> At 02:50 AM 5/27/2006, tfast wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The committee: "But as a scholar, one must "look" not only to confirm
> >one's
> > > hopes, but also to face the possibility that the evidence may
disconfirm
> > > them. And even if one finds more evidence for the truth of one's
beliefs
> > > than evidence against them, all of the evidence must be acknowledged
and
> >
> >Wow! Can you imagine what would happen to the authors of intro to micro
and
> >macroeconomics texts if they were judged by this standard. That would be
> >something. Not to mention all those upper level econometrics classes on
> >shaping data and fitting curves. Let the Truth be Told Even if the
Heavens
> >May Fall. If only. What self serving indulgent nonesense
> >
> >Churchill maybe a shitty scholar but as the song says "in this he is not
> >alone." That he is playing for the wrong team is the only moral to this
> >story that I can see.
>
> Maybe, if you are so disappointed in your field, you should do work in
> another field that doesn't disappoint you. I've never understood why
people
> stay in the university system when they loathe it.
>
>
> Bitch | Lab
C'mon. You know full well I deliberately choose economics (and I should say its present state in NA universities) because it is a good example of how when a field is closely aligned with power it can get away with a whole host of academic sins. Intolerance to other approaches along side and little to no empirical evidence to back some of its most central propositions. Indeed it is almost a hermetically sealed discipline that refuses empirical or theoretical arguments to the contrary. And the profession gets away with it because they are for the most part apologists for capital.
So I choose economics as an example because it is a discipline that demonstrates how insulated and self referential one can be as an academic if they are on the right team.
There is an old saying that whoever drinks from a poisoned well, no matter how well intentioned, gets sick or dies. As with a poisoned well, as with justice. It does not matter how fair the process was after Churchill was targeted. Nor for that matter does his guilt. He was targeted because of what he wrote about 9/11. This means that any procedural action that followed is tainted. Racial profiling is controversial for this very reason, i.e., it leads to an unfair application of the law to one subset of citizens and thus it violates a very basic expectation of liberal justice. Namely that the law should apply equally to all citizens. This should be the end of the story.
But it is not. So may all of you get what you want. Let the Truth be Told even if the Heavens may Fall.
Where the Fk is M. Pugilese when you need him.
___________________________________
Travis W Fast
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk