Many disdainful comments re @patrickc/@tylercowen: “Arrogant tech bros ignorant of the existing fields of history & sociology of science & technology, gah”
I’d like to point out some broad patterns of academic dysfunction manifesting here (
)
-
-
Realizing, in the mid-20th century, that the Myth of Progress was an eternalistic quasi-religion, and asking pointed questions about “cui bono” and “why should we believe this,” was hugely valuable and necessary. It’s now a lazy trope, suitable for mindless mechanical MPUs.
Show this thread -
When people with billions of dollars say “we want more research on problem X,” researchers with something to say about X might think “hooray, new funding source!” rather than “oh hell, they’re probably going to expose the vapidity of our discipline, better shout at them”
Show this thread -
I’m rather skeptical of a new field of Progress Studies, because every “X Studies” field turns into another rote paper generator. Rebooting research on how to do science and technology better, ignoring discipline boundaries—that seems urgent & with huge leverage for benefit.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Regrettably, this entire thread validates the charge that you haven't done even a minimal lit review. Not only do you not know what work has been done, you project the politics of other disciplines onto an interdisciplinary field you inagine but don't know.
-
The idea that historians could impose boundaries on the research of sociologists, anthropologists and org economists is as absurd as that Harvard can dictate boundaries to Toronto, Paris, Frankfurt, Moscow, Beijin, Stockholm, and J'bourg. This is what you have asserted.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.