From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 01:19:12 GMT
Erin,
Matt said:
He's [Rorty] saying that what counts as objectivity should be thought of as
a much agreed upon truth, thus setting up a continuum between opinion and
knowledge.
Erin said:
How does he tie in expertise of a subject?
Matt:
I haven't read Rorty specifically on this, but I think his response would
go like this: Standards of expertise in a subject would be decided by the
members of the discipline. This can be as formal or informal as the
discipline wants. This is why we see battles over competence in the more
informal disciplines (like literary criticism and philosophy). Generally,
if you look at what the requirements are for getting a Ph.D. in a subject,
that's a good measure for mutually agreed upon standards of expertise.
After you get your degree, expertise is decided by how published you are
and/or your reputation (for instance, say you aren't very well published
due to outside circumstances (you aren't a good writer, you don't like
publishing, etc.), you could gain a reputation with your colleagues at the
university you teach, conferences you attend, other people you hang around
with).
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 14 2003 - 01:13:43 GMT