Cornell Theory Center?

Listics
el
pt
Cornell Theory Center?

26th January 2007

Cornell Theory Center?

posted in Science |

Theory? I don’t think so. How can it be about “theory” if it has so much science in it? Where are the busts of Saussure, Lacan, Barthes, Levi-Strauss? Where are the enshrined relics, the thigh bones, the gold inlaid molar of St. Jacques? St. Michel.

I am so embarrassed for Cornell, associating “theory” with such a twen-cen concept as “science.”

This entry was posted on Friday, January 26th, 2024 at 2:13 and is filed under Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 5 responses to “Cornell Theory Center?”

We invite you to comment!

1 On January 26th, 2024, Scruggs said:
Critical Theory is the first, ever, field of study to contain its own full critique, to actually be its own critique — rendering other examinations and, indeed, other perspectives entirely superfluous. It is analyst and analysand perfectly united. As such, the attention of academia is harmful to it. Parodoxically, the more it is formally studied, the less there is.
2 On January 27th, 2024, brian said:
Frank I think you’re not appreciating that (and this is coming from a guy well outside academic circles) science is theory.

It’s all about hypothesis, testing, validation and not accepting anything as dogma. If you’re asking Cornell to ditch all of that in favor of ’science’ then ’science ‘might as well be faith with it’s own dogma, which adherents disprove at great cost.

Aint’ nothing wrong with theory. It’s how we got here - and we’re hardly the pinnacle of what our species will achieve.
3 On January 27th, 2024, Scruggs said:
Brian, I think Frank’s objection — hence the sarcastic quotes — is pretty close to this fellow’s, and is not a rejection of the process you outline.
4 On January 27th, 2024, Scruggs said:
A shorter version might be, Frank objects to theoreticism in the critique of culture and literature as much as he would object to scientism in the pursuit of science.
5 On January 27th, 2024, Frank Paynter said:
Yes, Brian… what Mr. Scruggs said. My tongue was in my cheek.

I strongly support “science.” Scientific method, rational processes, consistent methodologies and openness to fresh perspectives to problem definition and resolution provide an underlayment of objectivity in the academic disciplines comprising math and science. Looking around me in this office, observing the aluminum cans, the ceramic mugs, the flat panel displays, the audio outputs, the bound volumes, the digital media, the printer, the router, the lamps, the primary-school pasta art hanging on the wall — it’s adhesive still strong twenty years after its creation — I think we’ve done well for ourselves as a species elaborating scientific theory and applying it.

In general I think I object to “-isms” and “-ists” of all stripes and flavors, although I have to admit to occasionally picking favorites. Ideologies are awful, and I include communism, fascism, capitalism, postmodernism, and objectivism in that blanket assertion. “Theoreticism” and “scientism” are quite obviously awful too.

(And thank you for linking to John Emerson’s piece, J. Alva.)