Academic research: musings

ariel · 26th September 2021, 05:07 PM

Alan,
I went to the Wiki to search ( not re-search :-), because I am not a physicist and understand nothing about mathematics and quantum theory) the particulars of Einstein- Bohr debate. It lasted for years and the pendulum of different chapters swung back and forth. At the end of the debate most of the contemporary theoretical physicists agreed that Bohr appeared to have an upper hand, but that we still did not know it with absolute certainty. But the important point is stressed by everybody: throughout the entire debate both remained close personal friends with no bitterness toward the opponent.

And that reminded me of the Talmudic analysis of two kinds of argumentation ( or dispute) : argument for the sake of God, and argument not for the sake of God. The former is for the sake of Truth, the latter for the sake of Power.

A Talmudic example of the former is a long argument about epistemology of Biblical laws: how do we know which of the potentially many interpretation is correct? There was a long and heated argument between two schools of thought: Shammai stressed uncompromising truths of Biblical laws while Hillel ruled by adapting them ( at least temporarily) to special circumstances and finding a common ground. In the majority of cases Hillel interpretations were accepted, but some views of Shammai ( the harsh one) became the law over Hillel’s and the rest of them will become laws in Heavens, where only the absolute Truth is going to rein.

The latter is the example of the rebellion by Korach and his adherents, who wanted to dislodge Moses as High Priest, as the leader of the entire community because they cleverly advertised that the entire community , down to the last individual, was holy already and did not require a Priest to transmit the word of God to them. But in reality they wanted this function to themselves. They wanted not Truth , they wanted victory, they wanted power, they wanted humiliation of their opponent .

And every time we want to argue, we should remember Bohr vs. Einstein, Shammai vs. Hillel, Korach vs. Moses: what is the purpose of our conflict, of our argument: Truth or Dominance?

It is a sheer pleasure arguing with you. Both of us are seeking truth, but are willing to adapt our criteria to circumstances and are never trying to dominate over each other. Thanks.

A. G. Maisey · 26th September 2021, 09:45 PM

I do not know the examples you have quoted Ariel, but in our exchanges I do not think we were debating, I viewed the entire series of exchanges as an attempt on my part to gain a clear understanding of exactly what you meant in your opening post.

I have sometimes thought that the word "research" gets used a little too freely, and my initial understanding of your opening post was that you would have liked to see more or less serious research as a component part of the ideas and opinions that form a part of much of our discussion in this Forum.

As it turns out your position appears to be pretty much the same as mine, and you are prepared to differentiate between the relaxed discussion and the ideas and opinions that are sometimes founded upon research, serious or otherwise. I can still make silly remarks, provided I do not pretend that those silly ideas are the result of serious work.

I consider that our exchanges were more of the nature of discussion, rather than debate. Debate and discussion can overlap, and in Middle English the word "debate" had the meaning of "discussion", but in today's English I think there needs to be an element of contention or dispute for a discussion to become a debate.

I cannot find this element of contention in our exchanges, I was merely trying to understand your position more clearly.

ariel · 26th September 2021, 10:29 PM

Well, now you know: soft and almost playful in discussions, getting stricter as the level of research publication progresses from mere abstract at a meeting, to a structured article in a journal, to a full book.

BTW, we have discussed books in the past.It is a very complex undertaking, but perhaps the most important and influential, since it is supposed to affect a new foundation of the field. Just like in literature in general there are so few good “weapon” books on the market and so much misleading drivel, that separating the wheat from the chaff becomes more and more important.

You obviously know well more than most about krises. Sharing your knowledge with others is an important part of establishing a standard of the field, addressing history, beliefs, practical points of construction with attention to details, decoration, minute ethnic ID points , localizing , dating etc. I have never been able to figure these things out and got terminally frustrated. Showing me and multiple others the systematic logic behind the appreciation of kris will be extremely useful. You are a master, then teach. That’s what masters do.

26th September 2021, 05:07 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Alan, I went to the Wiki to search ( not re-search :-), because I am not a physicist and understand nothing about mathematics and quantum theory) the particulars of Einstein- Bohr debate. It lasted for years and the pendulum of different chapters swung back and forth. At the end of the debate most of the contemporary theoretical physicists agreed that Bohr appeared to have an upper hand, but that we still did not know it with absolute certainty. But the important point is stressed by everybody: throughout the entire debate both remained close personal friends with no bitterness toward the opponent. And that reminded me of the Talmudic analysis of two kinds of argumentation ( or dispute) : argument for the sake of God, and argument not for the sake of God. The former is for the sake of Truth, the latter for the sake of Power. A Talmudic example of the former is a long argument about epistemology of Biblical laws: how do we know which of the potentially many interpretation is correct? There was a long and heated argument between two schools of thought: Shammai stressed uncompromising truths of Biblical laws while Hillel ruled by adapting them ( at least temporarily) to special circumstances and finding a common ground. In the majority of cases Hillel interpretations were accepted, but some views of Shammai ( the harsh one) became the law over Hillel’s and the rest of them will become laws in Heavens, where only the absolute Truth is going to rein. The latter is the example of the rebellion by Korach and his adherents, who wanted to dislodge Moses as High Priest, as the leader of the entire community because they cleverly advertised that the entire community , down to the last individual, was holy already and did not require a Priest to transmit the word of God to them. But in reality they wanted this function to themselves. They wanted not Truth , they wanted victory, they wanted power, they wanted humiliation of their opponent . And every time we want to argue, we should remember Bohr vs. Einstein, Shammai vs. Hillel, Korach vs. Moses: what is the purpose of our conflict, of our argument: Truth or Dominance? It is a sheer pleasure arguing with you. Both of us are seeking truth, but are willing to adapt our criteria to circumstances and are never trying to dominate over each other. Thanks.

26th September 2021, 09:45 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	I do not know the examples you have quoted Ariel, but in our exchanges I do not think we were debating, I viewed the entire series of exchanges as an attempt on my part to gain a clear understanding of exactly what you meant in your opening post. I have sometimes thought that the word "research" gets used a little too freely, and my initial understanding of your opening post was that you would have liked to see more or less serious research as a component part of the ideas and opinions that form a part of much of our discussion in this Forum. As it turns out your position appears to be pretty much the same as mine, and you are prepared to differentiate between the relaxed discussion and the ideas and opinions that are sometimes founded upon research, serious or otherwise. I can still make silly remarks, provided I do not pretend that those silly ideas are the result of serious work. I consider that our exchanges were more of the nature of discussion, rather than debate. Debate and discussion can overlap, and in Middle English the word "debate" had the meaning of "discussion", but in today's English I think there needs to be an element of contention or dispute for a discussion to become a debate. I cannot find this element of contention in our exchanges, I was merely trying to understand your position more clearly.

26th September 2021, 10:29 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Well, now you know: soft and almost playful in discussions, getting stricter as the level of research publication progresses from mere abstract at a meeting, to a structured article in a journal, to a full book. BTW, we have discussed books in the past.It is a very complex undertaking, but perhaps the most important and influential, since it is supposed to affect a new foundation of the field. Just like in literature in general there are so few good “weapon” books on the market and so much misleading drivel, that separating the wheat from the chaff becomes more and more important. You obviously know well more than most about krises. Sharing your knowledge with others is an important part of establishing a standard of the field, addressing history, beliefs, practical points of construction with attention to details, decoration, minute ethnic ID points , localizing , dating etc. I have never been able to figure these things out and got terminally frustrated. Showing me and multiple others the systematic logic behind the appreciation of kris will be extremely useful. You are a master, then teach. That’s what masters do.