I think the best argument for why we should be reluctant to say viewpoints about policy are objectively true, and not within the realm of debate, is that not long ago many of those viewpoints would have been considered objectively false and not within the realm of debate -- a view that, if accepted then, would have prevented us from now realizing the opposite.
Your posts always provoke thought and this one on the interplay of science and policy is no different. I do wonder is adopting MacIntyre perhaps unhelpfully focuses your argument toward making your point about the contexts of disagreement. Would your argument look significantly different if you defined a university as “a community of disciplined learning”? Constrained disagreement could take place in and be rooted a context of an educational mission. Just a musing from a hillbilly lawyer for your learned consideration.
Ha, well, you are no hillbilly lawyer, Jess. I think the key is MacIntyre's use of "constrained," which provides an intelligibility and "rules of the game" for particular discourses (or, in his terminology, argumentative practices). Different constraints will operate differently, which is why the discourse in engineering (my undergraduate major) was in many ways more constrained than the discourse in political theory (my graduate work). But even engineering had some robust normative debates over, I kid you not, the paper clip (among other things). And part of what matters is coherence within and adherence to the ongoing practice, which is where your idea of "disciplined learning" also fits.
This post speaks to the fact that the author is not in the sciences (natural or health) or engineering where the considerations in the university are very different
My post is responding to normative claims in Thorp’s essay and distinguishing between science and policy. I do have some sense of how other schools and disciplines work.
I think the best argument for why we should be reluctant to say viewpoints about policy are objectively true, and not within the realm of debate, is that not long ago many of those viewpoints would have been considered objectively false and not within the realm of debate -- a view that, if accepted then, would have prevented us from now realizing the opposite.
Your posts always provoke thought and this one on the interplay of science and policy is no different. I do wonder is adopting MacIntyre perhaps unhelpfully focuses your argument toward making your point about the contexts of disagreement. Would your argument look significantly different if you defined a university as “a community of disciplined learning”? Constrained disagreement could take place in and be rooted a context of an educational mission. Just a musing from a hillbilly lawyer for your learned consideration.
Ha, well, you are no hillbilly lawyer, Jess. I think the key is MacIntyre's use of "constrained," which provides an intelligibility and "rules of the game" for particular discourses (or, in his terminology, argumentative practices). Different constraints will operate differently, which is why the discourse in engineering (my undergraduate major) was in many ways more constrained than the discourse in political theory (my graduate work). But even engineering had some robust normative debates over, I kid you not, the paper clip (among other things). And part of what matters is coherence within and adherence to the ongoing practice, which is where your idea of "disciplined learning" also fits.
Thanks for laying out more explicitly your use of MacIntyre—it helps this old Appalachian-born attorney 😊. I do see your point more clearly now.
This post speaks to the fact that the author is not in the sciences (natural or health) or engineering where the considerations in the university are very different
My post is responding to normative claims in Thorp’s essay and distinguishing between science and policy. I do have some sense of how other schools and disciplines work.