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
Dr Phil says that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. That must be true, he said it on TV. So we must expect Phil (Done) to appear in various guises from time to time. I wonder if he is a doctor too, and if so, why isn't he on TV?
How's my Logic, Davey?
Ah ... Jennifer is really Luke .. now there's a thought. What dastardly trick will he pull next? He once posed as a member of the aristocracy, but was soon rumbled and cashiered. Thanks for the tip, Mohammed. How's my logic? Dorothy, help ...
Jennifer,
Your post is spot-on, and unfortunately, it's an accurate critique of all the humanities over the last three decades.
What's worse, the trend is spreading into the sciences.
Hurling quotes and deriding sources has almost entirely replaced what once was prized the most--original thought or original evidence.
In most disciplines, "scholarship" now consists largely of head-butting lofty tomes. This accusation was once leveled at Medieval scriveners, but it has again become apposite for the bulk of modern--or, should I say--'post-modern' works.
I see Dorothy's ideas as fitting into a larger piece of tapestry. My logic here is fine thankyou. I see no need to tell you anything about myself, just like other posters shouldn't find it necessary in order to stop you from making wrong assumptions. Perhaps you should take a thread out of Dorothy's woven text? And with regards to Luke, are you sure you are not confusing him with Jennifer, I think you may find that more honest?
Mohammed,
I am glad that you find the ideas of Dorothy Sayers interesting. They apply to me, and you, as much as to anybody else. I am sure my logic is sometimes awry - how about yours?.
Luke has now sworn on a stack of IPCC reports that he is not you, and you are not he. I look forward to your future contributions to these debates. Perhaps if you tell us something about yourself, it will help to avoid future wrong assumptions. It is always interesting, and valuable, to get fresh perspectives on politics and the environment.
How about sending Jennifer a discussion point for posting?
"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?"
I find this paragraph regarding facts, assumptions and truth particularly interesting.
Do let us know if some of your neurones eventually connect, JVK. I wish you well.
As a tenant
I live in her slum family.
That's emote, /emo/