Good read Joe,

Since a) learning is best done in wonder, and b) students still need to grind through at least some fundamentals, if even to find wonder:

Why not have an institution, perhaps an appendage to universities, with an epistemological code starting with:

1) first and foremost, be not just open to error in self and others, but desire our error to be found, enjoy it lovingly in a community where this need not be feared nor too costly. (as it is everywhere else, because your peers share the rule, thus won't abuse it if you're the only one, thus more feelings of safety, vulnerability, more openness, more info-Flow. (harder sciences have the physical world to demand this already, but for softer sciences, we can't go far unless we instill this as one's source of honor. But even more, it would be socially innovative)

2) require a short course in epistemology, make the principles softly religious for the community.

3) let students live together or nearby, like summer camp for adults, maybe grouped by community into varous subjects but nearby enough for plenty of interdisciplinary conversation.

4) experts from the nearby university can visit to give lectures, have meetups, host presentations, etc.

5) give students 2 or 4, or however many years to follow their dreams with regular check-ins to make sure there is legit work and progress without abuse.

....then, just go nuts. Play like children. With the academy next door, experts can balance out the free and abundant internet content and courses. Other students will be able to check each other, free from ego (or more free than anywhere else on earth.) And maybe epistemologists can be elected to run trials and debates, kinda like judges. Communities could evolve freely with just these few rules and I think it would be the life many want to live.

It would be interesting sociologically in many wars, like how the status hierarchies would develop in such a culture that filters out what I call "frame control".

*most people seem to unconsciously control the intersubjective "frame" " as to stay on top, murdering any attempt the humble and honest (thus intimidating but they won't admit it) person might make towards sincere mutual understanding. This wasn't that severe in Eastern cultures, but here in the west, we need a taste of freedom from that, open the doors to real connection, intellectually yes, but I'm confident it would lead to more emotional intimacy, less social stress, more kindness, etc...all from that one principle to desire to find our error (We'd all feel safer, since this one demand would...demand mutual vulnerability and acceptance.

The costs would be extremely low, possibly down to the floor, maybe like a co-op to test the idea at first ( and we know how many leftists students from Academia would love the similarity to a commune). Grad Students could have their own jobs, but they could live in these areas designated for creativity and knowledge-generation unburdened by the incentives of scarce status, as university incentives would be replaced with random incentives offered by anyone, to whatever fruit is born. The freedom would launch an explosion of creativity, fun, and perhaps away of life many, many would yearn for...kind of a religious monkhood for epistemology governing any and all other pursuits within.

With costs so low, maybe it would spread like wildfire as a desperately needed and meaningful way of life, maybe even long term - a blend of lifestyle, culture and university.

I live in SF, and even I have trouble finding anything like the community I had in college - a house full of other intellects constantly debating - which was great, but this would be the dream.

What else does the university system have to keep up with the times?

Jamie

On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 9:39 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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.

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

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jamie D <[log in to unmask]>

Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 11:45 AM

To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Academia truth problem

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

--

-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