Call me a foot soldier in the, shudder, public sphere, but anytime librarians or anyone else start to exclude some facts while supporting others, Katie bar the door. Liken this to censorship: when do you stop? Stop certain facts because a priori they're just "wrong," and where and when do you stop? World flat? Okay. Beyond that, what do you stand behind? Smoking causes cancer? Always? Every time? Secondly, even if you find certain "facts' are indisputable, do you want to stop discourse? Isn't this what happens when you decide "Case closed"?
Anonymous: I think there is a significant difference between (1) librarians adjudicating fact from fiction, declaring certain facts indisputable, and (2) acknowledging that there are facts, though not taking a hard-line prescriptive approach to them.
If you read my post you'll find that I do not think librarians should be the guardians of some pre-conceived notion of fact. I don't think we should close doors to inquiry...quite the contrary. We should encourage patrons to explore and we should make available the widest possible amount of information at our disposal, all the while acknowledging that this exploration is directed at truth. We may not know what the facts really are, but we can at least acknowledge that there is an objective reality that grounds knowledge. I do not advocate that librarians "exclude some facts while supporting others." A fact is a fact is a fact. All I recommend is that librarians refrain from treating demonstrable falsehoods as epistemic equals. There is no substantive reason to declare all claims to fact as equally valid. As to where we stop, slippery slope fallacies are just that: fallacies.
(Paul H., here) I think I agree with you 100% on the philosophical issues you discuss here, Lane. But I’m not sure I entirely agree with your views on librarianship. In fact, you seem to agree more with Dave Lankes on librarianship than I do, in the respect that librarians shouldn’t give library users just “what they want.” I believe that really is what librarians should do, though it may take some time to determine exactly what the user does want. (As all librarians know, often the patron doesn’t have a fully formed idea of what he or she really wants or needs in terms of information, and this can be better determined through a discussion with a librarian. Also, academic librarians have a further task of teaching students how to use the library. But this should be dealt with in the course of satisfying the library user’s information need.) Let’s take an extreme case. Suppose a library user says, “I want to find information that will support the view that homosexuality is immoral.” In fact, the user might be gathering this information to try to be prepared to answer opponents to his actual view that homosexuality is morally acceptable. (I’m reminded in this discussion of the philosopher Michael Dummett, who was an arch-antirealist; he was also the world’s leading expert on Gottlob Frege, the arch-realist.) But let’s even suppose for the sake of argument that the user admits that he just wants to rationally support his view that homosexuality is immoral the best that he can. I think it is my obligation to try to provide as much information as possible to assist this library user to the best of my ability. I think it’s important that the librarian be non-judgmental and to help the library user even if what he is trying to do is support a view that the librarian believes is false. (In fact, in the perverse mind of a philosopher like myself, I would take this as an interesting challenge.) Now, in the process of helping this patron, I may provide some arguments of the opponent of the user, but this is only in the service of trying to help the user in getting what he wants, viz. the best case available for the view that homosexuality is immoral, NOT in an effort to get the user to change his mind. I might hope that he changes his view about this (what I believe to be) false view, but this hope shouldn’t affect my efforts to help the patron in what he is trying to do.
Do you disagree with this approach to reference, Lane, or is it actually in accord with your own view?
Paul H.: Defining reference services in terms of wants or in terms of needs is sure to be a dividing line, I admit. But, in the case of the question about homosexuality, I think we would do pretty much the same thing. You mention that you would be non-judgmental and not attempt to change the patron's mind. I should have been more explicit in my post when I said that we have an obligation not to presume why our patrons need particular information; our professional ethics demand that we not presume anything about how and why the information we provide will be used (unless directly relevant to the reference interview). If a patron wants materials that come out against homosexuality, then I will provide what I can find. But, I will also point out the limitations of those materials when they exist. This is different from pointing out that the materials they seek are untrue or immoral. As a librarian, I can't judge the patron's particular information need, but I can make general observations about information literacy.
To take an ordinary example, if a patron wanted to know the population of a given county, and our most recent source was five years out-of-date, I would provide the information AND add the caveat that more current information is available. Likewise, if a patron wanted a book detailing the wickedness underlying homosexuality, I would provide the book and add the caveat that dissenting information is available. But, I would not argue with the patron, make him feel unwelcome, or in any way demean his research. Like you wrote, I would only act "in the service of trying to help the user in getting what he wants, viz. the best case available".
Thankfully, the patron researching the immorality of homosexuality is rare. The vast majority of reference requests are far more straight-forward and less contentious.
As a user of libraries as well as a modest contributor to librarianship, I would like to see all the main schools of thought on any topic available, no matter how wrong they are. This can help warn us of blind alleys, may have some inspirational tid-bits, and might even encourage us to be humble about our current level of 'knowledge'.
I am blogging on uncertainty, currently rather metaphysically but I hope to get on to 'knowledge management'.
Wilk, it seems to me that knowledge is dynamic, not static. What one views as an objective truth today may tomorrow become a ridiculous misnomer from the past. There is too much we still do not understand. Do we really know what reality means? Considering some of the strange phenomenon quantum physics is revealing, I would argue that we have barely grasped the tip of the iceberg. Erego, librarianship is not solely into deconstruction, but also construction. Ideas are created, added onto, torn down, recycled...It is not one or the other, but both. Although it might be tempting to think of knowledge as though it were the bricks creating the buildings, I believe knowledge encompasses a never-ending and continuously evolving landscape and the ideas we have are the materials we use to construct, demolish and reconstruct our surroundings.
@Swicky: Obviously, I can't cover the whole of epistemology in a blog post. You may want to look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (specifically, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/) for a good introduction. However, I will repeat what I've said before, insofar as you need to pay close attention to the distinction between true belief and what we believe to be true. Don't let the poetic license of "construction/demolition" distract you.
http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2011/a-short-distance-correctly-13-ways-of-not-writing-contrarian-librarianship/
ReplyDeleteCall me a foot soldier in the, shudder, public sphere, but anytime librarians or anyone else start to exclude some facts while supporting others, Katie bar the door. Liken this to censorship: when do you stop? Stop certain facts because a priori they're just "wrong," and where and when do you stop? World flat? Okay. Beyond that, what do you stand behind? Smoking causes cancer? Always? Every time?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, even if you find certain "facts' are indisputable, do you want to stop discourse? Isn't this what happens when you decide "Case closed"?
Anonymous: I think there is a significant difference between (1) librarians adjudicating fact from fiction, declaring certain facts indisputable, and (2) acknowledging that there are facts, though not taking a hard-line prescriptive approach to them.
ReplyDeleteIf you read my post you'll find that I do not think librarians should be the guardians of some pre-conceived notion of fact. I don't think we should close doors to inquiry...quite the contrary. We should encourage patrons to explore and we should make available the widest possible amount of information at our disposal, all the while acknowledging that this exploration is directed at truth. We may not know what the facts really are, but we can at least acknowledge that there is an objective reality that grounds knowledge. I do not advocate that librarians "exclude some facts while supporting others." A fact is a fact is a fact. All I recommend is that librarians refrain from treating demonstrable falsehoods as epistemic equals. There is no substantive reason to declare all claims to fact as equally valid. As to where we stop, slippery slope fallacies are just that: fallacies.
(Paul H., here) I think I agree with you 100% on the philosophical issues you discuss here, Lane. But I’m not sure I entirely agree with your views on librarianship. In fact, you seem to agree more with Dave Lankes on librarianship than I do, in the respect that librarians shouldn’t give library users just “what they want.” I believe that really is what librarians should do, though it may take some time to determine exactly what the user does want. (As all librarians know, often the patron doesn’t have a fully formed idea of what he or she really wants or needs in terms of information, and this can be better determined through a discussion with a librarian. Also, academic librarians have a further task of teaching students how to use the library. But this should be dealt with in the course of satisfying the library user’s information need.) Let’s take an extreme case. Suppose a library user says, “I want to find information that will support the view that homosexuality is immoral.” In fact, the user might be gathering this information to try to be prepared to answer opponents to his actual view that homosexuality is morally acceptable. (I’m reminded in this discussion of the philosopher Michael Dummett, who was an arch-antirealist; he was also the world’s leading expert on Gottlob Frege, the arch-realist.) But let’s even suppose for the sake of argument that the user admits that he just wants to rationally support his view that homosexuality is immoral the best that he can. I think it is my obligation to try to provide as much information as possible to assist this library user to the best of my ability. I think it’s important that the librarian be non-judgmental and to help the library user even if what he is trying to do is support a view that the librarian believes is false. (In fact, in the perverse mind of a philosopher like myself, I would take this as an interesting challenge.) Now, in the process of helping this patron, I may provide some arguments of the opponent of the user, but this is only in the service of trying to help the user in getting what he wants, viz. the best case available for the view that homosexuality is immoral, NOT in an effort to get the user to change his mind. I might hope that he changes his view about this (what I believe to be) false view, but this hope shouldn’t affect my efforts to help the patron in what he is trying to do.
ReplyDeleteDo you disagree with this approach to reference, Lane, or is it actually in accord with your own view?
Paul H.: Defining reference services in terms of wants or in terms of needs is sure to be a dividing line, I admit. But, in the case of the question about homosexuality, I think we would do pretty much the same thing. You mention that you would be non-judgmental and not attempt to change the patron's mind. I should have been more explicit in my post when I said that we have an obligation not to presume why our patrons need particular information; our professional ethics demand that we not presume anything about how and why the information we provide will be used (unless directly relevant to the reference interview). If a patron wants materials that come out against homosexuality, then I will provide what I can find. But, I will also point out the limitations of those materials when they exist. This is different from pointing out that the materials they seek are untrue or immoral. As a librarian, I can't judge the patron's particular information need, but I can make general observations about information literacy.
ReplyDeleteTo take an ordinary example, if a patron wanted to know the population of a given county, and our most recent source was five years out-of-date, I would provide the information AND add the caveat that more current information is available. Likewise, if a patron wanted a book detailing the wickedness underlying homosexuality, I would provide the book and add the caveat that dissenting information is available. But, I would not argue with the patron, make him feel unwelcome, or in any way demean his research. Like you wrote, I would only act "in the service of trying to help the user in getting what he wants, viz. the best case available".
Thankfully, the patron researching the immorality of homosexuality is rare. The vast majority of reference requests are far more straight-forward and less contentious.
(Paul H.) Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement, Lane. (Heck, that's no fun!)
ReplyDeleteAs a user of libraries as well as a modest contributor to librarianship, I would like to see all the main schools of thought on any topic available, no matter how wrong they are. This can help warn us of blind alleys, may have some inspirational tid-bits, and might even encourage us to be humble about our current level of 'knowledge'.
ReplyDeleteI am blogging on uncertainty, currently rather metaphysically but I hope to get on to 'knowledge management'.
djmarsay: I agree with you; we can learn a lot from error.
ReplyDeleteI hope you don't think I'm in favor of removing certain viewpoints from the collection simply because they are wrong.
Wilk, it seems to me that knowledge is dynamic, not static. What one views as an objective truth today may tomorrow become a ridiculous misnomer from the past. There is too much we still do not understand. Do we really know what reality means? Considering some of the strange phenomenon quantum physics is revealing, I would argue that we have barely grasped the tip of the iceberg. Erego, librarianship is not solely into deconstruction, but also construction. Ideas are created, added onto, torn down, recycled...It is not one or the other, but both. Although it might be tempting to think of knowledge as though it were the bricks creating the buildings, I believe knowledge encompasses a never-ending and continuously evolving landscape and the ideas we have are the materials we use to construct, demolish and reconstruct our surroundings.
ReplyDelete@Swicky:
ReplyDeleteObviously, I can't cover the whole of epistemology in a blog post. You may want to look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (specifically, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/) for a good introduction. However, I will repeat what I've said before, insofar as you need to pay close attention to the distinction between true belief and what we believe to be true. Don't let the poetic license of "construction/demolition" distract you.