Nick
You say, " Academics have themselves to blame for the way they are treated, their failure to stand up to government micro-management."
Which academics are they? Perhaps you are talking about management. Individual academics have absolutely no say whatsoever in policy, despite attempts to pretend otherwise. It is a herd mentality, steered by government, and then facilitated without question by university senior management. The herd follows, and individual dissenters are regarded as troublemakers.
I do not disagree with your analysis, but humans are animals, and respond to stimuli with animal brains, not philosopher's detached idealism. Your utopia will have to understand and incorporate this if it is ever to get anywhere.
Cheers, Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Maxwell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 31 January 2011 10:50
To: Barker, Tom; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New opinion poll on climate change
Dear Tom,
If academics accepted "wisdom-inquiry" as the orthodox
conception of what the aims and methods of inquiry ought to be, there would
be an overwhelming rationale for opposing and rebutting government
interference of the kind you indicate. What we have in place at present -
knowledge-inquiry - provides no such rationale. As things are at present,
if government began to tell scientists what to accept as knowledge and what
to reject, there would be an uproar. The intellectual standards of
knowledge-inquiry allow for that, but provide no basis for overwhelming
objection to the kind of changes government has brought in - having to do
with such things as research assessments, funding, priorities of research
and "impact" for example. The situation would be transformed if the
intellectual standards of wisdom-inquiry were in place. Academics have
themselves to blame for the way they are treated, their failure to stand up
to government micro-management. The revolution I am arguing for could not
be more relevant to the issues you speak of.
"Am I denying the need for knowledge?" you ask. Of course
not. As I said in my last email "Relevant knowledge is necessary, but not
sufficient". I also said "The outcome of the revolution we require would be
a kind of academic inquiry that has, as its basic aim, to seek and promote
wisdom - wisdom being the capacity to realize what is of value in life for
oneself and others. Wisdom, in this sense, includes knowledge,
technological know-how and understanding, but much else besides." I would
have thought that is clear enough.
Best wishes,
Nick
www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
There is nowt wrong with acquiring knowledge per se. You are right that
training for wisdom is lacking in universities, but are you denying the need
for knowledge? A major problem with universities is that they have been,
apparently willingly, changed by government into providers of the means to
enhance the industrial society by extraction of resources at maximum rates.
Institutionally, they have lost the means to teach people how to think or be
creative for the good of everyone. Within universities, people still exist
who have these higher values, but they are tolerated if they can't be
removed by the industrial mindset that runs the institutions.
Yes, the problems of today are process problems, but the solution involves
technical as well as cultural change. What you are saying is correct in
itself but inadequate to either get us our of the current predicament or, in
fact, to live by.
Cheers, Tom
________________________________________
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Nicholas Maxwell [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 31 January 2011 09:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New opinion poll on climate change
Dear Steve,
You say "universities if properly harnessed could yield
new knowledge to help us through the looming crisis". But my argument is
that the basic task of universities ought to be to put forward and
critically assess proposals for action - possible solutions to our problems
of living - policies, political programmes, philosophies of life.
Restricting academic inquiry to acquiring knowledge - which is what your
remark implicitly takes for granted - is what is wrong with the status quo.
The revolution we need would transform universities so that their
fundamental task would become to explore ideas as to how we might live, what
we might do, what institutions and social arrangements we might develop,
what political programmes we might seek to implement, what philosophies of
life we might live by. None of this is knowledge. It is, if it meets with
success, "good ideas as to what we can do to solve our problems of living,
realize what is of value in life". The outcome of the revolution we require
would be a kind of academic inquiry that has, as its basic aim, to seek and
promote wisdom - wisdom being the capacity to realize what is of value in
life for oneself and others. Wisdom, in this sense, includes knowledge,
technological know-how and understanding, but much else besides. It is
primarily the capacity to act, to live, so as to achieve what is of value in
life.
What matters is what a system, or institution, does, not what we think it
does - as you say. Nevertheless, current orthodox conceptions of science
and academic inquiry - standard empiricism and knowledge-inquiry - exercise
a massive influence over what goes on in academia. Publications, careers,
prizes, education (or perhaps one should say "training") are all massively
influenced. Have a look at chapter six of my "From Knowledge to Wisdom: A
Revolution for Science and the Humanities", where this question is examined
in some detail. This book was first published in 1984; chapter six was
brought up to date in the 2007 revised and extended edition.
In my view, the overwhelming need is to get across to scientists and
academics who care about such things that science, and academic inquiry more
generally, suffer from a gross, structural irrationality when judged from
the standpoint of contributing to human welfare, this being at the root of
our current global problems, it being a matter of immense importance, for
the long-term future of humanity, to bring about a revolution in science,
and in academia, so that universities come to put what I have called
"wisdom-inquiry" into practice. As you indicate, our only hope of tackling
our immense problems successfully is to tackle them democratically. But
that requires electorates to be aware of what our problems are, and what we
need to do about them. (We can't expect democratic governments to be much
more enlightened than electorates.) That in turn requires that we possess
institutions of learning actively engaged in public education about what our
problems are, and what we need to do about them, by means of discussion and
debate. This is what our universities ought to be doing but, at present,
they are not. They devote themselves - almost restrict themselves - to the
pursuit of knowledge. Relevant knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient.
It is what we do, or refrain from doing, that really matters, that
invariably solves problems of living. Knowledge and technological know-how,
however relevant, will not on their own solve problems of global warming.
Best wishes,
Nick Maxwell
www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
Dear Nick,
It is hard to disagree with what you say as an ideal type...but I remember
Prof Stafford Beer talking about systems as a system is what a system does,
not necessarily what we think it is or does. He analysed the NHS which most
of us would assume has been designed to produce health but he found that in
systemic terms it was more focused to service the career aspirations of
senior staff. I suspect universities are no so much different in that
regard.
It is true, universities if properly harnessed could yield new knowledge to
help us through the looming crisis. But at a time when we are facing 85%
funding cuts across the humanities in the UK, I will not hold my breath. But
we should hold your vision of an applied global ethics as a lodestone goal
for our future orientation.
My point about Egypt was not a call to revolution and the siren song of
taking to the streets. Just a perception of that reality being a
potential model of many of our futures where increasingly authoritarian
states hand their most intractable social, political and environmental
problems over to the state security forces for resolution. In that
scenario, white collar mercenaries in the military, police security,
university, media, entertainment complex will find welcome research grant
opportunities to create new tool boxes to help these authoritarian
regimes....It is an issue that Scientists for Global Responsibility have
been grappling with since many of our scientific colleagues have no
grounding in ethics and social responsibility. Yet they will continue to
acquire a sizeable proportion of new research budgets whereas many of the
scholars who share the clarity of your vision will be forced to self fund
their research....The Crisis Forum is probably a good case in point, so
perhaps a key task in realizing any such vision is to find wise funders who
can fertilize our dreaming before the season of nightmares begins.
Steve
________________________________________
From: Nicholas Maxwell [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 30 January 2011 20:37
To: Wright, Steve; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New opinion poll on climate change
Dear Steve,
Your remark about all swans are white being refuted by
one black swan is not really to the point. In my writings I repeatedly
emphasize that good work goes on done by individuals and individual
departments at odds with orthodoxy. My point is that we have inherited from
the past the view - still dominant in academia today - that, in order to
help promote human welfare, academic inquiry must devote itself, in the
first instance, to the acquisition of knowledge. First, knowledge is to be
acquired; then it can be applied to help solve social problems. This is
still massively influential on what goes on in universities - although some
of what goes on is at odds with it. This orthodox view is, however, grossly
and very damagingly irrational. It violates three of the four rules of
rational problem solving conceivable. Granted that the basic aim of
academia is to help promote human welfare, then the basic problems academia
needs to try to help solve are problems of living, not problems of
knowledge. The proper fundamental intellectual tasks of academic inquiry
are to (1) articulate, and try to improve the articulation of, our problems
of living, and (2) propose and critically assess possible solutions -
possible actions, policies, political programmes, philosophies of life.
Academia would need also to (3) tackle specialized problems of knowledge and
technological know-how, but would need (4) to let fundamental and
specialized problem solving interact, so that each influences the other.
Academia today, giving priority to the pursuit of
knowledge, puts (3) into practice to splendid effect, but violates (1), (2)
and (4). Some thinking about policy problems and options does go on, but
very much at the periphery, not as the central, fundamental intellectual
activity - not even in the social sciences and humanities. Academia as at
present constituted, giving priority to the pursuit of knowledge, violates
three of the four most fundamental, elementary rules of reason conceivable,
in a wholesale, structural way, and it is this utterly disastrous
long-standing structural irrationality in our best institutions of learning
which is responsible for our lamentable failure to learn how to tackle our
problems of living a bit more intelligently, humanely and effectively - a
bit more wisely - than we have managed up to now.
Before we rush out onto the streets and attempt to provoke,
here in the UK, an Egypt-style revolution, I suggest it would be better to
go the root of the problem: the very damaging, long-standing, structural
irrationality in our best institutions of learning - our universities - and
get off the ground a vocal, high profile movement to change the status quo:
a campaign to make those changes needed to bring into existence universities
rationally organized and devoted to helping humanity realize what is of
value, and make progress to towards as good a world as possible. This is
something that we can do. Few concerned with the grave problems facing
humanity are even aware of the urgent need to do it. Egypt-style rebellions
will not help.
Best wishes,
Nick
To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to
http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm
|
