theboombody said:
"You need to specify this, you need to specify that, you need to prove this, etc. etc." That's all I ever hear on these forums. What you all really mean is, "You have to go by what the current authority calls proof. Any other proof is not acceptable." And this proof is based on the letter of the law (scientific, legal, etc.). I got to admit, you guys are great at following the letter of the law, but for the most part are truly awful at following the spirit of it. You never look at why the law was created. You just look at what it says, and go by it so exactly that common sense is forsaken in order to obey that letter. It is the defining characteristic trait of our generation, and it's beyond embarrassing. That's why a judge can say it's okay for the government to take someone's house because their property tax bill payment was six bucks short due to an oversight.
At some point, somebody somewhere is deciding what is legitimate and what is not. I question what is established as legitimate. You do not.
... Law? Now we're getting more than a little sidetracked. The law doesn't prove anything - it isn't descriptive, it's normative. As for accepting only established beliefs as truth, that's a very valid epistemological criticism of conventional science. Amusingly, the core of your argument is pretty well in line with the theoretical mainstream of feminist gender studies, a field I suspect you would dismiss as unscientific.
The thing is, though, that the criticism is only valid as a critique of social power distribution by way of a foucauldian "knowledge is power" rationality. It does not form basis for a claim that discredited views are automatically as valid as hegemonic views. This line of thinking that you're presenting here (that
your oppressed truth is as valid as the truth of the current hegemonic authority) is actually a perfect example of the "cookie cutter similarity"-mentality that you've been claiming to criticize all along.
I would argue, in line with scientific realism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism], that while we may not be able to reach an objective truth about the world - we can reach an
approximate truth through intersubjectivity. Simply put, if all we (think we) know points at one conclusion, the true answer can probably be found in that general direction. It's not a perfect solution, since the assumption leaves the door open for mass delusion (and the type of skewed power distribution your feminist analysis implies), but that's why we also speak of popperian provisional knowledge [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/]. We can not know the definite truth for all time, but we can assume something is true until something better comes along.
I think it's a nice surprise to see you starting to form a strong feminist critique of the patriarchal regime of truth, however, especially considering your earlier line of reasoning. You might want to work on your arguments for it, though: I'm missing some theoretical grounding and logical coherence.
theboombody said:
Many existing degree programs should never have been created, but they already have been. Someone on a yahoo article today was like, "There's a PHD program in human resources? That sounds a little ridiculous." I would have to agree.
Here's where I think your critical power analysis goes astray. It stops abruptly at a rather arbitrary point: you rightly question who gets to decide what is legitimate knowledge, and why. But then you go on and uncritically establish that the answer is "you" and "because". Why is your view on legitimate fields of study better than the established view? What gives you the mandate to decide what is worth knowing and what is not, and what is truth and what is not? The weakness of your feminist power critique is that it's a double-edged sword, like all scientific critiques oriented towards relativism. If knowledge is relative, then what gives your perspective weight? The logical conclusion of your argument is that all points of view are "cookie cutter similar" and cannot be discredited by one another, which I believe you have criticized at an earlier point of this discussion. You need to affix your critique to a theoretical framework allowing for a decision regarding what is right and what is not; you need to either establish a methodological approach for dismissing flawed descriptions of reality, or you need to attach a normative standpoint to your argument.
theboombody said:
Our society has totally lost its spirit of intuitive sense. No common sense anymore. Because the instant it's mentioned, someone has to say, "And what makes that sense so common? Can you prove it?" No I can't, and furthermore, I shouldn't have to. I will make no further effort to speak your language than the effort I already make.
Why shouldn't you have to prove your point? I'm genuinely curious. Where would the "common sense" be in uncritically accepting any random statement as truth? Ignore everything else I said if you so wish - but please provide a compelling argument for at least this one question:
Why shouldn't you have to?
theboombody said:
I bet somewhere at some point, I could construct a degree program that would finally make you say, "Yeah, okay, if that were a real degree, that would definitely be much easier than the existing ones."
I'll take that challenge. Construct a degree program that conforms to the rules and regulations of existing programs, fulfilling conventional expectations of academic quality. Manage that, while still making it genuinely and qualitatively easier than the other programs, and I will cede the point to you. Heck, as a gesture of good will, I'll even let you pick any country you want as a starting point for your project (since regulations and academic traditions will differ from country to country).