Thoughts and Words Ill-Sorted

Finally, after a week of seeing towns an hour north of us get pummeled by snow, we seem to be getting a bit of a storm ourselves. Gorgeous flakes are falling pretty steadily, and should continue until we get a nice, thorough coating all over Ithaca. Forecasts vary, but the reports say that 14-34 inches are coming our way. Still, David and Lisa, we’re jealous of the snow you’re getting. Sydney and I want a chance to ditch the school rhythm and just stay home and read, drink tea, and enjoy the white world. Oh, and we’re not worried about starving – our pantry could keep us eating well for weeks on end!

In other news, school and schedules seem to be going less exhaustingly than last week, and I once again hope that it’s possible to juggle everything at hand without losing my sanity. As usual, I’m going to rely on making lists, staying ahead of my work, and resuming my role as Ms. Efficient. I only have that and Slob Mode, so don’t give me a hard time for picking the former choice. Maybe by the time I’m 50 I will have developed a few more gears, just for a bit of variety. And no, I don’t mean Frantic Frenzy, Sullen Grump, or Stretched-Thin-But-Conscious.

Erin

The New York Times has an interesting piece on a couple of paleontologists who do things like write doctoral dissertations on fossils from the Cretaceous era about a hundred million years ago, but who also are young earth creationists who think that the earth is ten thousand years old at the most. Apparently, they think of themselves as working in two different “paradigms,” both of which are valid. This talk of being in two different paradigms at once strikes me as rather schizophrenic, but that there are people — and very bright ones at that — who do this is fascinating.

What I found appalling, though, is that apparently there are many in the science community who think that people like this should be denied degrees. I thought scientists were always proud of the fact that their disciplines rely on objective facts that can be experimentally confirmed, measured, and so forth, and that likewise it is a straightforward matter to determine who has mastered the discipline. Well, the paleontologists in question mastered the facts, by all accounts. But that’s not enough anymore? They also have to affirm philosophical orthodoxy before they can be initiated into the religion of science??

This two paradigms talk may be crazy, but if it is, it is so for philosophical reasons. Science is certainly not the place to turn to find out if paradigm-relative truth is a coherent idea.

But perhaps scientists are also philosophers? I must say that I was amused by the quotation from Dr. Dini of Texas Tech, who said that we “ought to make certain the people they are conferring advanced degrees on understand the philosophy of science and are indeed philosophers of science. That’s what Ph.D. stands for.” Last time I checked it was mostly people in philosophy departments who did philosophy of science. Indeed, I was under the impression that many scientists are mildly hostile to philosophers of science. Of course, Dr. Dini technically isn’t saying that most, or even some, scientists are philosophers of science. Rather, he’s saying that they ought to be. But I fear that he has a lot of colleagues unpersuaded by that normative claim.

But perhaps the idea just is that scientists ought to be philosophers in the sense that they accept some inchoate philosophy of materialism or scientism, formulated just precisely enough to be able to rule young earth paleontologists as unacceptable but not precisely enough to actually sustain philosophical debate. After all, such debate might raise questions about the rational justification for such materialism or scientism. And questions threaten orthodoxies.

Sydney

Before you go wondering about the state of our marriage (“Do they argue about whether or not they will buy milk at the store?”), know that we don’t spend all of our time arguing or confusing one another. We just post about it a lot because it’s actually quite humorous when you see it onscreen. And those of you in similar situations may find comfort or join the rest of the crowd in getting a kick out of it.

And we understand that this is a normal problem . . . except that Sydney and I pride ourselves on our communication skills. I mean, we work in the humanities – it’s all about communication! So it’s simply galling that we can’t solve everything! Expect us to keep harping on this problem until we have it analyzed and all sorted out. Wish us luck!

Erin

“Sydney, good relationships are built on interdependence. What do you need me for?”

“Martyrdom.”

Sydney relies far too much on my sense of humor . . .

Since we started dating Sydney and I have spent a great deal of time and energy learning about the pitfalls of communicating as a couple. We’ll continue posting snippets of those miscommunications for your entertainment.

But I wanted to post – for the record! – that we have found something where each provides a perfect complement for the other: eating. When I make pizza, Sydney prefers the inside and I the crust pieces. So we have different-looking plates that clean up all of the food and make us both happy. Similarly, when Sydney makes casserole, I prefer a bit more of the cornflake-crust part, and he a bit more of the gooey middle. So when it comes out of the oven we butcher it until we’re happy with our plates.

If you ever wonder why we post so often about food, keep in mind that it currently provides an affirmative function for our relationship while we slowly relearn how to communicate (this time with emotions and such thrown into the muddle).

When Sydney and I were finishing up our time at Yale, it was a rather rough season. On top of writing up theses (and Sydney’s fear that dating me would result in him failing his classes), riding out the grad school process, and, oh yes, school, we had to work through an additional problem:

“It’s spring. It’s time for me to be out planting. I want a garden. Why do I have to be inside, writing a stupid thesis, when I could be outside, making good use of this beautiful weather? Can I leave now?”

Sydney offered me a string of complaints along these lines every day or two . . . or several times in an afternoon, if he was sitting in front of his computer, having to work on history or philosophy. Very early in our relationship I took on the dragon-lady role – I couldn’t believe that I had to tell a grown man “I’m sorry, but I think the answer is no.”

When we married and moved to Ithaca, I thought all would be well. Sydney got interested in the garden options around here, and soon had a whole set of plots from one organization, another near the lake, and a tiny plot at home. Gardening is a lot of work, but I thought I would then have a happy man.

Nope: a) I should have known that I wouldn’t have a gardener on my hands, but a farmer who was constantly worried about his plants and spouting pessimistic predictions about their future b) Sydney immediately started on a new set of pleas:

“Building fences is so draining and frustrating. It’s also horrible having neighboring gardeners who allow their dogs to walk through my plot and who think, apparently, that weeds, and not vegetable, are what you grow in a garden. Can I buy land?”

For the past year Sydney has taken every opportunity to announce “I want LAND,” financial matters and the mobile academic life notwithstanding. Don’t get me wrong: I grew up in the Midwest, and before leaving for college had called the same 10-mile area “home” for my entire life. I was surrounded by cornfields and knew all about being rooted. But this man has me beat.

Erin

Alan Jacobs rightly takes Jeff Sharlet to task here for some rather ill-informed reporting in his widely read peice on American fundamentalism (published in Harper’s). I’m quite used to assuming that whenever a journalist (especially if he or she happens to be from one of the Coasts) deigns to write about evangelicalism or fundamentalism (not that they are typically capable of distinguishing between the two), nonsense will come poring forth. One might have hoped that Sharlet would do a bit better, since he is reporter specifically of religious affairs. But, then again, why should he? After all, those backwards, barely literate fundamentalist types from the woods and plains of the Midwest won’t be reading his article to take him to task for his ignorance.

Anyway, at the end of his piece, Jacobs suggests that Christians shouldn’t waste too much time on rebutting the falsehoods written about them. I’m not sure about this recommendation. I think I’m less sanguine about the effects of widespread misinformation than Jacobs is. Misinformation can carry serious consequences. Mightn’t the world have been a much better place, for example, if more people had been truly informed enough to recognize The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for the contemptible fabrication that it is? Note that I’m not attempting to draw parallels here between either the compilers of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Jeff Sharlet or between Jews and American fundamentalists. I just want to illustrate the point that ignorance can have serious repercussions. (Harry Frankfurt has some interesting things to say about what we lose when we become cavalier about the value of truth.)

Sydney

Part-post, part query.

I have always loved Valentine’s Day. Somehow I escaped the moping about “not having a guy,” and enjoyed spending time with girlfriends. I also welcome any excuse to hug people I know and love, and to wish someone a happy holiday. Oh, and it probably doesn’t hurt that I like conversation hearts – a lot.

Sydney, however, still maintains an aversion to the hullabaloo of holidays, much less holidays that, as he would say, “center around people making fools of themselves and not observing the difference between private and public activity.”

Still, Valentine’s Day also marks our year-and-six-months anniversary (hey, when you don’t have a lot of them, you count in small increments). And this year we’re taking time away from our “work week” to attend an early music concert on Thursday.  Yes, I realize it’s not the right day, but it will have to be close enough. It’s an activity we both like, and one that won’t get Sydney nervous about “joining the fools.”

As you can see from our house, opinions vary on how to receive this holiday, perhaps more than any other.  What are your feelings about Valentine’s Day? How are you celebrating?

Erin

We may take food a bit too seriously.  Over the course of the week or two we jot down ingredients on a sheet of paper, attempting to make the  name of the food match the location in which we’ll find it at the store.  Then, since we plan to be gone a lot this week, I’ve included items from a recipe that calls for 12C of vegetable broth and other such mammoth ingredients, which I plan to make tomorrow.  Seriously, those gigantic pots of soup and stew have been keeping us fed several nights of the week.  A real life-saver!

Sydney’s doing me a favor and going alone, so that I can vacuum without him underfoot.  Then I bite my fingernails until he returns, wondering whether he’ll have got over the mind-clearing realization that I’ve asked him to buy me conditioner.  Wish him luck!

Erin

Just like yesterday, the whole world seems different after I get my bowl of soup and my tea to fill up the gaps left by lack of sleep and anxiety.  Now I feel ready to tackle the world . . . or sleep.

Here’s hoping for a different day tomorrow.

Erin