The Latest Theory Is That Theory Doesn't Matter

[aerocontrols]

These are uncertain times for literary scholars. The era of big theory is over. The grand paradigms that swept through humanities departments in the 20th century — psychoanalysis, structuralism, Marxism, deconstruction, post-colonialism — have lost favor or been abandoned. Money is tight. And the leftist politics with which literary theorists have traditionally been associated have taken a beating.

...

...Sander L. Gilman, a professor of liberal arts and sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, replied instead. "I would make the argument that most criticism — and I would include Noam Chomsky in this — is a poison pill," he said. "I think one must be careful in assuming that intellectuals have some kind of insight. In fact, if the track record of intellectuals is any indication, not only have intellectuals been wrong almost all of the time, but they have been wrong in corrosive and destructive ways."

...

If theory's political utility is this dubious, why did the theorists spend so much time talking about current events? Catharine R. Stimpson, a panelist and dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Science at New York University, offered one, well, theory. "This particular group of intellectuals," she said, "has a terror of being politically irrelevant."

The whole article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/19/arts/19CRIT.html) is worth reading, I think.

MattJ

[Bjorn]

...Sander L. Gilman, a professor of liberal arts and sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, replied instead. "I would make the argument that most criticism — and I would include Noam Chomsky in this — is a poison pill," he said. "I think one must be careful in assuming that intellectuals have some kind of insight. In fact, if the track record of intellectuals is any indication, not only have intellectuals been wrong almost all of the time, but they have been wrong in corrosive and destructive ways."Hmm. Interesting.

An intellctual stating that intellectuals are wrong almost all of the time. That should make it a 90% chance he is wrong? :p

[subgenius]

And what if there was no such thing as a hypothetical question? :confused:

[a_unique_person]

If theory is only 10% correct, it is still a much more efficient method of change than evolution.

What is just as important is the ability to be self critical, and learn from mistakes.

The proof is present in the modern, liberal democracy. This is the result of a long, drawn out and tortuous process of testing and evaluation theories.

It is not perfect, by any means, but the results are certainly better than being stuck in the dark ages.

Science could also not exist without theories. Once again, many of them are wrong, but the scientific process weeds out the incorrect theories from the facts.