Ariel, I am reminded of a quote attributed to Henry Kissinger. When asked, "Why do academics fight so viciously?" he is reported to have responded, "Because there is so little at stake."
As academics, we are trained by our mentors to attack without mercy (in the name of objective criticism) and to defend at all costs. After battling the wild rapids of academic discourse, it is sometimes difficult to adjust to a quiet backwater like this forum. Here we are more often dealing with civilians than combatants, and need to adjust accordingly. There are ways of pointing out errors in logic, assumptions, biases, etc. that are not perceived as "hostile." After all, there is so little at stake here too. We can have spirited and lively debate here, and often do, and I see no reason why discussions based on academic principles cannot be conducted here--just in a more gentle and polite manner than in the academic sphere.
Ian.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
There were several "research" papers published here. Some were incredibly sophomoric and some had logical and factual holes size of Great Lakes.
I wrote comments, pointing out to these gross deficiencies and trying to be as polite as possible.
I was sternly reprimanded for discouraging the novices from posting their ideas and for pointing out their errors.
Since then I am trying to keep very low profile.
If this Forum wants academic discussions, then it should adopt the " no holds barred" approach.
Being a current Assoc . Editor of 2 major scientific Journals, as well as Assoc Editor or Editorial Board member of a dozen more in the past I can assure you that the level of criticism in the real academic world is several orders of magnitude more severe than here, and that any self-respecting scientific journal rejects at least 80% of submissions.
The Forum has to choose between being an academic resource and a mutual admiration society.
|