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 (
)
-
Show this thread
-
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.
1 reply 24 retweets 173 likesShow this thread -
Academic fields are social clubs operated for the benefit of insiders. Field founders want to claim as much territory as possible, so they name the field after some broad phenomenon. And then… 4/∞
1 reply 20 retweets 175 likesShow this thread -
Outwardly, an academic field claims as much territory as possible, but inside, it narrows its scope to a particular subset of phenomena, and methods of treating them, which allows it reduce the work to a safe routine of minimal-publishable-units production.
4 replies 21 retweets 170 likesShow this thread -
An academic field then *must* attack outsiders addressing the broad phenomenon it supposedly covers—because their investigations would reveal the field’s actual narrow scope, limited methods, and dubious foundational assumptions.
1 reply 15 retweets 129 likesShow this thread -
Linguistics in the second half of the 20th century is an extreme example. It claimed “the study of language,” but narrowed to arguments about notational variants for formal grammars that were supposed to account for the syntactic grammaticality judgements of expert linguists.
3 replies 5 retweets 98 likesShow this thread -
Linguistics in that era ruthlessly suppressed anyone who dared discuss any form of empirical data, which Chomsky defined out of existence as “performance”; or who wanted to address actual language use.
4 replies 5 retweets 68 likesShow this thread -
If you wanted to learn anything about language during that period, you had to do it in the psychology or sociology department. But they had their own narrow methodological shibboleths, and there was no field that broadly addressed the phenomenon.
1 reply 3 retweets 56 likesShow this thread -
“We already have a field explaining sci/tech progress” would be more plausible if advocates cited one of them, rather than eight. It would also be more plausible if those fields advocated practical, concrete actions that would accelerate progress…
2 replies 10 retweets 123 likesShow this thread
I don’t know the primary literature well, although I’ve read some of it. Generally I like it, but my impression is that later developments pretty much overtook the whole thing. IOW I don’t know of something they did that wasn’t done more thoroughly later. Did I miss something?
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.