I'm a Biotech major. This means that my cardiac tissue abounds with respect for empirical science. I've gotten excited after reading a paper about hypermutationality in antibody genes. And a novel protein modeled via X-ray crystallography is--honestly--something of a turn-on.
Unfortunately, my cherubic love for the hard sciences often translates into persistent skepticism of the soft ones. Without large-scale, repeatable observations, testable hypotheses, and empirical results, I often find myself doubting the things that are being taught to me, even though the information presented comes from the mouth of a person who is much, much smarter than me. My social science and political science classes were the first victims of my scientific dissatisfaction, but they aren't the most recent.
The fact that you are reading this makes it very likely that you are in my UWP class with me, and that you quite possibly gave your opinions voice in that very forum a few hours ago. And I'm sorry to say this, but everything you said was wrong. In fact, I disagreed with just about everything that anyone said. And the things I did agree with seemed like they could benefit from some closer examination of their lines of reasoning.
At first, I wasn't saying anything because it was my first day in a class that I might not even be enrolled in. But then, I stopped myself from disagreeing with you, Dear Reader, for a much more noble reason. In what an alcoholic calls a moment of clarity, I understood why we were talking about casinos and Blackberrys, and why I hadn't lapsed into a catatonic ennui from all the grammar that Professor Thompson was teaching us. That reason is bullshit.
Don't take this the wrong way. Bullshit isn't lying, or active deception. In its most positive definition, bullshit is simply proceeding with minimal concern for the truth. Now, all sorts of ideas were flying in that classroom with only scarce qualifications before we moved on to the next ideas. Data were sparse when it came to Native Americans. I now believe that, in this particular instance, this was a good thing. It allowed us to cover an enormous breadth of topics without any copious amounts of semantics to slow us down, and because of that, I was exposed to some new ideas--things that had simply never occurred to me.
I am of the opinion that all of the good ideas out there have already been expounded by writers much more deftly than I ever could. For example, I've never been happy with an essay I've written covering incestuous overtones in Hamlet when I know that there are fifty better books on the subject in the Shields Library. No one is going to seek out my essay for their thesis on Bill Shakespeare. A tired theme is just that--tired. An essay arguing that Hamlet was an autobiographical account of Shakespeare's experimentation with cocaine and cross-dressing would be much more in demand, even with the admittedly shaky premise. A novel, dynamic idea simply contributes more information to the world, as well as being more interesting to read. And sometimes, the least-likely things end up being right.
Therefore, I hereby resolve to listen attentively to the things that are discussed, their silliness notwithstanding. I will take the alien ideas of my classmates, miniprep, autoclave, and emulsify, until I have a new, transgenic metaphor.
I look forward to bullshitting my way through this class.
3 comments:
Arnold,
First off, your point is proven before I even started to read your post. I was trying to find something that would spark a reaction this afternoon, and "Bullshit" immediately caught my eye. From initially looking it over, I could tell this would be a very bold and awkward subject for some. That's precisely why I jumped in on it.
This idea of "bullshit" is something that is in all of our minds, although viewed in contrasting points of view. Some think of it as the accepted and safe way to pass classes, others in hesitation of being judged on an opinion, and some too involved on other things in the room to even notice. But in an "experimental" setting like this, why not. Bring out the bullshit. While I might not have headed in such a negative direction, I support alot of the key points I saw here. Although as they say, any press is good press, and blogs like this will be sure to spark the personal opinions of many in the class.
Something that stuck to me was the issue of time and moving along with the class. When many ideas need to be brought up throughout a class, it may be a good thing that topics are not fully discussed. As time progresses, more of us will start to discover that this class has the potential to stay on one topic for an entire week. With the interaction I've already noticed in these first few days, I see some heated discussion occuring in the near future. The spark it needs is a topic that can relate to everyone on a personal level. A topic that may seem edgy for some... Something without, as you phrased, "copious amounts of semantics". Surely Arnold, after that, the data "were" not be sparse.
"Unfortunately, my cherubic love for the hard sciences often translates into persistent skepticism of the soft ones. Without large-scale, repeatable observations, testable hypotheses, and empirical results, I often find myself doubting the things that are being taught to me, even though the information presented comes from the mouth of a person who is much, much smarter than me."
That is fantastic and so eloquently put. Skepticism truly is a wonderful thing and (in my opinion) has lead us to a multitude of different discoveries and advancements. I really think it's a shame we don't see more of it.
There seems to be a recent trend of looking down on science and the scientific method. People seem to prefer to believe certain things simply because those things make them feel "all warm and fuzzy" inside. But, as Richard Dawkins once so animatedly put: "what about the evidence?!"
And the response for many Americans seems to be: "Screw you and your stupid science!" For some reason, skepticism is seen as disrespect and Dawkins' question remains unanswered.
There's a decent chance that we may not be mentally on the same page, but nonetheless, please, speak up in class! If you have something to say (which from this post, it seems you do) be vocal. You seem to have a lot to say as well as some very strong opinions. Therefore, assuming you weren't being sarcastic, it doesn't seem like you'll even need to "bullshit your way through this class". From my experiences, bullshitting is much more difficult then telling the truth; perhaps you should consider the latter.
Mike addresses some important issues in his comment to your second post, Arnold. I would like to pick up on some of these and broach additional questions and reactions I have to both posts. First, it is interesting to me that your first post is entitled “read this one first.” We established in the second day of class that time is made more obvious in the blog medium than it would be if you were turning papers in to me during class time. I know, then, that you wrote “read this one first” second, why? Why did you not want me, or more accurately us, to read in actual--or shall I write empirical--sequence? Why the break in logic here? Did you want to make sure that the risks you take in “Bullshit” are not too risky? Next, the binary you establish between the “hard” and “soft” sciences threatens to unravel because of the very ambivalence that your writing seems to occupy in certain instances. If the discussions we had in class were “wrong,” and could have benefited from “closer examining of their lines of reasoning” (by the way, what is the “their” referring to here? The students, or the discussions?), then why not examine the discussion topics more closely here? I am heartened to read that you were exposed to new ideas from the discussion, but what were they? In another sentence, you relegate the discussion to a discourse of the “silly” and “alien.” Again, which is it, enlightening or silly? Related to this, your use of “bullshit” seems to slip around in your post. How are you using it, exactly? What does “minimal concern for the truth” mean? What is “truth?” Did you mean “Truth”? And if so, what is that? The final ambivalence is even more directly related to your writing. As Mike suggests, you take a “negative” approach and I would add that you alienate your audience. While you draw a readership in with a somewhat shocking title, you then repel us by declaring us “alien,” “silly,” and “wrong.” Writing well demands an ability to know and attend to one’s audience. Finally, humanities classes—some to a greater extent than others—require us to linger in unknowns. Not fully discussing a topic is not only a good thing, as Mike writes, it is an imperative. We will never reach an endpoint to the kind of knowledge work that a humanities class requires and that, to me, is anything but “soft.” Rather, it is quite “hard.”
Post a Comment