From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 04:43:59 GMT
>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>Erin,
>
>Matt said:
>He's [Rorty] saying that what counts as objectivity should be thought of as
>a much agreed upon truth, thus setting up a continuum between opinion and
>knowledge.
>
>Erin said:
>How does he tie in expertise of a subject?
>
>Matt:
>I haven't read Rorty specifically on this, but I think his response would
>go like this: Standards of expertise in a subject would be decided by the
>members of the discipline. This can be as formal or informal as the
>discipline wants. This is why we see battles over competence in the more
>informal disciplines (like literary criticism and philosophy). Generally,
>if you look at what the requirements are for getting a Ph.D. in a subject,
>that's a good measure for mutually agreed upon standards of expertise.
>After you get your degree, expertise is decided by how published you are
>and/or your reputation (for instance, say you aren't very well published
>due to outside circumstances (you aren't a good writer, you don't like
>publishing, etc.), you could gain a reputation with your colleagues at the
>university you teach, conferences you attend, other people you hang around
>with).
>
>Matt
Hi Matt,
So truth is determined by majority vote?
I think there is politics in the academia already and
this is not something I felt very positive about.
I think this brings less more focus to the
status of the person giving the idea and less to
the ideas themselves.
Actually when I asked that question that wasn't exactly
what I had intended. I was thinking more of
folk knowledge of something (majority opinion) and
expertise knowledge of something.
Erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 14 2003 - 04:36:37 GMT