Steve, that last paragraph pegs a lot of us! You ought to expand on that, writing about the value of a liberal arts education — and why people of all political persuasions should pursue one.
Chuck, thanks for the suggestion. I've run a gamut of responses since first reading your suggestion, from “sounds fun & interesting,” to “that's way above my pay-grade,” to the real kicker--what I've rarely said aloud (except for talking to myself) for some time now: “Anyone who has a liberal arts degree and who supports Trump should seek a refund of their tuition.” I haven't shared that ditty in public because it's snide, condescending, hyperbolic, and only sorta true. In fact, I discovered in my morning fee--quite by serendipity (and probably algorithm) this morning in FB my first quote of my post today from philosopher Martha Nussbaum. I think it addresses my reluctance: a liberal arts education doesn't guaranty wisdom, it doesn't provide a fool-proof inoculation against foolishness, but it does help to prevent or reduce symptoms. A liberal arts education should act as a fertilizer to aid the growth of wisdom --if the seeds of wisdom are planted and cultivated in rich soil with just enough water and sunlight. Some environments become too polluted for wisdom to prosper, all the education in the world notwithstanding. (See all of our Ivy League “populists” who are now toadies to Trump and who pander to the public.) The weeds to wisdom's cultivation are greed, fear, ambition, and ignorance, and these weeds are always ready to seize the opportunity to grow and prosper at the expense of wisdom.
I do my best to teach mathematics as a liberal art: as giving us the right to decide what is true, and the responsibility to seek corroboration, since any one of us can be wrong, and in mathematics at least, we expect all to agree in the end. Unfortunately our students may not come to us, looking for that kind of education! It can certainly be a pain to have to make one's own decisions about things.
David, I think you'd agree with the CS Pierce quote: if you can't get the community (e.g., mathematicians) to buy into your argument, you must suspect that you may be wrong. Certainly, math & logic are crucial parts of a liberal arts curriculum, as they have been since the days of the Trivium and Quadrivium.
Thanks Steve; can you give a more precise reference for the quotation? I've got the old Dover *Philosophical Writings of Peirce* (ed. Buchler). There are certainly times when one must go against the community; but then one still has to give the community a fair chance to make its case (right?)
The quote is taken from Jonathan Rauch's THE CONSTITUTION OF KNOWLEDGE, & it looks like he took the quote from “The Scientific Attitude & Fallbilism” in the Buchler (ed.) book printed by Dover, pp. 58 or 46-47, maybe. (If this isn't correct, it's from Wiener, CSP, SELECTED WRITINGS (Dover).
Thanks, the fallibilism notes are very interesting, including e.g. "True science is distinctively the study of useless things. For the useful things will get studied without the aid of scientific men. To employ these rare minds on such work is like running a steam engine by burning diamonds." The closest I find to what you said is not really about community, I think: "But the scientific spirit requires a man to be at all times ready to dump his whole cartload of beliefs, the moment experience is against them. The desire to learn forbids him to be perfectly cocksure that he knows already."
Steve, that last paragraph pegs a lot of us! You ought to expand on that, writing about the value of a liberal arts education — and why people of all political persuasions should pursue one.
Chuck, thanks for the suggestion. I've run a gamut of responses since first reading your suggestion, from “sounds fun & interesting,” to “that's way above my pay-grade,” to the real kicker--what I've rarely said aloud (except for talking to myself) for some time now: “Anyone who has a liberal arts degree and who supports Trump should seek a refund of their tuition.” I haven't shared that ditty in public because it's snide, condescending, hyperbolic, and only sorta true. In fact, I discovered in my morning fee--quite by serendipity (and probably algorithm) this morning in FB my first quote of my post today from philosopher Martha Nussbaum. I think it addresses my reluctance: a liberal arts education doesn't guaranty wisdom, it doesn't provide a fool-proof inoculation against foolishness, but it does help to prevent or reduce symptoms. A liberal arts education should act as a fertilizer to aid the growth of wisdom --if the seeds of wisdom are planted and cultivated in rich soil with just enough water and sunlight. Some environments become too polluted for wisdom to prosper, all the education in the world notwithstanding. (See all of our Ivy League “populists” who are now toadies to Trump and who pander to the public.) The weeds to wisdom's cultivation are greed, fear, ambition, and ignorance, and these weeds are always ready to seize the opportunity to grow and prosper at the expense of wisdom.
So, two cheers for a liberal arts education!
I do my best to teach mathematics as a liberal art: as giving us the right to decide what is true, and the responsibility to seek corroboration, since any one of us can be wrong, and in mathematics at least, we expect all to agree in the end. Unfortunately our students may not come to us, looking for that kind of education! It can certainly be a pain to have to make one's own decisions about things.
David, I think you'd agree with the CS Pierce quote: if you can't get the community (e.g., mathematicians) to buy into your argument, you must suspect that you may be wrong. Certainly, math & logic are crucial parts of a liberal arts curriculum, as they have been since the days of the Trivium and Quadrivium.
Thanks Steve; can you give a more precise reference for the quotation? I've got the old Dover *Philosophical Writings of Peirce* (ed. Buchler). There are certainly times when one must go against the community; but then one still has to give the community a fair chance to make its case (right?)
The quote is taken from Jonathan Rauch's THE CONSTITUTION OF KNOWLEDGE, & it looks like he took the quote from “The Scientific Attitude & Fallbilism” in the Buchler (ed.) book printed by Dover, pp. 58 or 46-47, maybe. (If this isn't correct, it's from Wiener, CSP, SELECTED WRITINGS (Dover).
And, yes, “right.”
Thanks, the fallibilism notes are very interesting, including e.g. "True science is distinctively the study of useless things. For the useful things will get studied without the aid of scientific men. To employ these rare minds on such work is like running a steam engine by burning diamonds." The closest I find to what you said is not really about community, I think: "But the scientific spirit requires a man to be at all times ready to dump his whole cartload of beliefs, the moment experience is against them. The desire to learn forbids him to be perfectly cocksure that he knows already."