Summary? I think the best "summary" is for you to read the whole cartoon. (Clicking on it should bring up a larger, more legible version.)
 |
| Dilbert, by Scott Adams, Sunday, October 7, 2012. |
When I read it, I thought that there might be a useful lesson in there about why academics do what they do. Those same lessons might also help to clarify Grace's highly relevant questions from our discussion about topics and ideas yesterday, which we are continuing this morning. If you didn't have time yesterday for your daily blog comment quota, you might like to share your ideas on these questions about the what and why of academic work before class this morning, perhaps over your tomatoes or whatever it is you enjoy for breakfast. I'm enjoying a coffee as always and, less usually, oats with a banana and soy milk, although buttery omelettes with cheese are more enjoyable.
So, what does Adams's cartoon tell us about why academics do what they do? And how does this relate to the question about what is the topic of the essay whose introduction we read yesterday? (And which you will get in full this morning.)
__________
Reference
I think normally academics have many details to support their ideas before making any statement. Perharps they cite references so that the reader will know that they have something to support what they're talking about rather than just to state it as an uninformed opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe topic of an essay should not be just an uninformed opinion, but rather an informed opinion because the reader would not get the whole idea of the essay. Also, the topic generally leads to what the writer will talk about next. Then the supporting details must be related to that topic.
I am certainly sure I don't understand this cartoon. However, it said if you understand and laugh to a foreign cartoon, especially a caricature, it means your language improve significantly. When I read a cartoon in the newspaper, I am always confused and have got a headache. I think if I want to understand cartoons in newspapers, I should know about politics, religion, or even recent news because many of them are caricature.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the cartoon above, the man who starts the conversation tells that if you want to be number 1 of anything, you should think a lot to gain more data or opinions. It also means you have to work hard to tethering information. But, he usually doesn't like this process.
If my understanding is correct, I completely agree with his concept.
I like "tethering" in Aor's response here.
DeleteWe do want our beliefs, our ideas, our opinions, to be tethered to reality, or do we? And tethering needs more than just believing something. We need the right sort of things to tether our opinions.
What are the right sorts of things?
What are the wrong sorts of things?
What can tether a belief?
What can't tether a belief?
Why and why not?
What the right or wrong sorts of things are might be the most difficult question to answer. While I was in primary school, there are many questions cannot answers. For example, between chicken and egg which one exists first. If this question is answered, everyone might completely agree because of science evidence. However, if I oppose against an elder, I will be asked that is the right thing to do. In discussion about this question, it might take about two or three hours and at the end of this arguments, we sometimes have not an complete agreement or even develop more questions. The right or wrong things are human decision processes. Sometimes, these kinds of things depend on an agreement or acceptance from mostly people. For example, if all of people say stealing was good, it would be the right things. The next questions will appear. That was immoral, but everyone completely agree. How the decision will be made? Acceptance or moral. Sometimes, the right things might be a moral judgement and somethings are against it are the wrong things. For example, Mike killed his neighbor, Sam. As we knew, killing someone is immoral, so Mike had done the wrong thing. Everyone decided that Mike have to be executed. Are their decision the right things? They decide to kill another one, but why this execution is the right thing? Another question, although killing a person is not moral, why we can kill all others creatures without immoral concern? If we kill human, that is immoral, but if we kill other creatures, it is O.K, or acceptable or even moral thing we can do. Well, we give an excellent excuse that they are our foods. If we don't hunt them, we will die. However, if a murder killed someone, he would have given some excuse like that person hurt him first. Nevertheless, what he would have done is still immoral. From all example above, they support that we cannot decide exactly which one are right or wrong things because there are many influences such as social acceptance, moral judgement, and individual opinions.
DeleteAor's response here is brilliant. She raises and clearly states a group of closely related questions that are all very important.
DeleteI hope some others take up Aor's challenge to address some of the issues here, perhaps one at a time.
As Aor notes, her questions are very practical to all of us every day since they touch on how we and governments may and may not behave towards and treat ourselves, those around us in society, those in other societies and even other animals.
For example, I am certain that when governments put people into prison for producing, selling or using harmful drugs like wine, heroin, beer, yaa baa and cigarettes that they are acting immorally, even if 99.9% of people support such unjust policies.
And Aor has given us some excellent examples of her own. When and why is acceptable, for example, for us to kill and eat other animals? To kill other human beings (and eat them)?
I particularly like Aor's very thoughtful comment about stealing: "For example, if all of people say stealing was good, it would be the right things." Is this right? It's certainly an excellent example - it very clearly and strongly explains Aor's point.
Your excellent discussion yesterday on ideas, opinions and facts, when we were reviewing topics and ideas and the difference between them, might help to bring out some of the points that Adams makes in this cartoon.
ReplyDeleteWally likes to have opinions, and he has a lot of them. That is, he has a lot of ideas. But he doesn't worry about having informed opinions; that is, opinions that are well-supported by evidence and reason, that take account of opposing opinions and can say why the opposing opinions are weak or wrong.
Dilbert likes his opinions to be the latter type: he wants his beliefs about the world to be solidly supported, to be true beliefs, and this normally means some effort has to be made to either get solid supporting evidence, or to work out sound reasons for the opinions.
But does Dilbert have the evidence to back up his opinion about opinions when Wally points out that there seems to be an obvious weakness in it?
Can you help Dilbert? Or is Wally right, as so many people seem to think these days when they things like "every moral belief is as equally true, good and right as every other moral principle"?