And "Epistemic modesty" is so important, especially in the social science disciplines replete with arrogance. Hayek also spoke a great deal about culture and tradition and a sense of belonging to something which transcended the material, and about the fallacies of creating a human equation when there are an infinite number of variables: he also warned against pseudoscientists who attempted to oversimplify that which cannot be simplified.
I had to look up that term. I was left wondering if it's a lack of epistemic modesty or if financial gain trumps all else. To modify an old quote: it's hard to have epistemic modesty when your job depends on not having epistemic modesty.
Overcomplicating the simple seems to be fashionable these days, too. Or, more precise, word-salading the simple.
In this century, I think we have to recognize that there is a difference between the intellectual and the Ph.D. The intellectual, like Glenn, is in pursuit of nothing but the truth. And some of these folks are willing to go into pretty dark places to find it, like Andrew Wiles.
Generally, the intellectual has enough humility to understand the limits of human intelligence; they often question their own work, their own conceptions, along with others, and then we have so many of these average folks who have simply obtained watered down degrees: the title has been bestowed upon them, but they don't have the faculty to contribute to their profession in any meaningful way. They just parrot the thoughts of others. And then of course we have mega geniuses like Christopher langan who have no degrees at all.
Such an elegant post.
And "Epistemic modesty" is so important, especially in the social science disciplines replete with arrogance. Hayek also spoke a great deal about culture and tradition and a sense of belonging to something which transcended the material, and about the fallacies of creating a human equation when there are an infinite number of variables: he also warned against pseudoscientists who attempted to oversimplify that which cannot be simplified.
I had to look up that term. I was left wondering if it's a lack of epistemic modesty or if financial gain trumps all else. To modify an old quote: it's hard to have epistemic modesty when your job depends on not having epistemic modesty.
Overcomplicating the simple seems to be fashionable these days, too. Or, more precise, word-salading the simple.
In this century, I think we have to recognize that there is a difference between the intellectual and the Ph.D. The intellectual, like Glenn, is in pursuit of nothing but the truth. And some of these folks are willing to go into pretty dark places to find it, like Andrew Wiles.
Generally, the intellectual has enough humility to understand the limits of human intelligence; they often question their own work, their own conceptions, along with others, and then we have so many of these average folks who have simply obtained watered down degrees: the title has been bestowed upon them, but they don't have the faculty to contribute to their profession in any meaningful way. They just parrot the thoughts of others. And then of course we have mega geniuses like Christopher langan who have no degrees at all.
The education system smells like bad milk.