Comments on: Incoherence Is Bad For You but Good For Us http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/08/04/incoherence-is-bad-for-you-but-good-for-us/ Economics of organizations, strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and more Sun, 20 Jul 2008 05:18:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Britton Manasco http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/08/04/incoherence-is-bad-for-you-but-good-for-us/#comment-46552 Britton Manasco Sun, 19 Aug 2007 04:07:50 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/08/04/incoherence-is-bad-for-you-but-good-for-us/#comment-46552 This piece reminded me of Tom Wolfe's "aha" moment -- the catalyst for The Painted Word, his commentary on the trajectory of Modern Art. The words that gave him inspiration were art critic Hilton Kramer's: “Realism does not lack its partisans, but it does rather conspicuously lack a persuasive theory. And given the nature of our intellectual commerce with works of art, to lack a persuasive theory is to lack something crucial—the means by which our experience of individual works is joined to our understanding of the values they signify.” As Wolfe explained, Kramer's words gave the game away. Art had been reduced to mere theory. As critics eclipsed artists, theory would prove to be a "self-sealing loop" that would strangle art in the 20th century. Through their emphasis on abstract form, these critics would ensure art remained inaccessible to wider audiences thereafter. So, too, with orthodoxy in science. Allow its interpretations to be monopolized and its progress will stop. This piece reminded me of Tom Wolfe’s “aha” moment — the catalyst for The Painted Word, his commentary on the trajectory of Modern Art. The words that gave him inspiration were art critic Hilton Kramer’s:

“Realism does not lack its partisans, but it does rather conspicuously lack a persuasive theory. And given the nature of our intellectual commerce with works of art, to lack a persuasive theory is to lack something crucial—the means by which our experience of individual works is joined to our understanding of the values they signify.”

As Wolfe explained, Kramer’s words gave the game away. Art had been reduced to mere theory. As critics eclipsed artists, theory would prove to be a “self-sealing loop” that would strangle art in the 20th century. Through their emphasis on abstract form, these critics would ensure art remained inaccessible to wider audiences thereafter.

So, too, with orthodoxy in science. Allow its interpretations to be monopolized and its progress will stop.

]]> By: David http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/08/04/incoherence-is-bad-for-you-but-good-for-us/#comment-44020 David Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:10:33 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/08/04/incoherence-is-bad-for-you-but-good-for-us/#comment-44020 Another demonstration of the classic Hegelian triad: thesis - antithesis - synthesis (then rinse and repeat). It's also called "dialectic" and, under that color, has been around since before old Aristotle. The origin is different interests of people. People wanting different things leads to their looking for/observing/thinking about different things. The "give-and-take" clash among people forever pointing out different aspects of the world produces knowledge, which is not majority consensus, but an agreement among cognoscenti with common interests. Only when these die off or their interests change do competing voices gain ground (if not acceptance) in the discussion, aka "The Great Conversation." Another demonstration of the classic Hegelian triad: thesis - antithesis - synthesis (then rinse and repeat).

It’s also called “dialectic” and, under that color, has been around since before old Aristotle.

The origin is different interests of people. People wanting different things leads to their looking for/observing/thinking about different things. The “give-and-take” clash among people forever pointing out different aspects of the world produces knowledge, which is not majority consensus, but an agreement among cognoscenti with common interests. Only when these die off or their interests change do competing voices gain ground (if not acceptance) in the discussion, aka “The Great Conversation.”

]]> By: Joe Mahoney http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/08/04/incoherence-is-bad-for-you-but-good-for-us/#comment-43021 Joe Mahoney Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:25:10 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/08/04/incoherence-is-bad-for-you-but-good-for-us/#comment-43021 Steve, thank you very much for sending this great e-mail. I learned much from reading it. When I first started at University of Illinois, way back in 1988, my brilliant and wise senior colleague, Anne Huff, pointed me to this book. I mostly remember the cover of the book (the battles looked intense) and the struggles ofprominent biologists to gain acceptance of their classification scheme within the profession. I also remember that the author was (surprisingly, give some of the stories within the covers of the book) optimistic about the process of science. I just finished reading Douglass North's (2005) book. To add to the conversation, he noted that even if one's beliefs at the moment do "get it right" that there is still much need for (Hayekian) diversity in an uncertain and non-ergodic world. Steve, thank you very much for sending this great e-mail. I learned much from reading it.

When I first started at University of Illinois, way back in 1988, my brilliant and wise senior colleague, Anne Huff, pointed me to this book. I mostly remember the cover of the book (the battles looked intense) and the struggles ofprominent biologists to gain acceptance of their classification scheme within the profession. I also remember that the author was (surprisingly, give some of the stories within the covers of the book) optimistic about the process of science.

I just finished reading Douglass North’s (2005) book. To add to the conversation, he noted that even if one’s beliefs at the moment do “get it right” that there is still much need for (Hayekian) diversity in an uncertain and non-ergodic world.

]]>