Newspeak: was (Re: Today's jaw dropper)

["Rauber, Joel Phys" <RAUBERJ@mg.sdstate.edu>]

> Dewey warned me that I, a philospher, was emailing to physicists.  In spite
> of his caution, I find the responses very appropriate and challenging, I
> would rather talk to physicists than philosophers on this topic.

Richard, it has been my experience that most physicists rather enjoy 
philosophers.  It is not without pride that I look at my degree and it says 
Doctor of Philosophy and not "Doctor of Physics".  In some of my more odd 
moments, I tend to refer to myself not as a physicist, but as a student of 
natural philosophy.


THE REAL TOPIC OF THE POST    
> In effect, Brian separates the questions of innovation from being a good
> teacher, a good researcher, or a model of moral behavior.  With the
> advantage of having his comments, I would  rephrase my comments to suggest
> that creativity/innovativeness/...

Richard unwittedly allowed an opening for another expression of a pet-peeve.

The word INNOVATIVE and its relatives.  I have now seen this word encroach 
its way into advertisements for positions of employment.

The word is increasingly used, particularly in educational circles (but not 
exclusive to them) as a synonym for some combination of (good, creative, 
excellent).  And it is considered to be a good thing on one's Professional 
Evaluations to be called innovative.  The inevitable result is that I see 
changes taking place simply for the sake of innovation.  A typical example 
being the new dean who comes in institutes changes (often for the worse), 
pads their resume with how they instituted all of these "wonderful" 
innovations and leaves after 2-4 years; leaving everyone else to pick up the 
pieces.  (Fill in your on favorite scenario here).

The word refers to change and newness; and as such is value neutral.  An 
innovation can be either good or bad or indifferent and is not good in and 
of itself merely for the fact of being innovative.

I would go so far to say that most innovation, because it typically is new 
and experimental are often bad.  Most experiments fail.

This is not meant to be a polemic against change, but rather against 
willy-nilly, ill thought-out change; which is what I observe all to often.

OTOH, while I said most experiments fail, the successful ones usually occur 
after repeated effort of failed experiments; which would tend to argue for 
innovation, even if you know that most of the time its bad.

Please excuse the polemic

Joel