In my last post I mentioned that two of
my professors had cautioned me to “be careful”. I think it's
good advice and something I need to work at, especially in the field
I've chosen. It's easy to take shortcuts and wave off mistakes with
a, “you know what I mean.” Much of the time of course it's
perfectly reasonable to be close enough or approximately right. Much
of the time it doesn't matter. But then there are times when it
does. Here are a few:
I try to be careful on this blog. I'm
not always. Of course it's a personal blog and not a professional
blog. The point isn't that I argue convincingly or am precise in all
that I say. It's more important that I get across what I'm up to,
how I'm feeling, and what I'm thinking. There's a balance to be
struck here of course. Too careful and I write too much about too
little. Not careful enough and I make unsubstantiated claims that
deserve to fall. That said, in two of my posts of this year I have
written about someone whom I don't know and been (at least a little)
critical of them. In both cases one of the first responses was from
the person who I was critical of! Its always a little shocking when
someone I don't know reads my blog. I don't think that my criticisms
were wrong, but if I had known they were reading I might have chosen
my words more carefully and made weaker claims. I guess the internet
really is a small place. All the more reason to be civil.
I've been taking an online logic class.
Last night I took the first substantial quiz over the material. I
missed a few questions. I didn't do poorly, but I really wanted to
ace it. My first reaction to those questions that I missed was,
“hey, that's a trick question,” or “that's just being
pedantic.” True of course, but it's a logic exam: trick questions
and pedantism are just exactly what the test is over. The real
lesson is: be careful.
A couple of weeks ago I was invited to
play a game of Pente. For those who don't know it's a game somewhere
between othello and connect four with a little go thrown in. I'm
always a little leery of playing strategy games, somehow I think that
if I don't do well it reflects poorly on my intelligence and thus my
character, but knowing my lack of care, my need to improve, and
remembering my “learning attitude” I decided to join in. I
didn't win, but I did once force a loss. I'm actually looking
forward to playing again.
Over the past couple of days I've seen
some pretty heavy Facebook arguments get going. It starts with a
post or shared link with some uninformed or ill-formed arguments in
it. Then some other party, with a differing opinion comments and
gives their own uninformed or ill-formed argument for the other side.
In particular these arguments seem to get down questions of what is
science, how does explanation work, and how do we know things. These
are just the questions that I am most drawn to in philosophy.
They're where I want to do work. But I do not feel qualified to butt
in, even when the questions are exactly the ones I am working on.
Why not? These are difficult issues. I don't know what the answers
are much of the time. When I do have an answer or an opinion
Facebook is not generally a good forum to discuss it. It's pretty
much impossible to be succinct and yet get across an argument for why
I believe something. I hardly want to assert that I know the truth
because I took a class (one!) in it. To really get something across I need to sit down, discuss, and think about it. Thinking clearly isn't something that happens in 140 characters. Devastating arguments don't happen in a three minute video.
In sum: The more I learn, the less I
know.
4 comments:
Maybe such debates are an opportunity to inquire into how people are thinking about things, a chance to do anthropology/psychology to see how advice from philosophy turns out in practice?
Maybe the more you learn, the less you're sure of.
I liked that your arguments in Unacceptable Consequences were forceful, and it read to me as if you'd written it carefully. It really made me stop and think about my approach to endurance racing and prompted me to change the way I do a few things.
It was good to read someone argue what I sort of knew already—that the distance between questionable choice of beverage and real trouble is not all that great.
On the other hand, Socrates was the gadfly of Athens....
Post a Comment