England has produced a number of outstanding detective story writers. Agatha Christie comes to mind with her character Hercule Poirot. Another is Dorothy L. Sayers, with her diffident, yet steely-minded toff, Lord Peter Wimsey.
There were also other sides to Dorothy. She was a moderate feminist, and one of the first women to graduate from Oxford University. She was a reputable medieval scholar.
In 1947 she delivered a talk at Oxford University called ‘The Lost Tools of Learning’, in which she suggested that western education has lost its way, by trying to cram in facts, rather than first developing skills. She pointed to the medieval trivium as a good way of giving students the ‘tools of learning’, namely logic (to think clearly), grammar (to write and speak clearly), and rhetoric (to mount a persuasive argument).
We see plenty of environmental rhetoric on this blog site, but is it all logical? Is there too much quoting of ‘facts’ (some might say ‘factoids’), and not enough sound argument? Is the use of scientific jargon and acronyms intended to obfuscate or impress, rather than to seek the truth? Should not all ‘models’ be accompanied by a clearly written statement of their assumptions?
In my view Dorothy’s argument was valid in 1947, and is even more valid now. She also wrote it up as an essay, which is available at several websites. Search on (sayers tools trivium). Have a read – it’s only a few pages.
Dr. David Naugle (search on naugle trivium sayers) has reviewed her essay, and the benefits of the trivium have been discussed elsewhere, for example in the book ‘Chaucer and the Trivium:The Mindsong of the Canterbury Tales’, by J. Stephen Russell.
I suggest that the humanities, and the medieval trivium, have a great deal to offer in current political and environmental debate. It might help people to cope with the torrent of ‘news’, advertising, and ‘spin doctoring’. Any comments?
Green and Medieval Davey Gam Esq.
Perth, Western Australia
Louis, Nothing detailed. Just an idea that 'grounding' is important. Perhaps the human imagination begins to go off the rails when we live too much in a fantasy world. Maybe psychiatrists have something to offer on this.
In the make-believe world of a prison, prisoners can go 'stir crazy'. Is it more widespread than that? Another thread raised the topic of 'climate crazy'. If victims walked in the bush, and experienced actual weather, they might recover. A bit like 'brat camp', if you watched that one?
Neil/Davey
Interesting line of discussion you have started here.
Neil's statement that the trouble began with separation from nature is interesting - do you two (I assume you have) firm ideas what caused this, and when?
Very true, Neil. I find my thoughts are clearest when walking in the bush. There is a common grounding, or framework, out there. I think Dorothy's trivium would provide a common educational grounding, so we can at least argue coherently - back to Neurath's Boat, Popper's Piles, and poor old Pierre Duhem.
As I see it, trouble began with separation from nature. Cerebral capability became unconstrained by a former grounding in common truth.
To a person sitting on a moving train, another passenger appears stationary, but to a pedestrian at a crossing, that same person is moving at the speed of the train. Perspective plays an important part and unless we all share the same perspective, in truth, we become vulnerable to persuasion to the perspectives and agenda of others.
Sharing occupancy in a natural landscape subjects the sensitivities of all to the same natural (chemical) truths, feeding directly through to the limbic centres of the brain and to the common inner voice. Against this common counsel, cerebral capability remains free from corruption.
You can trust me on this, I live in the Daintree rainforest:)
What? Do you deny the existence of polywater, comrade? Perhaps you would like to be reassigned to a nice little gulag in Siberia, eh?
You laugh? Something frightfully similar is happening today in Canberra.
And don't be mean to Luke. Really. He needs our love and support to get his head back together again.
You are both being very mean to poor Luke - he's quite a nice boy, really, although possibly related to the von Munchausen family. He should read more detective stories.
I have just been reading, online, the book 'On Being a Scientist' (US National Academy of Sciences), which you both may know. The URL is cumbersome, but a Google search should work.
One passage relevant to the climate debate (and logic) is 'But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results'.
On the role of skepticism, the case of 'polywater' is given. Announced by a Soviet scientist in 1966, hundreds of papers appeared in the refereed scientific literature over the next few years (presumably grammar okay). Models were developed, and warnings of impending doom issued, should 'polywater' escape from the laboratory (great rhetoric).
Sadly the logic proved to be faulty. How many journalists write about 'polywater' now?
Hence why I decided to call him "Medusa", of many heads.