Hi Jamie. I'll respond simply because this is precisely the question -- perhaps the main issue -- I have long studied. I've framed the answer in part in terms of "intellectual partisanship,"
which combines the theorizing about confirmation bias with my background in sociology to emphasize the social forces & social locations that shape the pursuit of truth claims (and who ends up being our allies in these pursuits, etc.). There
are indeed many different motivations for pursuing truth and, in my experience, it is the rarest of individuals who genuinely are committed to pure truth-seeking just because of their passion for understanding.
Instead, we all have other forces operating on us and these almost always bend us "away from the light" (if pure light = pure truth, or enlightenment). There are both
psychological mechanisms and social forces operating, which Gregg's theory outlines and that I emphasize in my "sociological models." I learned early on, for example,
that I had to stop highlighting so many of my limitations in my own work to get published. Instead, it was important to (over-)emphasize the strength of my arguments & findings, to convince the peer reviewers & editors to publish. I almost stopped completely
from pointing out my own flaws. As a mentor finally explained, "Joe, let the reviewers find all the problems; don't make it EASY for 'em!" I don't/didn't always believe in my own arguments, but have had to pass them off as "the best approximation of truth"
to get stuff published, get tenure, etc. In the broader sense, we all have to present "the best" of ourselves & our contributions to secure recognition, status, & other scarce resources. What I learned is simply not to confuse all of that with "the truth."
As others have commented & as I have tried to convey, I will build up an argument & try to be careful about my "truth claims" in many forums, including in my teaching,
with the best arguments & evidence that I can. But it's then possible to critique and acknowledge the limits of our knowledge claims, but challenging. To genuinely pursue knowledge
and "wisdom", one must recognize the limitations of one's own social location and the psych mechanisms impeding progress -- & especially the "ego", as the psychologists can better explain. Thus I'll be the first to admit that the irony of the academy as an
institution dedicated to "truth-seeking" is that it's constructed in such a way to ensure certain limits on our pursuit of truth. We are just as subject to confirmation biases & echo chambers (especially within our disciplines) as most other folks, although
there's at least a bit of an advantage via the peer review system & critiques that ensue. But, as I & others have shown, even there you can "bias" the reactions in favor of your positions if you choose the right journals, editors, and even the right "language"
to make your claims. If I can establish an interpersonal connection and intimacy with those critiquing my work, I can gain a favorable advantage in terms of getting a positive review. Since it's usually a "blind review," it's more challenging -- but not impossible.
For example, I can be sure to cite the "important figures" favorably in my arguments or literally include the work of those who I anticipate might be reviewing my paper. That's one example, but it happens all the time. One learns how to play the publishing
game. It's better than much of the unvetted stuff off the internet & certainly in most social media, but it's not the "Truth" with a capital T either.
A lot of people, therefore, look outside of the academy and develop other sorts of relationships & venues within which to pursue truth. That's what we are trying to do
here, for example. And your last comment definitely coincides with my own experience: "In my
experience, talking with academics who haven't learned humility is often stressful.... Anything they don't understand immediately must be pounced on like an opportunity to best the other, which suggest a fear of being bested underneath." Indeed, the vast
majority of academicians I've met are: a) neither humble; b) nor convinced that they could actually be "wrong" about much of anything, even beyond their own fields of expertise (considerable research bears this out, btw). I tell my students that if they encounter
professors who seem to "know everything" and convey such an air of superiority, then run! It's also why I'm "just Joe" to my students & I explain early on that I'm learning all the time too. But, to be honest, they yearn for an "expert" or an "authority" in
many cases, who can tell them "what's true." I try to share my expertise, to be sure, where I have something pragmatic & helpful to share. But the biggest & more important message is precisely what you're getting at w/ your query.
Practically, that means in my own case that I will always take the time to sit down and listen to someone's talk, even if &
especially if I'm not sure of or in agreement w/ their positions. I'd rather hear & learn from them, or at least better understand why I disagree. Of course, institutionally, we're set up often NOT to do that. In my 33 years of teaching sociology and
being affiliated with four different institutions as a "faculty member", no one has EVER suggested that we bring in a "psychologist" or an "economist" to our next departmental colloquium meeting. And certainly not a physicist. BTW, to combat that problem,
I started a series at my university a few years back to have anyone from any faculty or department present once a month of Friday at noon with pizza served, just to allow people to get to know each other's work and to engage in colleagues from other departments.
It has worked to a degree (there are 4-5 people who always go, no matter who's the presenter), but even here it's usually the case that most attendees are from the same department as the presenter! While encouraging "heterodoxy," most people seem more comfortable
with "orthodoxy"! Plus, it's easier simply to understand people who already "speak your language."
In teaching, I always try to convey to students, then, the importance of: 1) being humble before the vast unknown; 2) being willing to say "I don't know" (or be willing
to ask for directions if lost, as I often am!); 3) sharing what you are most confident about in a helpful way that transcends ego; 4) daily & disciplined study workouts to strengthen our mind's "muscles" and "endurance" for the intellectual marathon we're
running; 5) being inspired by open-mindedness & the joy of the "a-ha" moments we have as we keep learning; 6)
appreciating that we can only know so much ourselves & it's okay sometimes to conclude, "hmmm, what person "x" is saying makes sense and I think I'll try to incorporate
that understanding into my own as I move forward."
I think you're right on the money in asking, so I hope my thoughts here are helpful in terms of a bit of what I've learned about the conundrum. Cheers, -Joe
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
This might be a bit left-field, but I'm curious to hear all your thoughts:
1. Academia was created to institutionalize truth seeking.
2. If academics are all motivated for money, status, tenure, prestige, their families, and not a direct passion for truth....how can Academia fullfill it's purpose? Don't the incentives put a
cap on how far the academy can progress into the horizon of mystery?
In my experience, talking with academics who haven't learned humility is often stressful.... Anything they don't understand immediately must be pounced on like an opportunity to best the other,
which suggest a fear of being bested underneath. And that fear of being wrong is the first thing to be removed if you seek truth!
Jamie
--
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1