeneutics and Phenomenology' session was packed out!
> Other sessions had less than 20 people attending. I think this was at
> the height of the post processualism thing. Is this term still used?
> 
> My research into barley, malting and brewing is soundly based upon
> fundamental biological and biochemical processes and so it was not
> considered relevent nor even very interesting within the Department. I
> worked in the Manchester Department as a Teaching Assistant for a couple
> of years but could not cope with the way the undergraduates were being -
> how did you put it? - decieved! Brainwashed with philosophy before
> being given/taught the archaeological and chronological data with which
> to discuss or refute things. Interpretation was purely in the hands of
> the elite.
> 
> The story of the Emporer's new clothes describes the whole situation
> quite well - if one or two people stand up and say 'but there is no
> substance to this!' then maybe more will follow?
> 
> in hope, Merryn
> 
> 
> ewc wrote:
>> Hi Merryn
>> 
>> Thanks for the link to the NG article - I agree it's an interesting
>> piece, for popular consumption. Was amused to find MPP got the 'mad
>> professor slot - rambling about 'squishy babies' or some such.
>> 
>> My concern here are not about this sort of thing - more that the new
>> Stonehenge project is a prestigious affair and I am concerned at the
>> sort of strands in archaeology that are being elevated by association
>> with it. Lets turn aside from MPP and take a look at some of the others
>> - like Julian Thomas and Christopher Tilley.
>> 
>> I think it was in 'Death, identity and the body in Neolithic Britain'
>> where JT advanced three separate matters I had trouble with
>> 
>> 1) His notion that the move from communal to individual burial at the
>> end of the British Neolithic was evidence for the (psychological)
>> development of individual awareness - writing as if he had substantive
>> evidence that Neolithic man was somehow not self aware - when he has none
>> 
>> 2) His notion that heightened self awareness is particular to modern
>> Western cultures, and was/(is?) lacking in the orient. This showed a
>> gross ignorance of oriental history imo.
>> 3) Brow beating the reader by unexplained reference to the philosopher
>> Heidegger
>> 
>> The arguments lacked substance, thus seemed to me to represent, not
>> scholarship, but a disturbing desire to undermine the rational objective
>> tradition.
>> 
>> My posts here are really put up to ask the question - are there others
>> out there disturbed by these developments? To me they seem little better
>> than a form of charlatanry - and to judge from my conversations with
>> modern undergraduates, the deceptions, perpetrated by an academic elite
>> - have been depressingly successful
>> 
>> To deal briefly with Tilley - here we have a French style, rather than a
>> German, attack upon critical objectivity - advancing the sort of
>> cultural relativism reminiscent of Levi-Strauss. I recall particularly
>> his attempt in the eighties to adapt Quine's radical translation
>> arguments to support a culturally relativist program - another attempt
>> at brow beating - undermined for me by the fact that imo Tilley did not
>> understand the ultimate conclusion of Quine's arguments. These
>> intellectual swindles are of course very complex - but successful
>> swindles are usually complex, are they not?
>> 
>> best
>> 
>> rob
>> 
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 
>> Rob, I came across the National Geographic article that accompanies the
>> TV epic Stonehenge Decoded.
>> 
>> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/06/stonehenge/alexander-text/1
>> 
>> Worth a read, perhaps? I am comforted by the fact that NG articles are
>> rarely referenced in academic bibliographies. Not so far as I know. This
>> is popular archaeology. Isn't it?
>> 
>> Merryn
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stones mailing list
>> Stones at stoneslist.org.uk
>> http://www.stoneslist.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/stones
>> FAQ available from http://www.stoneslist.org.uk
>> If you are experiencing problems with this mailing list please address
>> mail to stones-owner at stoneslist.org.uk
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stones mailing list
> Stones at stoneslist.org.uk
> http://www.stoneslist.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/stones
> FAQ available from http://www.stoneslist.org.uk
> If you are experiencing problems with this mailing list please address mail to
> stones-owner at stoneslist.org.uk