Yeah. Granted, I think a society does value citizens who care about truth, but I don't think care for truth is incentivized in overtly material ways, such as by giving out money. — Leontiskos

I actually think that those whose driver is truth aren't incentivized by money anyway, or at least not to the point where that will keep them interested. Managers love those who work for the good of the world because their fulfillment comes from within and they're less interested in keeping score in terms of salaries, bonuses, job titles, corner offices, or whatever. The danger these people pose is that they end up with a disproportionate amount of responsibility and they'll be intolerant of a work environment that lacks respect or otherwise violates some value of theirs, which means they'll be needed but they'll have no loyalty to something perceived lacking virtue and there will be no way to keep them once those values no longer exist at the company.

A company built around those folks will take a massive hit when new management arrives and they'll start filing out the door.

Right, and yet I think it is key to understand that societal values and managerial interests are somewhat different. I want to say that such people are valued by society, and although they pose a liability to a manager that a money-motivated person does not pose, nevertheless I don't think they pose that liability to society.

Well, except when they do pose that liability to society. But I want to say that someone who is interested in truth per se is not the same as someone who is interested in, "working for the good of the world." I think a healthy society does value people who are interested in truth and are motivated to pursue it in itself. Someone who is interested in goodness or love is more complicated insofar as the society is concerned. That's why someone like Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) wrote his encyclical, "Caritas in Veritate," which points up the way that truth should always be normative in any endeavor that seeks good/betterment/improvement.

Of course, professors are given tenure because their work upholds the goals of the institution: a professor will never be given tenure if they play a Socratic role of constant truth seeking. All institutions are fairly political in nature. — ProtagoranSocratist

That's true, but the tenured professor is less beholden to the institution than a non-tenured professor. The whole concept of tenure is in part meant to give a professor academic freedom without fear of being fired.

Exactly: universities are famous for only letting you rock the boat in very specific ways, without any danger of actually letting radical proffesors make any changes to the rigid and bureaucratic structures of the university itself.

Wrong hands? Ha, ha. Reminds me of a story my wife's cousin told whereby his employer was forced to downsize and thus offered early retirement (which he took), or job retraining, which, of course he didn't. But after thinking about it, he said: I should have told them I needed golf lessons to try to get on the PGA tour as "retraining".

They are valued because they cannot be bought, and it's pretty hard to give people money for intellectual work without biasing that intellectual work (although we do try, and one example would be university tenure). — Leontiskos

Of course, professors are given tenure because their work upholds the goals of the institution: a professor will never be given tenure if they play a Socratic role of constant truth seeking. All institutions are fairly political in nature. — ProtagoranSocratist

Oh, baloney. I got tenure and a full professorship fairly quickly while periodically publishing on virtually any topic I wished as a mathematician - constant truth-seeking. I suspect you are referring to the Humanities, where political or politico-philosophical cliques abound. And perhaps the elite institutions. I taught in a branch of a state university.

i don't see how you could study at a university for years and walk away thinking that a university always respects honesty, but then again, we don't have a lot of a contextual basis for agreeing about what is really "a truth".

Of course, professors are given tenure because their work upholds the goals of the institution: a professor will never be given tenure if they play a Socratic role of constant truth seeking. All institutions are fairly political in nature. — ProtagoranSocratist

Oh, baloney. I got tenure and a full professorship fairly quickly while periodically publishing on virtually any topic I wished as a mathematician - constant truth-seeking. — jgill

jgill, do you even know about socrates? He wasn't a mathematician. So, this is actually expected: you specialized in mathematics, and you didn't read what I said carefully enough to ask yourself what i meant by a "socratic role of constant truth seeking".

Let me help you: legend has it that Socrates conducted his philosophy not by studying quietly, but by questioning people in dialogues. If you don't wait your turn to speak in a university setting, people largely just consider you to be a pain in the ass, and according to the stories about Socrates, that's what happened to him, and apparently he was given a death sentence for it. Part of this was because he didn't succumb to pressures to only speak about and discuss one subject matter, he was interesting in much broader and ephemeral ideas than mathematicians. He was mostly interested in particular ideals, such as justice.

This isn't to say I think that mathematics is worse than philosophy, but you can't accurately accuse someone of missing the mark until you take the plank out of your eye first...philosophy requires study as well.

Isn't this called the GI Bill? :P

jgill, do you even know about socrates? He wasn't a mathematician. So, this is actually expected: you specialized in mathematics, and you didn't read what I said carefully enough to ask yourself what i meant by a "socratic role of constant truth seeking".

Let me help you: legend has it that Socrates conducted his philosophy not by studying quietly, but by questioning people in dialogues. If you don't wait your turn to speak in a university setting, people largely just consider you to be a pain in the ass, and according to the stories about Socrates, that's what happened to him, and apparently he was given a death sentence for it. Part of this was because he didn't succumb to pressures to only speak about and discuss one subject matter, he was interesting in much broader and ephemeral ideas than mathematicians. He was mostly interested in particular ideals, such as justice. — ProtagoranSocratist

Of course I know what the Socratic method is. I encouraged dialogue you describe in my classes. But teaching math requires transmitting specific ideas, hopefully encouraging dialogue. This was rarely the case in beginning courses, but more advanced topics available after the student absorbs the basics provide a setting for discussions. And, yes, math is less ephemeral and much more focused than what you must have in mind.

If you don't wait your turn to speak in a university setting, people largely just consider you to be a pain in the ass, — ProtagoranSocratist

Or very impolite at best.