It’s easy to assume that, if there’s an academic field named after some phenomenon, the people in it are doing whatever can be done to discover things about that phenomenon, and everything known about it is taught in that field. This is rarely true.
-
-
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 -
-
-
why would this new "progress" not be eternalistic or quasi religious?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
, these fields frequently work to support political agendas, rather than to figure things out. “History of technology” is often just “Technology: horrifying threat or global menace?”