I think it is rather unfortunate that you believe researchers don't examine "what we think we know".... on the contrary, that stance is the basis of research as a disciplinary activity. Most undergraduates don't reach the stage where they can work on metacognition. The lucky ones reach that stage later in life, or in graduate school.
Hmm. Perhaps it would be clearer if I suggested researchers don't examine what we think we know ... enough.
Your next sentence, "Most critical has been the deliberate ignoring of facts contradicting the narrative being constructed." doesn't seem to have any real content. What does it mean? what are you trying to say? Your first sentence has the same problem, but to a lesser extent. Please use simpler words correctly, rather than trying to sound "smart" - you'll get shot down every time by someone who actually knows what the words mean.
Sure it has content, it just assumes too much background. I also enjoy using jargon to attack the source of jargon. Bad habit. Anyway, a significant reaction in academia to the realisation we are hopelessly biased by our worldviews has been to walk away from the concept of objective reality. Instead the job of, eg, a historian, is seen as constructing a historical "narrative" on available (not even all available!) facts. You don't have to delve too far into academia to see this perspective, usually reading the UK Guardian newspaper brings out a few examples.
The passive voice makes you sound pretentious. Avoid it.
Your references to 'narrative' seem somewhat misplaced, also. You seem to be mixing an analysis of the argumentative structure of Scooby-Doo episodes with a somewhat skewed perception of what "narrative" means to someone writing papers for academic consumption.
Yeah, it mixed the two concepts. That's why the title mentions Scooby Doo and the Enlightenment.
Your slam on the humanities indicates that you are probably not very experienced in dealing with those fields. Are you an engineer or a computer scientist? Please find something more worthwhile to do, like eliminating world hunger.
OK - let's feed the poor with arts students! :)
I'm not super-experienced with the humanities - only enough to sounds pretentious ... that in itself is not enough to dismiss my argument - see below ...
"Sophistry," as the word is used by most,
What about here?
... is a code-word for the disdain of rhetoric and communication in general. Plato was the first, but not the last, to attack the Sophists - unfortunately for us.
I intended it as "argument for the sake of argument".
Oh, by the way. Plato's attacks on the Sophists were all red herrings. Because he couldn't find fault with their argumentative tools (with which they were quite masterful and adept) he sank to the level of the personal attack as a means of maintaining face.
Plato also ignored the fact that *HE* was a master of sophistry - convenient, eh? You have to "attack the master's house with the master's tools," so to speak.
I am a proud participant in the sophistic and discursive collaborative environment provided by kuro5hin. How's that for buzzwords? :)
[ Parent ]