If I went to a matalurgist and asked “which is the superior metal?” He would think me insane. He’d happily discuss ductility, tendency toward metal fatique and corrosion and a thousand other traits, and in each case if pressed a test could be devised which would verify–or at lest test–his statement.

When the literature professor mourns his or her relative lack of prestige, he generally wants to make a statement that no scientist would make–that Book X is “better” than Book Y–and have it be accepted by the students in a way that only testability could justify.

As I said before, when the literature professor says that a particular work influenced later works, is complex in structure, contains many allusions or has a vocabulary of X many words he is, or can be, on firm ground–but he can also be refuted, or at least tested. When he says that Book X is “better” he has made a very diferent kind of statement–one that IS–if not worthless, at least meaningless or subjective.

I wouldn’t pay any attention to that metalurgist if he told me gold was the superior metal either. My boat would weigh too much, and my knife would rapidly dull.

I say again, the price of respect for one’s statements is the possibility of those statements being refuted. A verification system which consists of “all my friends agree with me, so there!” is merely a suggestion that the “loser” find another peer group.

If you don’t like scientific standards, give me another set under which someone may disagree with and refute the concensus. No Pasteur, no Galileo, no Copernicus, no equivalent respect.