Comments on: Brownbacking G-d http://theoryculture.com/52/brownbacking-g-d/ Just another WordPress site Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:17:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Nika http://theoryculture.com/52/brownbacking-g-d/#comment-85 Nika Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:00:29 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/brownbacking-g-d/#comment-85 Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving! Good site! I’ll stay reading! Keep improving!

]]> By: Jay http://theoryculture.com/52/brownbacking-g-d/#comment-84 Jay Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:15:29 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/brownbacking-g-d/#comment-84 There was an interesting interview on the Colbert Report last night with Andrew Keen, a critic of Web 2.0. He basically said that the internet is killing culture because it levels the playing field and says that everyone, regardless of talent or education, has an equal right to be heard. He also had some things to say about expertise and how the internet and expertise, which led me back here. I can agree that some people know more than others (fact), but I get uncomfortable when we say that someone has more of a right to speak than others. Obviously I don't want uninformed people spewing "facts", but I'm not down with elitism either. Keen also talked about how the internet is destroying objectivity (possible, but I'm not 100% convinced). Anyway, this post and that interview really made me think - because I'm all for the amateur, but I also value expertise (and of course objectivity). Maybe it just comes down to a difference between art and "academia" - amateurs are OK for music, but we need expert philosophers/scientists/reporters. But I don't really buy that either (look where professional reporters have gotten us), so I'm just kind of in vertigo right now. Any guidance to regain my sense of balance is always appreciated. There was an interesting interview on the Colbert Report last night with Andrew Keen, a critic of Web 2.0. He basically said that the internet is killing culture because it levels the playing field and says that everyone, regardless of talent or education, has an equal right to be heard. He also had some things to say about expertise and how the internet and expertise, which led me back here. I can agree that some people know more than others (fact), but I get uncomfortable when we say that someone has more of a right to speak than others. Obviously I don’t want uninformed people spewing “facts”, but I’m not down with elitism either. Keen also talked about how the internet is destroying objectivity (possible, but I’m not 100% convinced).

Anyway, this post and that interview really made me think – because I’m all for the amateur, but I also value expertise (and of course objectivity). Maybe it just comes down to a difference between art and “academia” – amateurs are OK for music, but we need expert philosophers/scientists/reporters. But I don’t really buy that either (look where professional reporters have gotten us), so I’m just kind of in vertigo right now.

Any guidance to regain my sense of balance is always appreciated.

]]> By: LeBro(w)n Politics « Theory my culture http://theoryculture.com/52/brownbacking-g-d/#comment-83 LeBro(w)n Politics « Theory my culture Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:02:43 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/brownbacking-g-d/#comment-83 [...] takes me back to my remarks on Sam Brownback’s editorial ramble on religion v. science. Only in an age dis-anchored from material reality could we expect, [...] [...] takes me back to my remarks on Sam Brownback’s editorial ramble on religion v. science. Only in an age dis-anchored from material reality could we expect, [...]

]]> By: normdoering http://theoryculture.com/52/brownbacking-g-d/#comment-82 normdoering Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:16:32 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/brownbacking-g-d/#comment-82 Love this quote: “Here is Sam Brownback talking about evolutionary biology. That’s a bit like saying: ‘Here’s Paris Hilton talking about partial differential equations.’ ” As to how do we find the line between philosopher-kings and expertise? Expertise is limited to narrow domains. Kings and presidents have to be generalists who know which experts to trust. I don't expect any presidential candidates to understand comparative methods for studying adaptation. I do expect them to trust biologists talking about biology and not claiming to know more than a biologist. Love this quote:
“Here is Sam Brownback talking about evolutionary biology. That’s a bit like saying: ‘Here’s Paris Hilton talking about partial differential equations.’ ”

As to how do we find the line between philosopher-kings and expertise?

Expertise is limited to narrow domains. Kings and presidents have to be generalists who know which experts to trust. I don’t expect any presidential candidates to understand comparative methods for studying adaptation. I do expect them to trust biologists talking about biology and not claiming to know more than a biologist.

]]> By: Jay http://theoryculture.com/52/brownbacking-g-d/#comment-81 Jay Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:23:28 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/brownbacking-g-d/#comment-81 I love what you said about postmodernity. I've been having a long back and forth with another one of your students about something similar to how you describe "expertise", but in a less general sense. We were talking about labels and how we create generalizations in culture: anything written before 1900 with string instruments = "classical". And yet, there is a proper time to use the terms classical, baroque, and romantic. So the question becomes: are the generalizer and the expert simply playing different "language games" or is one of them actually correct? I'd opt for the latter, but maybe that's just because I "know" the difference between the three above genres... But anyway: how do we find the line between philosopher-kings and expertise? I wish I knew. Maybe your expertise could point the way? And I still think hyperreality is the intersection between ideology and the spectacle. It's all about images and alienation - from other people, for Debord; from reality, for Baudrillard. I love what you said about postmodernity. I’ve been having a long back and forth with another one of your students about something similar to how you describe “expertise”, but in a less general sense. We were talking about labels and how we create generalizations in culture: anything written before 1900 with string instruments = “classical”. And yet, there is a proper time to use the terms classical, baroque, and romantic. So the question becomes: are the generalizer and the expert simply playing different “language games” or is one of them actually correct? I’d opt for the latter, but maybe that’s just because I “know” the difference between the three above genres…

But anyway: how do we find the line between philosopher-kings and expertise? I wish I knew. Maybe your expertise could point the way?

And I still think hyperreality is the intersection between ideology and the spectacle. It’s all about images and alienation – from other people, for Debord; from reality, for Baudrillard.

]]> By: Thomas Robey http://theoryculture.com/52/brownbacking-g-d/#comment-80 Thomas Robey Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:35:41 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/brownbacking-g-d/#comment-80 Nice Post. And thanks for your comment on <a href="http://hope-for-pandora.blogspot.com/2007/06/hes-brownba-aack.html" rel="nofollow">my own post</a> regarding the Brownback NYTimes column. You ask: <blockquote>Why would The New York Times take Brownback so seriously that editorial page space is allocated to his “theories”?</blockquote> You know, I think that religion (at least Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity) has been so conflated with Neo-Conservatism that the editors at the NYTimes (and the rest of America) think that alignment with one is sufficient credential to comment on the other. There are folks in the mainstream media that are approaching this issue (and many others) more responsibly. Take for example the Washington Post's <a href="http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/" rel="nofollow">On Faith</a> features: they hold an online discussion with regular commentators and numerous outside experts on new questions every day. Nice Post. And thanks for your comment on my own post regarding the Brownback NYTimes column.

You ask:

Why would The New York Times take Brownback so seriously that editorial page space is allocated to his “theories”?

You know, I think that religion (at least Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity) has been so conflated with Neo-Conservatism that the editors at the NYTimes (and the rest of America) think that alignment with one is sufficient credential to comment on the other. There are folks in the mainstream media that are approaching this issue (and many others) more responsibly. Take for example the Washington Post’s On Faith features: they hold an online discussion with regular commentators and numerous outside experts on new questions every day.

]]>