I think a lot of these problems have been created by the incentives, most particularly the “publish or perish” mentality, and the need to justify one’s work to governments for the purposes of obtaining government grants. I wrote a post on it here: https://whatkatydid.substack.com/p/what-is-the-purpose-of-academia My post considers legal academia, because that is what I am familiar with, but I think a lot of the same problems operate in science as well as a few more (p hacking and so forth). The intention of the incentives was not to produce what has occurred; but it has been an unintended consequence. Have you read Stuart Ritchie’s Science Fictions? Quite alarming for this purpose.
Yes, McGilchrist goes into the issue of incentives as well. In a sense, it seems almost like a natural process: we go from individual thinkers and scientists to teams, institutions, bureaucracy, the need for large-scale/quantitative evaluation, etc., until the incentives lead to complete deformation of the whole enterprise. Then death, then renewal/renaissance...
To quote a version of Scarface, "In this field, first you get the pub, then you get the grant, THEN you get the power." I figured out how corrupt it is when I was in the middle of it all and noped out. I don't miss my days in academia, and most of the people from that era I'm still friends with are miserable.
I never was in academia except for a lowly bachelor. I didn't stay mostly because I was somewhat lazy and messed up at the time, but also because I have issues with being told what to read and write, even though some of my professors encouraged me to go that route. Although I've had my moments of wondering "what if", in hindsight I'm glad I didn't do it.
I have just begun The Matter with Things after coming back from visiting Iain on Skye last month. His earlier book The Master and His Emissary was a huge contribution to so many fields, including my own life and study, so I am glad to hear so many reports that 'The Matter' is as important as 'The Master'. As he said himself in many conversations, no-one could love real science more than McGilchrist. So it is a deep shame to see the current fear of genuine curiosity and exploration, or care of the wider context, often trounced by money and vested interests. Thanks for this great essay. Here is the link to last month's interview, it' not about 'science' but you may enjoy it anyway. https://carolineross.substack.com/p/in-conversation-with-iain-mcgilchrist
Thank you for sharing, I really liked your article. McGilchrist's work is a blessing, and I imagine he is just as gentle a soul in real life as he is on the pages of his books!
Ah, thanks for this. Tonight's task was to start rereading TMAHE alongside Chuangtzu and other Taoist Classics again, and try to make sense of my 10yrd old notes. However, what will probably happen is I read your article above, get stuck back into TMWT, and then it'll be bedtime already.
Damn this was eye opening. I always thought about science in that the instruments were not capable of capturing many experiences. Therefore it felt like science was ironically always last to the party - proving what was already experienced.
But this article opened my eyes into the more inconsistent and at times seemingly nefarious components. Just keeps pushing me towards the notion that the deepest truth is that which we can find inside our own experience.
The fact that awareness of this very situation is definitely on the rise -- regarding which, thank you for the great post -- strikes me as pointedly symmetrical with the general tenor of the times. The current zeitgeist is characterized by burgeoning mistrust of all major metanarratives. And though, as many have pointed out, this carries its own host of complications, such as an increasingly troublesome obsession with a multitude of ideologically militant and competing micronarratives, and also an inability (shared by me) to regard pronouncements or communications from any ostensible source of political, economic, scientific, religious, or other authority with anything but deep suspicion accompanied by a dash of disdain, it still feels like a culture-wide Great Awakening. A philosophical Fourth Turning. An apocalypse in the hopeful sense of the term, as the veil is drawn away to reveal the rotted foundations beneath the surface facade of, well, everything. When the house built on sand collapses, this clears the way to build something more accurately reflective of reality.
Indeed, it seems we have reached a true postmodernist moment - except that we have much better ideas and a much greater diversity of them filling the void created by narrative skepticism.
You might enjoy these posts where I talk about some of the points you have made and the cultural sea change we are witnessing:
Funny: After reading your post right here, I immediately scanned the other contents of your Substack, and I actually already have those two items lined up in browser tabs for further reading. Clearly, I was on the right track. :-)
FWIW, you might find something of related interest in my introduction to an academic encyclopedia on the paranormal that I edited a few years ago. I believe the full intro may be viewable via a Google Books preview:
In it, I note the cultural prejudice that led to that notorious disavowal a few years ago of a TEDx conference by the main TED organization because of Rupert Sheldrake's (and also Graham Hancock's) appearance on the agenda, along with other data points tracing the militant skeptical-materialist-reductionist outlook that has somehow continued to pass for mainstream opinion for a very long time.
I think a lot of these problems have been created by the incentives, most particularly the “publish or perish” mentality, and the need to justify one’s work to governments for the purposes of obtaining government grants. I wrote a post on it here: https://whatkatydid.substack.com/p/what-is-the-purpose-of-academia My post considers legal academia, because that is what I am familiar with, but I think a lot of the same problems operate in science as well as a few more (p hacking and so forth). The intention of the incentives was not to produce what has occurred; but it has been an unintended consequence. Have you read Stuart Ritchie’s Science Fictions? Quite alarming for this purpose.
Yes, McGilchrist goes into the issue of incentives as well. In a sense, it seems almost like a natural process: we go from individual thinkers and scientists to teams, institutions, bureaucracy, the need for large-scale/quantitative evaluation, etc., until the incentives lead to complete deformation of the whole enterprise. Then death, then renewal/renaissance...
Haven't read Ritchie's book, sounds intriguing!
To quote a version of Scarface, "In this field, first you get the pub, then you get the grant, THEN you get the power." I figured out how corrupt it is when I was in the middle of it all and noped out. I don't miss my days in academia, and most of the people from that era I'm still friends with are miserable.
I never was in academia except for a lowly bachelor. I didn't stay mostly because I was somewhat lazy and messed up at the time, but also because I have issues with being told what to read and write, even though some of my professors encouraged me to go that route. Although I've had my moments of wondering "what if", in hindsight I'm glad I didn't do it.
I'm gradually rehabilitating myself from academia. I believe it has left me rather traumatized.
You have no idea. I left after getting tenured (I'm a slow learner) and spent a very long time doing nothing, just to recover from the experience.
I know that feel.
Broken publication incentives are a huge part of the problem.
I have just begun The Matter with Things after coming back from visiting Iain on Skye last month. His earlier book The Master and His Emissary was a huge contribution to so many fields, including my own life and study, so I am glad to hear so many reports that 'The Matter' is as important as 'The Master'. As he said himself in many conversations, no-one could love real science more than McGilchrist. So it is a deep shame to see the current fear of genuine curiosity and exploration, or care of the wider context, often trounced by money and vested interests. Thanks for this great essay. Here is the link to last month's interview, it' not about 'science' but you may enjoy it anyway. https://carolineross.substack.com/p/in-conversation-with-iain-mcgilchrist
Thank you for sharing, I really liked your article. McGilchrist's work is a blessing, and I imagine he is just as gentle a soul in real life as he is on the pages of his books!
If you are interested, I have referenced him quite a bit here and also wrote a review with some thoughts about TMWT: https://luctalks.substack.com/p/mcgilchrists-the-matter-with-things
Also, yes he is as gentle a soul in real life, although with a sharp cutting edge for nonsense. And he makes the best coffee in Scotland.
Sharply tuned nonsense detector: essential in this day and age.
Ah, thanks for this. Tonight's task was to start rereading TMAHE alongside Chuangtzu and other Taoist Classics again, and try to make sense of my 10yrd old notes. However, what will probably happen is I read your article above, get stuck back into TMWT, and then it'll be bedtime already.
Damn this was eye opening. I always thought about science in that the instruments were not capable of capturing many experiences. Therefore it felt like science was ironically always last to the party - proving what was already experienced.
But this article opened my eyes into the more inconsistent and at times seemingly nefarious components. Just keeps pushing me towards the notion that the deepest truth is that which we can find inside our own experience.
The fact that awareness of this very situation is definitely on the rise -- regarding which, thank you for the great post -- strikes me as pointedly symmetrical with the general tenor of the times. The current zeitgeist is characterized by burgeoning mistrust of all major metanarratives. And though, as many have pointed out, this carries its own host of complications, such as an increasingly troublesome obsession with a multitude of ideologically militant and competing micronarratives, and also an inability (shared by me) to regard pronouncements or communications from any ostensible source of political, economic, scientific, religious, or other authority with anything but deep suspicion accompanied by a dash of disdain, it still feels like a culture-wide Great Awakening. A philosophical Fourth Turning. An apocalypse in the hopeful sense of the term, as the veil is drawn away to reveal the rotted foundations beneath the surface facade of, well, everything. When the house built on sand collapses, this clears the way to build something more accurately reflective of reality.
Indeed, it seems we have reached a true postmodernist moment - except that we have much better ideas and a much greater diversity of them filling the void created by narrative skepticism.
You might enjoy these posts where I talk about some of the points you have made and the cultural sea change we are witnessing:
https://luctalks.substack.com/p/the-enlightenment-is-dead-long-live
https://luctalks.substack.com/p/we-are-at-a-metaphysical-nexus
Funny: After reading your post right here, I immediately scanned the other contents of your Substack, and I actually already have those two items lined up in browser tabs for further reading. Clearly, I was on the right track. :-)
FWIW, you might find something of related interest in my introduction to an academic encyclopedia on the paranormal that I edited a few years ago. I believe the full intro may be viewable via a Google Books preview:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ghosts_Spirits_and_Psychics_The_Paranorm/3JMeCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22matt+cardin%22+%22ghosts,+spirits,+and+psychics%22&printsec=frontcover
In it, I note the cultural prejudice that led to that notorious disavowal a few years ago of a TEDx conference by the main TED organization because of Rupert Sheldrake's (and also Graham Hancock's) appearance on the agenda, along with other data points tracing the militant skeptical-materialist-reductionist outlook that has somehow continued to pass for mainstream opinion for a very long time.
Thanks for that, I'll check it out!
PR = peer review <--> PR = public relations
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is why I love the term 'sacred priors' (from one of your previous posts).