If you want to read such, in the book the Experts Speak, you can do that. There is a long list of them that you can read - it makes marvelous reading. Eduard Manet wrote to his colleague claude monet, of Renoir: "He has no talent at all, that boy. Tell him to give up painting." "Rembrandt was regarded as not comparable with an extraordinarily gifted artist,. Ripingill." William Blake spoke of Titian and the venetians as "such idiots are not artists." Degas regarded toulouse-lautrec" as merely a painter of a period of no consequence." One wonders how art would have fared in a peer review system. Or would it be different in music?
Essay 2, peer, review - basic Composition (Fall 2007)
The more reviews you require for a proposal - now the nsf requires seven reviewers for a proposal - the more you require, the more certain it is that you will follow the statistical tendency dictated by this principle. If you had noise in the situation, it would be much better. There used to be in the United States many different agencies, and there was perhaps an odd-ball over here who gave out some money for one agency, and a funny fellow over there for another. This was a noisy situation, and it was not driving quite as hard towards outside unanimity. But now we have it all streamlined and know exactly to whom we have to go for a particular subject and, of course, it is an absolute disaster. Why is it thought that the peer review system would work for science? How about trying to make a peer review system work for other forms of endeavor? Suppose we had a national foundation for the arts, and every painter had to apply to it to get his canvas and his brushes and his paints. How do you suppose that would work? I can imagine some of the consequences, but better than that, we can look them up in historical examples.
It is also very clear there that the holding-in that has taken place has been an absolute disaster to research. It is now virtually impossible to do any research outside the widely accepted position. If a young man with no scientific standing were to attempt this, however brilliant he might be, the wouldn't have a hope. I believe that our present way of conducting science is deeply afflicted by this tendency. The peer review system, which we regard as the only fair way we know of to distribute money (I don't think it is, review but it is generally thought to be) is an absolute disaster. It is a completely unstable method. It is completely prone to this tendency; there is no getting out.
If you go for long enough, you will have created the appearance of unanimity. It will look as if you have solved the problem because all agree, and resumes of course you have got absolutely nothing. If no new fact has come to light and the subject has gone on for long enough, - this is what happens. And it does happen! I am presenting it in its clearest form, and it is by no means a joke. If many years go by in a field in which no significant new facts come to light, the field sharpens up the opinions and gives the appearance that the problem is solved. I know this very well in one field, which is that of petroleum derivation, where the case has been argued since the 1880's. At the present time most people would say the problem is completely solved, though there is absolutely nothing in the factual situation that would indicate a solution.
Slightly more people believe in this position than in any other, so we will select our speakers at the next conference from this position on the opinion curve, and we will judge to whom to give research funds because the referees themselves will of course. "We will select some region there to supply the funds." And so, a year later what will have happened? You will have combed out some of the people who were out there, and you will have put more people into this region. Each round of decision making has the consequence of essentially taking the initial curve and multiplying it by itself. Now we understand the mathematical consequence of taking a shallow curve and multiplying it by itself a large number of times. In the mathematical limit it becomes a delta function at the value of the initial peak. What does that mean?
Peer, review ; Last Refuge of the (Uninformed) Troll
Yes, i have wondered whether one should in fact pursue subjects with a review big wall between two groups that are working in the same field, so that they absolutely cannot communicate, and see a few years later whether they come even approximately to the same. It would then give some perspective of how much the herd behavior may have been hurting. But we don't have that. Even with our soviet colleagues, unfortunately, we have too much contact to have a display of real independence, to see where it would have led. This question of how the support of science - and I don't mean only the financial support but also the journals, the judgment of referees, the invitations to conferences, acknowledgments of every kind - how that interacts with the question of herd behavior, is what. It is important to recognize how strong this interaction really. Suppose that you have a subject in which there is no clear-cut decision to be made between a variety of opinions and therefore no clear-cut decision to be made in which direction you should put money or which direction you should favor for publications, and.
No doubt opinions would need a multidimensional space to be presented, but I will at the moment just represent them about in a one-dimensional situation. Suppose you have some curve between the extreme of this opinion and the extreme of that opinion. You have some indefinite, statistically quite insignificant distribution of opinions. Now in that situation, suppose that the refereeing procedure has to decide where to put money in research, which papers to publish, and. Well, people would say, "We can't really tell, but surely we shouldn't take anybody who is out here.
It is not just the herd instinct in the individuals that you have to worry about, but you have to worry about how it is augmented by the way in which science is handled. If support from peers, if moral and financial consequences are at stake, then on the whole staying with the herd is the successful policy for the individual who is depending on these, but it is not the successful policy for the pursuit of science. Staying with the herd to many people also has an advantage that they would not run the risk of exposing their ignorance. If one departs from the herd, then one will be asked, one will be charged to explain why one has departed from the herd. One has to be able to offer the detailed justifications, and one's understanding of the subject will be criticized. If one stays with the herd, then mostly there is no such charge.
"Yes, i believe that because doesn't everybody else believe that? " That is enough justification. It isn't to me, but it is to very many other people. The sheep in the interior of the herd are well protected from the bite in the ankle by the sheep dog. It is this tendency for herd behavior that is greatly aggravated by the support structure of science in which we believe nowadays. I will read out just one passage here to show that other people than myself have recognized the herd problems: david Michland writes in the reviews of astronomy: I sometimes wonder if the much encouraged and proclaimed interaction among western astronomers leads to a form. This makes the writings of our soviet colleagues who have partly developed ideas in comparative isolation all the more valuable.
Peer, review : nuwrite - northwestern University
I am sure it has great value in sociological behavior in one way or another, but I think on the whole the "herd instinct" has been a disaster in science. In spondylolisthesis science what we generally want is diversity - many different avenues need to be pursued. When people pursue the same writing avenue all together, they tend to shut out the other avenues, and they are not always on the right ones. If a large proportion of the scientific community in one field is guided by the herd instinct, then they cannot adopt another viewpoint since they cannot imagine that the whole herd will swing around at the same time. It is merely the logistics of the situation. Even if everybody were willing to change course, nobody individually will be sure that he will not be outside the herd when he does. Perhaps if they could do it as neatly as a flock of starlings, they would. So this inertia-producing effect is a very serious one.
On the other hand, they sure made their judgments about the matter, without having any basis at all. So it just essentially forced me out of the field. The theory of hearing which I proposed then involved an active - not a passive - receiver, one in which positive feedback, not just passive detection is involved. We now have very clear evidence, after these 36 years, that indeed an active receiver is at work, but we still have not got a receptive group of physiologists who deal in this field (note.) The medical profession still hasn't a clue. Thirty-six english years is not yet enough to get that learning into the profession. A motivation which is in a way more serious and more avoidable than the nonlearning one, a motivation that hones out new ideas, is what I brutally call the "herd" instinct. It is an instinct which humans have. It presumably dates back to tribal society.
my own experience where, when I was still very green and naive, just after the war, i had worked on the theory of hearing: how the inner ear works. As I had just come from wartime radar, i was full of signal processing methods and sophistication and receiver techniques and all that, and there i found myself discussion the physiology of hearing in those terms. I thought it was very appropriate because it is a very fine scientific instrument that we were discussing, the inner ear. But I had to address myself to an audience of otologists - the doctors and medical people who deal with hearing - the only ones who were doing any kind of research in this field. The mismatch was obvious; it was completely hopeless. There was no common language, and of course the medical profession just would not learn what it would take to understand the subject.
Go to chapter href language, linda light, california state University, long beach. Go to chapter href subsistence, isaac Shearn, community college of Baltimore county. Go to chapter href Economics, sarah lyon, University of Kentucky, go to chapter href political Anthropology: a cross-Cultural Comparison. Paul McDowell, santa barbara city college. Go to chapter href family bill and Marriage, mary kay gilliland, central Arizona college. Go to chapter href race and Ethnicity justin Garcia, millersville University go to chapter href gender and Sexuality carol mukhopadhyay, san Jose State University tami Blumenfield, furman University susan Harper, University of Texas, Arlington Abby gondek, florida International University go to chapter href religion Sashur. Marion, University of Arkansas go to chapter href culture and Sustainability: Environmental Anthropology in the Anthropocene Christian Palmer, windward Community college go to chapter href performance lauren Miller Griffith, texas Tech University jonathan. Marion, University of Arkansas go to chapter href media anthropology: meaning, Embodiment, Infrastructure, and Activism Bryce peake, university of Maryland, baltimore county go to chapter href health and Medicine sashur Henninger-Rener, University of laverne go to chapter href seeing like an Anthropologist: Anthropology in Practice. Teaching Resources These resources can be used to enhance teaching and learning with the perspectives textbook.
Scavenger Hunt for ell
Perspectives:An Open Invitation to cultural Anthropology. You can follow the society for Anthropology writers in Community colleges. Chapters, preface and Table of Contents, nina Brown, community college. Baltimore county, laura tubelle de gonzalez, san diego. Miramar College, thomas McIlwraith, University of guelph, go to preface href go to image credits href The development of Anthropological Ideas. Laura nader, University of California, berkeley. Go to chapter href The culture concept, emily cowall, McMaster University, priscilla medeiros, McMaster University. Go to chapter href doing fieldwork: Methods in Cultural Anthropology. Katie nelson, Inver Hills Community college.