Wretchard,

Good to see you here.

It seems to me that there is a problem with this Doomsday argument: it doesn’t take into account the inevitable implication of the observer in what is being observed (inter alia, a heightened spirit of observation generally hastens the demise of the specific cultural or political phenomenon being observed). This implication is the defining quality of the humanities, or human science, which is why they can’t be simply replaced with “hard science”, and the attempt to do so only makes for mindless empiricism. Human self-understanding takes place in a market where the objective analysis discounts and demands renewal of subjective understandings of what it means to be always becoming human.

The need for human self-understanding is inescapable, if we are to survive each other, though often it is pragmatically best or efficient not to think too much and go with the crowd. But it is surely both as conformist thought dynamic, and as one of the few places where one can take time out to pursue human self-understanding that gives the institution of the academy such power despite its queer religiosity. Inevitably, however it is just this need for self-understanding, when conformity become too evidently dangerous, that compromises any pragmatic religious order, sooner or later.

There are ways to conceive alternatives to the current academic system. More free and entrepreneurial forms of certifying and credentializing each other’s achievements are conceivable, and employers could learn to respect them. I mean, we’re all here on the internet discussing the human condition because we know there is likely more to be learned here than at the local uni. This emerging reality will likely grow at the expense of the old school.