Tuesday, May 09, 2006
(9:54 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Rigor
It seems to me that even if someone has written the definitive monograph, taking into account all the available sources and backing up their analysis with absolutely brilliant arguments, one must still reserve the right, upon reading and studying said monograph, to respond with a simple "Sorry, I'm not convinced."Then one may go ahead and write one's own little article, inadequately sourced, sloppily argued in spots, failing to meet the canons of scholarly rigor -- and in fact, sometimes that little article can wind up being more convincing (at least to some, perhaps even to most) than the definitive monograph. It seems to me that this can be okay. As long as the dismissive footnote is in place, then it's okay -- and sometimes even when it's not in place.
How awkward, though, for academics to want to escape the tyrrany of the expert.
How to avoid becoming an expert, I wonder? One obvious solution presents itself: just be ignorant. But what about another path -- in which one knows, perhaps has even demonstrated, that one is able to become the expert. (When an untrained person doesn't play the piano, it's quite a different thing from when a concert pianist doesn't, even if the material result -- no piano music -- is the same.)
A tension hangs in the air. One is facing down the possibility of becoming an expert, precisely as a temptation, and one can never know if one will have prevailed.
