Kuhn’s Ashtray

FWIW (and I like to think Morris would appreciate the irony here, but he might not) I don’t for a second believe that these events occurred in the way Morris has chosen to remember them as having occurred.

The sad thing about tales of the academic “geniuses” is how small they are when measured against the enormous problems of philosophy and science. Throw in the normal distribution of human frailties and you have a good argument for turning off the genius hype machine and its reality distortion field.

Our geniuses have done next to nothing to avert the likely ecological destruction of the planet; have failed to check the rise of a corrupt global plutocracy; and have refused to contemplate a future in which academic endeavor is not governed by an ego-warped star system.

Our geniuses have done next to nothing to avert the likely ecological destruction of the planet; have failed to check the rise of a corrupt global plutocracy; and have refused to contemplate a future in which academic endeavor is not governed by an ego-warped star system

it’s not like the morons have done all that much either though.

“So what is gained by doing so?”

Well, when my kids ask me why I’m so stupid I can now tell them “be glad I’m not a genius, or you’d have an ashtray in the face.”

A little off-topic but almost as mesmerizing as an Errol Morris film, here is a 3-min. “home movie” filmed at Princeton in 1947 containing Einstein, Godel, Dirac, Weyl, Erdos and several others, some of them yet unidentified, walking out of a building, talking to each other, and presenting themselves to the camera:

it’s not like the morons have done all that much either though.

Oh, I quite disagree. They’re the corrupt global plutocracy’s biggest support base, and leading the effort to proclaim that the impending ecological damage (“destruction” is perhaps a bit melodramatic, although understandable from the perspective of one species of large mammal) is either a mirage cooked up by an elite conspiracy, or God’s will and thus inevitable, take your pick.

Contra Hidari, I see geniuses on both sides of most of those issues; which ones are *evil* geniuses depends on your point of view, of course. Personally, I’m on the side that both would prefer for humanity to survive and maintain a decent standard of living over the next few centuries, longer if possible, and believes that this outcome is in some danger.

Oh in that Youtube link above, one man tries to hit another man over the head comically with a big sheaf of papers (appears later than Gödel, who is also carrying a sheaf of papers.) We could easily imagine ashtray-flying to be an “Institute for Advanced Study” thing. Probably a high number of pack-years in that crowd.

Matt, are you saying that someone can become undeservedly influential by NOT cultivating his students? How would that happen? On the face of it isn’t the reverse was more likely?

I call Kuhn’s reply “The Ashtray Argument.” If someone says something you don’t like, you throw something at him. Preferably something large, heavy, and with sharp edges.

And all I’ve ever done is troll threads and occasionally tell someone to fuck themself. It’s not fair.

I certainly agree that you can learn interesting things about the ideas of a creative person by learning about their personality. The particular objection that I have is to equate personal morality with intellectual value – e.g. that Jefferson was a slaveowner, thus his writings are not valuable; or that Kuhn was a jerk, ergo Kuhn’s ideas on the history of science are wrong.

Matt @ 18

Of course, it was Kuhn that said that old paradigms never got refuted, the people who believed them just died off.

Genius changes things, by altering the models we use to interpret and manipulate and control the world around us, including ourselves. Thinking is a social and cultural process, and it is the core of effective control of production processes through social institutions. Somebody has to invent, modify and adapt the basic elements of intellectual architecture, which are then elaborated into vast social systems of functional institutions.

I think the ashtray story is most useful as a reminder that human genius never knows its limitations. A few moments of great, powerful insight don’t translate well into the long, hard slog of daily life, marriage, having political opinions, having friends, being ethical or kind or wise. Specialization in any activity is an opportunity to excel that doesn’t translate to broader realms, and great achievement is often an accident of historical context.

I know the fashion is to read “texts, not authors,” and I suspect much of the attraction of that position is that it licenses the reader to repurpose a text for his or her own projects or concerns. Perhaps Kripkenstein is a case in point. I wonder, though: Can a text be wrenched so easily from the context of an entire life? If the late Heidegger was a Nazi and purveyor of mystical obscurantist codswallop, aren’t the dialectical seeds of this in the early Heidegger?

Kuhn gets off because the connection between ashtray kinematics and the accumulation of scientific anomalies is, needless to say, obscure.

…written, I have always assumed, by a forty-year-old conservative out to discredit liberalism as youthful folly…

A correct assumption, and the self-serving liberal turned conservative in question was Winston Churchill.

aren’t the dialectical seeds of this in the early Heidegger?

Opinions vary, but this guy certainly thinks he knows the answer.

(I’ve linked to Fritsche’s treatment of the notorious chat with Löwith, but the book as a whole tries to explicate Being & Time as sort of an ur-Nazi text.)

Walt @28

Philosophy of science is not monolithic, of course, but these days lots of research is very close-to-the-ground, which one might describe as a naturalist turn in philosophy of science. Whatever its other faults, this stuff is pretty far from working out the properties of not-water on Earth 2.

If you’re interested, the preprint archive at philsci.org is a good snapshot (not behind any subscription walls) of what philosophers of science are up to these days.

Somebody has to invent, modify and adapt the basic elements of intellectual architecture, which are then elaborated into vast social systems of functional institutions.

I’m afraid this is academic wishful thinking – very popular since Plato’s philosopher kings, but also wrong for the most part. Power is divided up elsewhere by and the “intellectual architecture”, if it is plays a part at all, mostly window dressing.

Error Morris never answers his own question “But what was Kuhn’s problem with Kripke?” I remain bewildered.

Thank you, Matt.

Well, Kuhn may be passé in philosophy of science these days, but I’d say that’s not true (certainly not as true) in other areas. It’s well known that a lot of social scientists, including some philosophically or theoretically inclined ones, seized on the notion of paradigms without paying very close attention to how Kuhn was using the term, and as a result references to Kuhn continue to appear in, e.g., political science journals, even if primarily in a debunking/clarifying/etc. mode. See for example here.

What do people throw at graduate students now?

@LFC — if I do say so myself, this is much better than Walker’s fine piece.

Straightwood claimed: Our geniuses have done next to nothing to avert the likely ecological destruction of the planet…

Actually, Norman Borlaug has done quite a lot of avert the likely ecological destruction of the planet.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to calculate the probably acreage which would have had to be clearcut if Borlaug’s “green revolution” hadn’t allowed exponentially more people to be fed per hectare of arable land.

Garymar: part 2 is here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/the-ashtray-shifting-paradigms-part-2/

Of course, it was Kuhn that said that old paradigms never got refuted, the people who believed them just died off.

Well, having Kuhn continually heaving ashtrays at them probably didn’t help their life expectancy.

27: the self-serving liberal turned conservative in question was Winston Churchill.

Who also, earlier in his career, said “When I was a Conservative I said a lot of very stupid things, and I became a Liberal so that I wouldn’t have to go on saying very stupid things.” (in 1906, according to Roy Jenkins).

@Matt

” I wasn’t clear, I guess. I meant that Kuhn isn’t very influential in philosophy of science these days, in the sense that there are very few “Kuhnians” or people who defend his core ideas, or so it seems to me. I’m much less sure about history of science, especially when it’s distinct from philosophy of science, but my impression is that it, too, has moved away from Kuhn’s position in important ways, and that few people would present themselves as Kuhnians.”

Maybe for the same reasons Wittgenstein isn’t as influential as he once was. It’s the fuzziness, the lack of clear, clean lines. It’s messy. Can’t have that.

This is my new candidate for best sentence ever:

“I had imagined graduate school as a shining city on a hill, but it turned out to be more like an extended visit with a bear in a cave.”

Chris @11, “Personally, I’m on the side that…” — this is precisely it: what matters is what each and every individual does, not what this (genius) or that (moron) does…if one is a philosopher, or a Kuhnian, how does that effect one’s behaviour?

My experience of Errol Morris’s films and writings is that they’re never going quite where you expect them to go. I suggest you stick around for the ride.

When I was in my twenties, I was a lot more impressed with Kuhn (and a lot less with Kripke) than I am now.

@56:
“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” according to physicist Richard Feynman.

Ornithology could conceivably be pretty useful to birds if they were able to understand it.

I don’t think it surprising that most working scientists wouldn’t think much about the Philosophy or History of Science, and that what they would think about it would be mostly ill-informed or ill-considered. It is not unlike businessmen, who do not make a habit of thinking much about Economics.

I’m not sure I’d go with that analogy as the world of science is not on the brink of collapse having been cheered on by the Philosophy of Science orthodoxy.

Why does my hash key always show as a 1? That last comment was meant to start with symbols saying: ‘referring back to comment 59’. Sheesh.

“A bug is not an entomologist”.

Roman Jakobsen, explaining why Vladimir Nabokov should not be hired to teach Russian literature.

“Kripke addressed the 20 or so graduate students and professors assembled in a small seminar room by looking at them through an empty water glass as if it were a telescope or the lens of a camera.”

“-I knew Kripke was crazy, but I didn’t know he was that crazy.”

It doesn’t beat the time I saw him pick up wheel of brie after a talk, take an aggressive bite out if it, then out it back down on the serving plate, never once stopping his conversation about zombie minds.

The offensive thing about Kripke to me is that apparently he doesn’t publish his stuff, but just passes it out to favored individuals. He’s extremely influential within the profession that way, and what this means is that his students have a substantial head start over those they’re competing with. This would be true to an extent anyway, but it’s like he’s formed a closed guild with trade secrets.

“Who also, earlier in his career, said “When I was a Conservative I said a lot of very stupid things, and I became a Liberal so that I wouldn’t have to go on saying very stupid things.” (in 1906, according to Roy Jenkins).”

By which time he was already 32. People should have noticed.

“Mama, are Tories born wicked or do they become so?”

“They are born wicked and become worse!”

Pythagoras yes, Socrates no.

It’s no surprise that people who begin by taking Physics as paradigmatic of science should end by flinging ashtrays.