Archives For Collective Judgment Forum

Collective Judgment posts bring three or four debaters together to engage in a debate around a central question regarding social epistemology and related matters.

Author Information: Monique Dufour, Virginia Tech, msdufour@vt.edu; Gregory Sandstrom, European Humanities University, SERRC, gregory.sandstrom@ehu.lt; Adam Riggio, McMaster University, SERRC, adamriggio@gmail.com

Dufour, Monique, Gregory Sandstrom and Adam Riggio. “Beyond Polemic, Part, III.” Review of The Science Delusion, by Curtis White. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2, no. 12 (2013): 22-28.

The PDF of the article gives specific page numbers. Shortlink: http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-18o

Please refer to:

Circulating Scientism, Monique Dufour

The recent and much circulated Steven Pinker piece, “Science Is Not Your Enemy,” scolds recent critics of scientism, and extends “an impassioned plea to neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians.” What does he ask of this beleaguered group whom he deigns to address? Acknowledge that all great modern thinkers were actually scientists, and that scientism is little more than a “boo-word.” Accept that they need science and that science will enhance all of their endeavors, endeavors that would otherwise wallow in nostalgia, irrelevance, and resentment. And revel in the “gifts bestowed by science:” “the exhilarating achievement of scientific knowledge itself,” and “images of sublime beauty” that “science has provided the world.” Continue Reading…

Author Information: Gregory Sandstrom, European Humanities University, SERRC, gregory.sandstrom@ehu.lt; Adam Riggio, McMaster University, SERRC, adamriggio@gmail.com;Monique Dufour, Virginia Tech, msdufour@vt.edu

Sandstrom, Gregory, Adam Riggio and Monique Dufour. “Beyond Polemic, Part, II.” Review of The Science Delusion, by Curtis White. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2, no. 12 (2013): 14-21.

The PDF of the article gives specific page numbers. Shortlink: http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-17Y

Please refer to:

Beyond Polemic, Part II  

The Science Delusion: Asking the Big Questions in a Culture of Easy Answers
By Curtis White

Melville House Publishing, 224 pp., 2013

Can ‘Romanticised’ Humanities Help Overcome Natural Scientism Delusions? Gregory Sandstrom

Part I: The Reflexive Negative

“We Romantics, we Free Spirits (as Nietzsche liked to say), are in exile.” — White (197).

White’s The Science Delusion (TSD) is framed as a way of taking back the city of Knowledge in contemporary higher education and returning Romantic-Humanists or ‘Free Spirits’ from exile to positions of honour, dignity and worth. What jumps out in the book instead is an unnecessary inferiority complex demonstrated by a Professor of English when it comes to the hierarchy of disciplines in the contemporary academy.   Continue Reading…

Author Information: Adam Riggio, McMaster University, SERRC, adamriggio@gmail.com; Gregory Sandstrom, European Humanities University, SERRC, gregory.sandstrom@ehu.lt; Monique Dufour, Virginia Tech, msdufour@vt.edu

Riggio, Adam, Gregory Sandstrom and Monique Dufour. “Beyond Polemic, Part, I.” Review of The Science Delusion, by Curtis White. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2, no. 12 (2013): 7-11.

The PDF of the article gives specific page numbers. Shortlink: http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-17B

Please refer to:

The Science Delusion: Asking the Big Questions in a Culture of Easy Answers
By Curtis White

Melville House Publishing, 224 pp., 2013

Unreal Solutions to False Problems, Adam Riggio

Curtis White’s The Science Delusion (TSD) isn’t all that interesting in itself. What it means, however, is extremely interesting. TSD is a modern popular polemic, and as such drastically oversimplifies the philosophical ideas to which White refers. Someone with a reasonable university education in humanities, who is the book’s target demographic, will probably not learn much of anything from it that he or she didn’t already know.

But TSD can teach us a lot about how modern popular polemic books work and the problems of the discourse that such books shape. Continue Reading…

Author Information: William Davis, Virginia Tech, USA SERRC, widavis@vt.edu; Martin Evenden, National Taichung University of Education, Taiwan, SERRC, evendenmartin@hotmail.com; Gregory Sandstrom, European Humanities University, Lithuania SERRC, gregorisandstrom@yahoo.com and Aliaksandr Puptsau, European Humanities University, Lithuania alexander.puptsev@ehu.lt

Davis, William, Martin Evenden, Gregory Sandstrom and Aliaksandr Puptsau. 2013. “Are MOOCs the Future of Higher Education? A Collective Judgment Forum.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (7) 23-27.

The PDF of the article gives specific page numbers. Shortlink: http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-Os

Over the last several months, discussions surrounding the possibilities and pitfalls of massively open online courses (MOOCs) for higher education have continued to grow. These discussions were amplified when “An Open Letter to Professor Michael Sandel From the Philosophy Department at San Jose State U” was published via the Chronicle of Higher Education.

MOOCs as ‘a’ Future for Higher Education
William Davis, Virginia Tech, USA

As a current graduate student aspiring to teach at the university level, the notion that Massive Open Online Classes (MOOCs) are the future of higher education gives me pause. This Collective Judgment Forum (CFJ) question requires us, at a minimum, to address: 1. What higher education is; 2. What MOOCs are; and, 3. What MOOCs can, and should, do. What follows is an attempt at a limited answer, but one that I hope sparks further discussion and criticism on this board. Continue Reading…

Author Information: Gregory Sandstrom, Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences, gregory.sandstrom@ehu.lt , Thomas Basbøll, Independent Scholar, Copenhagen, Denmark, tb.lpf@cbs.dk, Emma Craddock, University of Nottingham, emmacraddock1@googlemail.com , and Eric O. Scott, George Mason University, escott8@gmu.edu

Sandstrom, Gregory, Thomas Basbøll, Emma Craddock and Eric O. Scott. 2012. “Intelligent design as social epistemology: Collective judgment forum.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 1 (7): 1-11.

The PDF of the article gives specific page numbers. Shortlink: http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-mX

“There is a sociological dimension to science and to the prospering [or failure] of scientific theories.” – William Dembski (2002)

“[N]ot every statement by a scientist is a scientific statement.” – Michael Behe (2005)

To consider intelligent design (ID) as social epistemology (SE), we will look at those elements related to it that are social, or collective or group-oriented.

The 1993 meeting in Pajaro Dunes, California organised by Phillip Johnson with 14 participants set the stage for an “intelligent design movement” (IDM) of scientists, scholars, activists and PR-figures that oppose neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories and the ideology of naturalism. As Stephen C. Meyer writes: “At Pajaro Dunes, ‘the movement’ congealed.” (2008, 229) Paul Nelson suggests that a “person is welcome to join the community [IDM]. The admission price is minimal: one need only allow for the possibility of design.” (original emphasis, 2005) Continue Reading…

Collective Judgment Forum

As the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective is constantly seeking new formats of academic writing that do not find space in common academic journal writing, The New York Times’ Room for Debate provided an excellent piece of inspiration for promoting short, engaged discussions. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate Three or four debaters write a short opinion-piece (max. 400 words) on an important, contemporary topic which is then commented on by readers.

In a similar vein, we are now launching our own Collective Judgment Forum. It serves as a space where three or four debaters (350 to 450 words max. each) kick off a debate around a central question regarding social epistemology and related matters. These short argumentative snippets provide plenty of material to initiate a debate that can be joined by everyone on the web.

The Collective Judgment Forum will be open with a new topic every six to eight weeks. Potential debaters can suggest a topic of their choice to the online editors who will assist in finding other participants.

The first Collective Judgment Forum is kicked off by three debaters from the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective. Verusca Simões dos Reis, Adam Riggio and Elisabeth Simbürger discuss the question ‘Does the Public University Still Exist?’

Author Information: Verusca Simões dos Reis, Rio de Janeiro State University, verusca.reis@gmail.com, Adam Riggio, McMaster University, adamriggio@gmail.com, and Elisabeth Simbürger, Universidad Diego Portales, elisabeth.simbuerger@uv.cl,

Simões dos Reis, Verusca, Riggio, Adam and Simbürger, Elisabeth. 2012. “Does the Public University Still Exist? ” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 1 (3): 14-17.

The PDF of the article gives specific page numbers. Shortlink: http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-15j

Please refer to:

Does the Public University Still Exist?

Continue Reading…