Having had some training in classical lit. and [previously] gone out with a girl reading French Lit. at university I cant help but agree.
I expect a Physicist could write enough to fool a French Lit. magazine - but only superficially. I dont think they could write meaningfully on a subject.
I also know a few literary students who I suspect could write a sufficiently obtuse piece of work in, say, a month to fool some physicists. Again only superficially.
I think the fallacy Paul falls into is the thinking that French Lit. professors don't question what they read in the same way Physicists do. Unfortunately it's a stereotype that does bear out in some respects - but the top guys certainly do question everything. Indeed they will almost certainly disagree by default and go out of their way to find proof.
If you think you've seen scientists bitching and arguing you've never hung round with literature scholars :D
I expect a Physicist could write enough to fool a French Lit. magazine - but only superficially. I dont think they could write meaningfully on a subject.
I also know a few literary students who I suspect could write a sufficiently obtuse piece of work in, say, a month to fool some physicists. Again only superficially.
I think the fallacy Paul falls into is the thinking that French Lit. professors don't question what they read in the same way Physicists do. Unfortunately it's a stereotype that does bear out in some respects - but the top guys certainly do question everything. Indeed they will almost certainly disagree by default and go out of their way to find proof.
If you think you've seen scientists bitching and arguing you've never hung round with literature scholars :D