Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (78884)	3/1/2003 11:42:54 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Sorry, I thought you were. But did you say that (sometimes) the professionals are not to be trusted implying that (sometimes) the non-professionals should be given equal if not greater import? And who decides? Sort of. What I am saying, is that the professionals are sometimes dismissive of non-professional contributions because it doesn't come from one of the "anointed" that follow the strict forms that impart "seriousness." If it can't be published in a journal, it can't be worth considering. That kind of attitude. I highly doubt John Stuart Mill would ever have managed to get heard if he had worked in today's world. Not being formally degreed and all. There is often a bias against those not in the field, regardless of the merit of the ideas. Most professionals are not academics. And are you saying that there are not different Foreign Affairs Houses (think tanks, and such)? Well of course there are and the conflict between theories is constant and unceasing. And academics DO get to be Alpha wolf by kicking over the other wolves' (at the other institutions) theories. Competition is intense with a capital 'I'. Yes, but they are similarly constrained by a structure imparted by professional "indoctrination." Competition is intense, but it remains within the bounds of the accepted forms. And even following the proper forms and having good ideas doesn't guarantee anything, if your ideas upset cherished theories. Hence my reference to Strum, whose baboon studies totally contradicted the then dominant (heh) male dominance theories. Even though she had strong empirical support, she was ostracized with a capital 'O' for going against the grain of the current scientific "movement". The problem with peer review in this sense is that those that are sitting on the review boards are often the Old School whose very ideas are being challenged. I'm really starting to digress, so I'll shut up now. :) Derek