What is Epistemology?
Sam
Here's a defition:
"Epistemology: The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of
knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and
validity."
Etymological Roots:
"Greek epistm, knowledge (from epistasthai, epist-, to understand :
epi-, epi- + histasthai, middle voice of histanai, to place, determine;
see st- in Indo-European Roots) + -logy."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=epistemology
goozlefotz
Sam wrote:
> What is Epistemology?
>
> Here's a defition:
> "Epistemology: The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of
> knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and
> validity."
>
since I rarely agree with you, I thought I should do so publicly: I
agree.
Sam Carana
x
xxein: So, if you study these things, what makes a determination of
validity? Is there an objective awareness that can be realised through
logic that is not also subjectively biased?
How are presuppositions validated?
To what extent do we apply all of this if only contemporary (assumed)?
I find that we almost always describe new knowledge in terms of the old
knowledge (presuppositions and foundations). How do we get away from
that? Don't we have to periodically throw it all back into the hopper
and renew the basis of logic?
Is the nature of knowledge just a reflection of what we choose to
believe or is it a limited version of universal reality?
Do we even know what an objective logic is supposed to be?
I ask myself this all of the time. I try to stay honest with this
universe and its possible convergence with others.
Have I blasphemed?
goozlefotz
I copied this response over:
Subject: Re: Why so little epistemology in an Epistemology Forum?
I do not claim to actually "know" anything. I have working concepts
which I use to get by on a day-to-day basis, but words like "truth" and
"proof" are foreign to me. Any knowledge or belief that I have is
temporal and subject to revision if I perceive it to be no longer
useful.
goozlefotz
I am a scientist, and I approach life much as I approach science - not
to try to reach for absolutes, but to find self-consistent models of
reality that work. Words like "truth" and "proof" are absolute. That
is why I say that they are foreign to me. Also, since they are
impossible to attain, any effort to do so is a waste of time and
effort.
pfizer...@yahoo.com
god,more evil than the devil and if you eat it you die?
Here is another: You are at the fork of two
roads.One goes to the village where the villagers speak only truth the
other to where they only speak lies.You may only ask the villager
standing at the fork one question.What do you ask to find the village
of truth?
zinnic
How could you possibly have blasphemed? Your interesting questions only
hint at your point of view and even your single declaritive statement
raises another question. When you say that "we 'almost always'
describe new knowledge in terms of the old knowledge...", are you
implying that there are a priori exceptions?
It seems to me (as a 'plain man) that to 'know what knowledge is' is an
expression so involuted that it is meaningless. Limitations of language
requires that we accept some consensus on the approximation
of'knowledge'. This consensus,of course, must be thrown back into the
hopper and 'continuosly' renewed on the basis of logic!
Some of your and Sam's questions would be moot in light of such a
consensus, whilst others could be addressed much more meaningfully.
Regards...Zinnic
jt
would work for the second(and there should be more, and all will
require the villager to self-reference)is
which road leads to the town you live in? the liar would have to send
you down the road that leads to the village where the villagers speak
only truth since that is not where he lives and he is obliged to lie
and the truthsayer would also have to send you down the road that leads
to the village where the villagers speak only the truth since that is
where he lives and he is obliged to speak only the truth
diana
x wrote:
> xxein: So, if you study these things, what makes a determination of
> validity? Is there an objective awareness that can be realised through
> logic that is not also subjectively biased?
Or....why is objective awareness more accurate/reliable/valued than the
subjective? Are there not limits to what can be objectively known?
When is it appropriate to obtain knowledge subjectively? Does the
objective really yield knowledge, or is not also biased?
Does not observing a phenomena effect/alter/or otherwise change the
phenomena?
.....
diana
Why do these words nesicarrily mean absolute? Not all languages have
applied that connotation. And where has this connotation come from?
Are we taught to think of them as absolutes by science, religion, or
social norms? For me, there is no absolute Truth with a capital
T......but there is truth.
truth as a process of continual coming to know......
that is not a waste of time. search for a fairy tale Truth that Is and
will Always Be....well, that may be a waste of time.....but who is to
say that in time the process of aquiring new truth may not lead us to
find that there is a Truth that never wavers.....even saying that there
is no such thing as an absolute Truth is a statement of absolute
belief, and is just as grounded as saying that there are absolute
Truths......
just some thoughts.....no answers.
diana
to the study of knowledge, or does it also cover issues like
conscience,
belief, logic, principles, values, science, feelings and information?
If
epistemology is limited, does this limit its philosophical conclusions?
I think that epistemology does include belief, logic, principles,
values, science, feelings and information...in so much as individuals
claim that these "things" yeid knowledge, or can be used to evaluate
the validty of knowledge. When such claims are made, epistemology must
asses the claim, and in doing so, the underlying concepts of each would
be scrutinized.
Sam Carana
zinnic
'aware'. Given that all experience (awareness )is subjective, what do
you guys (for want of a better word Diane) mean by "objective
awareness"?
If we accept a 'Nova' as a real phenomenum, does our observation of it
(millions of light years later) effect it?
I do not see how this is possible!
zinnic
such thing as absolute truth", and that we will never find "a Truth
that never wavers". But then, what do I know, I do not believe in
absolutes. :-)
Andrés
and subjuctive awareness?
According to Quantum Physics it happens. even though it seems to berake
the laws of cause and effect, though I have to admit that quantum
effects outside the atom loose most of their meanings.
there is a classic experiment to show a similar paradox:
suppost you have a source of electrons and two detectors. suppost the
distance between these detectors is astronomical as well as the
distanceto the source (wich is the same for both detectors)
Suppose now that the source sends elctrons at random to each detector.
for an observer who can only see the detectors, how is it possible for
one detector to know that the other detector doesn´t have an electron
when it gets one itself? specially if there is no tiem for it to
receive information? Does this mean that there could be a possibility
where two electrons could reach the detectors simultaneously?
diana
here) then you do in fact believe in absolutes. you made my point for
me. if you say you do not believe in absolutes then you must admit the
possibility that there might be such as thing as an absolute.
i think of it in terms of probability. i am 99% sure there is no such
thing as an absolute. but there is always that 1% chance that there
could be an absolute that i am not currently aware of.
this isn't knowledge persay, it is probability. and it is what alot of
human science and understanding is based on. Things with a higher
probability are labeled "true" and things with a lower probability are
labeled "false". You need only to prove that the affirmitive is more
likely, not that it is absolute.
What this means is that an assertion is not nesicarrily "untrue"
because someone can provide a single instance to the contrary.....
jt
is it alive?
how do you know?
zinnic
that there is no absolute certainty, there remains a 1 %
probability that there is some absolute certainty of which you are
unaware. However you are aware of the 99% probability! What is your
lifestyle bet?
A single instance to the contrary does establish that an absolute
assertion is "untrue". It does not establish that a 99% correct
assertion is never true.
zinnic
jt
Souvik
diana wrote:
> x wrote:
>
> > xxein: So, if you study these things, what makes a determination of
> > validity? Is there an objective awareness that can be realised through
> > logic that is not also subjectively biased?
What you might be referring to is inference. It is technically not a
part of awareness because it relies on an existing framework of logic /
knowledge / theory of how the world works.
> Are there not limits to what can be objectively known?
Yes. For example, we cannot know the momentum and position of an object
with infinite accuracy at the same time. This is a prosaic expression
of a very profound limitation on what is means to be able to extract
information from the world. And if it means anything at all to assume
that that information exists out there.
> When is it appropriate to obtain knowledge subjectively? Does the
> objective really yield knowledge, or is not also biased?
All knowledge, in the final analysis is subjective. There is no form of
objective knowledge. You know the computer screen is in front of you
because your eyes sense the light that comes off it, and your skin
senses the electrostatic potential of its molecules when you touch it
-- in the end, any description of the world is essentially sensory.
Science is an effort to consistently explain the barrage of sensory
information of experience and experiment (aka phenomenon) by assuming a
structure (aka physical reality / neumenon) underlying it. It is an
assumption, and present theories of physics are grappling with this
bedrock assumption. We believe there must be such a reality 'out there'
because our daily life experiences give us an unmistakable sense of it
-- however, it could entirely be prejudice to assume objective reality.
> Does not observing a phenomena effect/alter/or otherwise change the
> phenomena?
Yes, it invariably does. Phenomenon implies observation. Observation
implies perturbing the system you are trying to measure (by shining it
with light / setting up a magnetic field to see its response in it).
Hence, observation implicitly disturbs the system (assuming I can use
this word) we are trying to observe. Such is the nature of phenomena.
The Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is a manifestation of this
principle.
-Souvik
goozlefotz
the stars. Don't be silly. ACTIVE observation perturbs the system;
passive observation does not. You are so wrapped up in the theoretical
aspect of physics that you have abandoned reality and common sense.
Souvik
> OK. So, when I go out at night and look at the stars, that perturbs
> the stars. Don't be silly. ACTIVE observation perturbs the system;
> passive observation does not. You are so wrapped up in the theoretical
> aspect of physics that you have abandoned reality and common sense.
something) onto an object and observing the photons that bounce off it.
What you mean by passive observation is simply observing whatever comes
off the object (photons etc).
In our present, most consistent framework of physics, both these kind
of observations perturb the system. The way a passive observation
perturbs a system is by collapsing the photon that hits your eye out
from a quantum superposition of this photon travelling in all possible
directions. (You remarked that you don't remember what state-vector
reduction is in quantum mechanics: It is precisely this process. That
of collapsing the wavefunction of an object into one specific
eigenvalue of whatever property you are measuring out of a linear
superposition of all eigenvalues. This is the process of bringing into
'actuality' one of the many ghostly 'possibilities' that may be thought
to co-exist until observation.)
Alright, once you collapse the photon into actuality by observing it,
the star that emitted it is presumably jolted back (a million years in
the past) ever so slightly to effect momentum conservation.
As for common sense, it is the sum of all prejudices about nature we
accumulate by the age of 18.
-Souvik
diana
science is based on the assumption that empirical methods, objective
observation, and reasoning can be used to asses the validty of any
truth claim. while epistemology also aims at assesing the validity of
truth claims, it does tout a particualr method as the only way of doing
so. rather, it is, in my understanding, aimed at assesing the
validity of the method, or at discovering which method(s) are best
suited for that task, and under what conditions.
diana
with what you are saying. ;)
diana
thinking of things from a bit of a different angle.
take for example, when you want to gain knowledge about something like
oh human behavior or moods. the act of observing the behavior of the
individuals is bound to effect the behavior of the individual themself.
you can put people in rooms with two way mirrors, but they still are
not in their normal or natural environment, so they may behave
differently due to any number of factors introduced by the observation
itself. you can try to observe people in their natural setting, but
there is only so much that you will be able to observe objectively.
eventually, you reach the point when you must ask the individual to
provide a report of their experience. "how did it make you feel when
blah blah" on a scale of 1 to 10. at this point you are only
obtaining subjective information. there is no way to objectively
observe how an indivual feels or interprets the world.
this is just one example, but the point is that there are some
phenomena which you cannot gain knowledge of through objective
observation alone. at some point you must rely on the subjective.
and this is not nesicarrily a bad thing. it doesn't make the
information or knowledge automatically "untrue" or "true" because it is
obtained from the subjective. But, there is some further scrutinity,
it seems that is applied in this case. though what that scrutinity is,
i am not sure. it seems that every individual has different parameters
for truth at this point, regardless of any claims of "common sense".
in my expereince, things that i, as an individual, take for "common
sense" or obviously true, are not so common afterall. simple things
to me, are not so simple to everyone. it seems to depend on the
individual, their experience, and to some extent, their intelligence.
it is this quandry that presents the scientific only method of gaining
knowledge with a problem to be solved. how do you evaluate the truth
value of a claim when you cannot objectively observe the circumstances
from which the truth claim is derrived?
goozlefotz
Souvik wrote:
> As for common sense, it is the sum of all prejudices about nature we
> accumulate by the age of 18.
>
> -Souvik
The insult was unnecessary. I have treated you with respect; I
expected the same in return.
Souvik
-Souvik
Souvik
That was not an insult! It was more of a quote from Einstein as far as
I can remember. I did not mean to hurt your feelings.
> Souvik wrote:
> > As for common sense, it is the sum of all prejudices about nature we
> > accumulate by the age of 18.
What I meant is, the notion of 'obvious from common sense' is derived
from years of experience with the operations of Nature *at the scale of
daily life*. Any first course in relativity (the scale of the very
large and very fast) or quantum theory (the scale of the very small)
will have you going: "C'mon, its common sense that time cannot go
faster here and slower there!" etc. In fact, if it didn't make you say
that, I would doubt if you truly understood it. When we get down to
studying the fundamental aspects of Nature: 'How does it really work?
How does information flow in Nature?', we need to set aside our
pre-conceived notions from daily life because they are simply
inapplicable.
I am not arguing about the superiority or inferiority of 'common sense'
as it is, because the evolution of 'common sense' has ensured the
survival of our species for 11 million years. However, it is an
unreliable guide for probing the fundamental aspects of Nature because
Nature is not only stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you
*can* imagine!
-Souvik
zinnic
diana wrote:
> preciesly zinnic. i think we are saying the same thing....or i agree
> with what you are saying. ;)
Gee! You have taken the wind out of my sails! I like an argument
(detest a quarrel). Is there something we could disagree on?
I probably over emphasize pragmatism because I am frustrated with
philosophical controversies which, IMO, are so far removed from our
experiential life as to be irrelevant.
Intensive philosophy is the study of our navels, extensive science is
to soar the skies! (Sorry, got a little bit 'carried away' there).
zinnic
really smacks of elitism. Why not use "approximations" when
'characterizing' the very useful concepts that constitute the greater
part of a plain man's common sense?.
I would appreciate your help in clarifying my perception of the
relationship between observation/actuality. If photons are not
'observed' by impinging on the retina of a sentient entity, but impinge
on the mass of another star, are they then also "collapsed into
actuality"? If they do not 'impinge' on anything' do these photons
'actualy' not exist in their own right? Given that emission involves
an interaction between the photon and its source why is a subsequent
interaction necessary for actualization of that proton?
Souvik
> I know that "prejudices" is in common usage in this regard, but it
> really smacks of elitism. Why not use "approximations" when
> 'characterizing' the very useful concepts that constitute the greater
> part of a plain man's common sense?.
> I would appreciate your help in clarifying my perception of the
> relationship between observation/actuality. If photons are not
> 'observed' by impinging on the retina of a sentient entity, but impinge
> on the mass of another star, are they then also "collapsed into
> actuality"? If they do not 'impinge' on anything' do these photons
> 'actualy' not exist in their own right? Given that emission involves
> an interaction between the photon and its source why is a subsequent
> interaction necessary for actualization of that proton?
interpretation. To my knowledge, there are five or six independent and
self-consistent interpretations of quantum theory, and they will answer
your questions differently.
1. The Copenhagen Interpretation (Initiated by Neils Bohr, and possibly
the most down to earth interpretation physicists stick to.): The
photons become actual only when you record them. If you input the fact
that photons become actual when *you* record them, theory and
experiment will agree from *your* point of view.
You asked -- What if the photon impinged on a star instead of your
retina?
Copenhagen: The star and the photon remain entangled in a superposition
of 'photon went elsewhere and did not hit star' & 'photon hit star'
from *your point of view*.
Sentience is not a necessity for this collapse. What is necessary is a
measuring entity -- and the world is described and explained from the
point of view of this entity. (In this weird sense, quantum theory is a
subjective theory of the world.)
I am sure you will find seemingly different explanations of this
Copenhagen interpretation if you look up Wiki based on momenta and
position etc -- this would be the strict Copenhagen interpretation of
the photon situation.
2. The Many Universe Interpretation: The universe splits up into myriad
universes when the photon was emitted by star A. In some of these
universes, they hit star B. In some of them, they hit your retina.
(Very disturbingly uneconomic on universes, and personally not my
favourite because photons are known to interfere with non-actualised
copies of themselves. But in this picture, each non-actualised copy
exists in a separate universe.)
3. The Consciousness Hypothesis from Eugene Wigner: Consciousness and
sentience condenses reality out of ghostly superpositions.
4. Objective Reduction:
a) By Environment Induced Decoherence: That nature actualises the
photon out of this superposition mess by interaction with the
environment in which the photon propagates. So, photon's trajectory is
sort of all flailing out in creepy superpositions if there's absolutely
nothing in the space it is propagating -- no gas, no stars, no retinae.
However, a distribution of matter in its environment induces it to
decohere into actuality. (I've been favouring this one lately as an
offshoot of my work.) This is also what Feynman hints at in his Feynman
Volume III.
b) By gravity or by some fundamentally new physical law: Trust
Penrose to come with shit like this. When the difference in the
stress-energy tensor (the energy and momentum of a photon that causes
dents in spacetime) of the non-actualised photon's trajectory crosses a
critical value, some unknown process snaps it out of superposition. I
almost believed this for a while, but now don't because when I do the
math, I land into absurdities like: The sum of the probabilities of all
the non-actualised photons is not equal to one.
Anyway, I hope this gives you a flavour of the mess we're in. I feel
the resolution of this issue will probably come from ironing out the
epistemology underlying the observer / observed dichotomy.
-Souvik
pfizer...@yahoo.com
favorite axiom;Cogito,ergo sum.
goozlefotz
have wondered the same thing.
Andrés
Andrés
zinnic
I appreciate your summary of some of the theories (speculations) of
advanced physics. Admittedly, I possess only a nodding acquaintance
with them and my real understanding of Schroedinger's cat is on a par
with my understanding of the smile of Lewis Carroll's Cheshire cat.
Would you elaborate on why you state that "Sentience is not a necessity
for this collapse. What is necessary is a measuring entity -- and the
world is described and explained from the
point of view of this entity. (In this weird sense, quantum theory is a
subjective theory of the world.)"?
Does not your claim, that the quantum theory is subjective, entail
that the measuring entity must be embedded in a sentient experiencet?
Is there an example of a non-subjective "measuring entity"?
goozlefotz
Church has done to theology. As time has gone by they have gotten more
and more complicated and convoluted, with silly interpretation piled on
silly interpretation. Come to think of it, QM has become a religion to
a certain portion of the scientific community. It is a good thing that
I am retired, as I would probably have few friends amoung this group of
scientists. QM is a wonderful tool, not a substitute God.
Souvik
> Does not your claim, that the quantum theory is subjective, entail
> that the measuring entity must be embedded in a sentient experiencet?
> Is there an example of a non-subjective "measuring entity"?
A video camera can be used to measure and record the position of an
object on film. From the point of view of the video camera (if there is
such a thing :-)), the world will make sense with quantum mechanics.
However, from a point of view of a human, the (camera film records
particle here + particle here) remains in a linear superposition with
(the camera film records particle there + particle there) until he
observes the piece of film.
I hope you see the 'subjective weirdness' involved in this description.
Think up some gedankens with systems being measured by other systems,
and systems on their backs to measure them, (a Russian doll of systems)
and you will see how weird it really is. Make one of the intermediate
systems *yourself* and think about what that would mean. Drives many
people to solipsism...
Also consider systems that are observed by parts of themselves. Like
the universe with us in it. I have a feeling that there are mechanisms
in our brain that observe ourselves and are also observed by higher
order neural networks.
Of course, you must understand that all this is purely an extension of
quantum mechanics that applies in the microscopic world into the
macroscopic domain -- where quantum phenomena are difficult to isolate
from fluctuations due to heat etc. You must take these with a pinch of
salt.
-Souvik
Souvik
Haldane, a biologist who was deeply interested in physics ~ I don't
remember his exact expression, but it was quite cute.
Souvik
> I see the latest interpretations of QM as similar to what the Catholic
> Church has done to theology.
There is no authority in science. It progresses by anarchy. The
'latest' interpretations of QM are possibilities that arise out of
direct observation. We would be happy if anyone could upset the
applecart and show us a more reasonable interpretation / physical
theory. They did not arise from dogmatic belief systems independent of
observation as did most religions.
(In passing, I'd like to mention that the Catholic Church doesn't
constitute or affect a majority fraction of theological and irrational
beliefs and in the world.)
> As time has gone by they have gotten more
> and more complicated and convoluted, with silly interpretation piled on
> silly interpretation.
That is because with time, humans learnt to explore their environment,
dig up dinosaur fossils, observe and understand how marvelous nature
really is and refute religious dogma and fear. The Christian religion
(and the Judaist tradition) have been the most vulnerable on two
counts: 1. It is most easily refuted by direct observation (The world
is 6000 years old etc) and 2. Throwing out of theories that didn't
match experience and experiment regardless of how smart the theorist
was, how good he looked or what his name was started in the West with
Galileo. Soon the church was cornered intellectually and started
playing the 'It's all figurative! It lies in the interpretation.' card
to intellectuals. The reason we have such colourful interpretations of
QM are not even analogous to this.
> Come to think of it, QM has become a religion to
> a certain portion of the scientific community.
Well, then that would be sad. Because although QED is battletested to
the 31st decimal place, science is the belief in the ignorance of
experts.
> QM is a wonderful tool, not a substitute God.
What do you mean? Theology is not God, it is an attempt to explain the
nature of existence with the hypothesis of God. QM and other scientific
theories do not need that hypothesis.
-Souvik
Sam Carana
goozlefotz wrote:
> I see the latest interpretations of QM as similar to what the Catholic
> Church has done to theology.
There is no authority in science. It progresses by anarchy. The
'latest' interpretations of QM are possibilities that arise out of
direct observation. We would be happy if anyone could upset the
applecart and show us a more reasonable interpretation / physical
theory. They did not arise from dogmatic belief systems independent of observation as did most religions.
(In passing, I'd like to mention that the Catholic Church doesn't
constitute or affect a majority fraction of theological and irrational
beliefs and in the world.)
diana
i like this, is this a quote, or your own?
diana
up an expirament where two chemicals come into contact with one another
and observe the result.
I searched for a definition on the web, and found surprisingly few for
a concept that is supposed to be widely understood.
Objective observation
An observation that is not, or is only minimally, influenced by the
opinion of the person who performs the measurement.
------------------------------------------
Observations that have only facts and events recorded are objective
observations. Observations that include personal impressions,
speculations, judgments and feelings are called subjective
observations.
------------------------------------------
Of course the obvious argument against objective observation is that is
it not possible to observe without being biased. But, even if it is
impossible to remove oneself from bias, that does not nesicarily imply
that the bias will effect the outcome. But how can you be sure?
Sam
>
>"science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
>
>i like this, is this a quote, or your own?
Nice quote indeed, Diana, but can we allow people who claim to have
studied things to hide behind ignorance? What makes people believe in
something that is at odds with reality? Is it naivity? Is it perhaps
that only the most gullible people remain captive within the education
system, in an obsessive desire to one day be able to switch positions
and lecture other people? Just hold the mirror up to them and they may
recognize the little boy who is throwing a tantrum in the face of
wisdom!
Some people seek to present their own political views as if they were
not political. They use science as a mask to hide their hypocricy.
Epistemology may briefly look into this kind of rhetoric, but it isn't
a worthwhile issue in epistemology, as it takes just one quick post
like this for the culprit to be exposed.
Sam
Sam
> Occasionally I post something which never makes it to the board. I
> have wondered the same thing.
>
>
> > My missing posts to this group; censored or lost in cyber space?My
> > favorite axiom;Cogito,ergo sum.
I think this group is unmoderated, at least it appears to have been so
for a while, so all messages posted to the group should show up in the
webarchive at:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/epistemology
Perhaps someone has replied to one of your messages by sending the
reply to you individually, rather than to the group? In that case, if
you in turn reply, your reply will end up only with that individual,
while the individual may not reply back at all.
Sam
Souvik
> No authority in science? Government determines to a large extent what is
> taught at schools and universities, who is allowed to enter professions such
> as science teachers and scientists working in forensic labs, in labs of
> weapon manufacturers, etc. Government-appointed judges determine who is
> allowed to give evidence in court cases where there is any dispute about all
> this.
> Sam
and who should be given money to pursue it. However, in the enterprise
of science (scientific ideas) itself, there is no sacred authority
(like papal authority) that is beyond question. Scientific heroism lies
in overthrowing old beliefs and ideas about our world. Talk about
Galileo overthrowing Aristotlean ideas on motion. Or Einstein with his
geometric picture of gravity. Feynman, Planck etc... the who's who of
science are people who defied the authority of old ideas. Science is
what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.
There is an old quote from Feynman:
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
That kind of sums up scientists feel about govt pressure in their work.
-Souvik
Souvik
> I was thinking of objective observation in the "common" sense. I set
> up an expirament where two chemicals come into contact with one another
> and observe the result.
Well, the observation then was a series of sensations in your optic
pathways. Any observation can always be boiled down to sensory
information received by a subject. Hence the procedure is essentially
subjective.
I am trying to boil it down to the irreducible essence of what we mean
by observation of external phenomena. That is where some big questions
lie.
> I searched for a definition on the web, and found surprisingly few for
> a concept that is supposed to be widely understood.
>
> Objective observation
> An observation that is not, or is only minimally, influenced by the
> opinion of the person who performs the measurement.
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Observations that have only facts and events recorded are objective
> observations. Observations that include personal impressions,
> speculations, judgments and feelings are called subjective
> observations.
> ------------------------------------------
Oh you mean an 'unbiased ovbservation'. What I meant was-- there is
always a subject who observes and therefore observation is by nature
subjective.
> Of course the obvious argument against objective observation is that is
> it not possible to observe without being biased. But, even if it is
> impossible to remove oneself from bias, that does not nesicarily imply
> that the bias will effect the outcome. But how can you be sure?
Have lots of people take the observation, so any random errors
introduced by personal bias will get washed out. You can never be sure
about washing away systematic errors. That is something that is usually
washed away by people of other generations and cultures taking the
observation. [Like Aristotle was biased about a simple observational
truth -- how objects fell. No one of his time refuted him and all made
the systematic error of confirming him. Then Galileo went up the tower
of Pisa and the rest is history.]
-Souvik
Souvik
goozlefotz
pontification". Noonne is smarter than he is; noone knows more than he
does. So why does he post on this lowly board? Why, to feed his ego,
of course. And why does he need to feed his ego? Because he is not
certain that he is really as smart as he acts like he is. Come on,
Souvik, this isn't a faculty meeting! It's just some guys trying to
talk about things. I notice that there are no "in my opinion" type
disclaimers there. Why should there be? We are constantly subjected
to the "appeal to authority - me" argument. I am bored with this and
am no longer interested in being the foil for your ego trips.
Souvik
I was trying to get some interesting ideas from trained philosophers
about the epistemological problem in QM.
I don't think any "in my opinions" disclaimers are needed because
everything I say are obviously in my opinion. I figure the proof of
that is trivial.
Umm.. did I say I am the authority? I just gave you some physics facts
(that I can safely say I have had some on-hand experience with), but do
not understand in any coherent framework without a better grasp of the
epistemology involved.
No one is smarter than me. That's actually true though. :-)
-Souvik
Sam Carana
goozlefotz
Souvik
> science is typically presented in the education system as a collection of
> dogmas and laws, rather than as the defiance of that. That brings us back to
> the old discussion as to what science is. So, what does the word science
> mean? Knowledge? What is knowledge? A collection of dogmas and laws?
Scientific theories are tested by experiment. If a theory doesn't match
experiment or predicts phenomena that is not observed, it is wrong.
Simply, WRONG! It doesn't matter how grand its scope or the ancestry of
whoever invented it. It's chafed out.
That is how we distil scientific theories from dogma. Since Galileo
(overthrew Aristotlean dogma).
At least in my education (which wasn't very formal initially), science
was my own efforts to make sense of natural experience -- of magnets
and trees and plasticine... I'm sure everyone's gone through phases
where they're inventing a new picture of their world every week and
throwing it out the next. As we grow up, this process gets finely toned
into science. I know what you're saying about how science is presented
in the US education system. In my experience, it is done to produce
engineers, not scientists. If you're 19 and haven't really
experimented, thought and read about the world enough to have some
roughly approximate *independent* understanding of nature, and YET you
want to get a scientific job, the best we can do is push accepted
scientific theories down your throat. Maybe with a minimum of boring
labs which is entirely against the scientific spirit. We can't help it!
There's so much to learn today if one wants to command nature as an
engineer. That is so not the way real scientists are trained though.
Countries like the USSR (former Russia) had a much more liberal way of
teaching the sciences which was really close to the scientific spirit.
Teaching science in the USA leaves a LOT to be desired. Yes. Even
*doing* real science in the USA is difficult under the present
administration. Europe doesn't have the money, but things are closer to
the spirit of real science there.
-Souvik
Sam
> Sam Carana wrote:
> > science is typically presented in the education system as a collection of
> > dogmas and laws, rather than as the defiance of that. That brings us back to
> > the old discussion as to what science is. So, what does the word science
> > mean? Knowledge? What is knowledge? A collection of dogmas and laws?
>
> Scientific theories are tested by experiment. If a theory doesn't match
> experiment or predicts phenomena that is not observed, it is wrong.
> Simply, WRONG! It doesn't matter how grand its scope or the ancestry of
> whoever invented it. It's chafed out.
Well, that's not how public school appears to work. Children are forced
to go to school. Many leave school socially irresponsible, unemployable
and functionally illiterate. That is a phenomenon that can be observed.
Yet, few people seem to draw the conclusion that public school is
WRONG! Ergo, the method you describe above, appears not to be applied
to public school itself. In other words, public school doesn't appear
to teach such logic.
> That is how we distil scientific theories from dogma. Since Galileo
> (overthrew Aristotlean dogma).
Indeed, many people seem to somhow hang on to the dogma that public
school was good. They continue to argue that common people should see
their hard-earned money forcibly taken away from them, in order to fund
this scheme, as well as that children should be forced to attend public
school under the pretence that this was somehow "free", futhermore,
that it gave some children a better education than they would otherwise
get. It's a dogma and you can look at it from various angles, but if
one looks at how many leave public school socially irresponsible,
unemployable and functionally illiterate, then the conclusion must be
that it's WRONG. Moreover, to observe those facts without make any
protest will be taken by the system as an implicit acknowledgement that
public school was doing a good job. How can anyone reject the dogma
that the sun was in orbit around earth and at the same time insist that
public school was doing a good job?
> At least in my education (which wasn't very formal initially), science
> was my own efforts to make sense of natural experience -- of magnets
> and trees and plasticine... I'm sure everyone's gone through phases
> where they're inventing a new picture of their world every week and
> throwing it out the next.
That doesn't happen much at public school. Children are locked up
without having much contact with nature outside (except for sport,
which is another story that I'll elaborate on another time).
> As we grow up, this process gets finely toned into science.
Not at public school. Children do not engage in scientific reserach or
so. They are told what to do and to shut up.
> I know what you're saying about how science is presented
> in the US education system. In my experience, it is done to produce
> engineers, not scientists.
It depends on what one expects from an education. Obviously, there are
different types of education. However, public school seems to hold on
to the dogma that one type of education fits all.
> If you're 19 and haven't really
> experimented, thought and read about the world enough to have some
> roughly approximate *independent* understanding of nature, and YET you
> want to get a scientific job, the best we can do is push accepted
> scientific theories down your throat.
Wouldn't it be better not to present theories as if they were facts?
Schools typically rank students as if one student had more "knowledge"
then others. And what is regarded as "knowledge"? Some students may
boast that they can recite by heart all the names of battles that have
been forced down their throats, complete with the year, the date and
the respective location where the battle was fought. But does that make
them more scientifically inclined than students who dare to admit that
a particular theory doesn't make sense to them? In school, taking a
theory into consideration is typically regarded as a sign of stupidity,
as if the longer the students are thinking about it, the more stupid
they must be.
> Maybe with a minimum of boring
> labs which is entirely against the scientific spirit. We can't help it!
We can start by admitting the sad situation. The, we can start
discussing ways to improve the situation.
> There's so much to learn today if one wants to command nature as an
> engineer. That is so not the way real scientists are trained though.
Indeed and public school does a poor job in preparing students to be an
engineer. In fact, once they find a job, they will need to be
deprogrammed for some time and re-educated, meaning that the employer
basically looks after most of the education. To become a good engineer,
apprenticeship would be a better alternative, complemented with
self-study, tutoring, etc. But of course, not everyone does want to
become an engineer. BTW, tell me how scientists are "trained".. Isn't
the term training typically applied to menial work and sport (no, I
will leave sport for another time)?
> Countries like the USSR (former Russia) had a much more liberal way of
> teaching the sciences which was really close to the scientific spirit.
> Teaching science in the USA leaves a LOT to be desired. Yes. Even
> *doing* real science in the USA is difficult under the present
> administration. Europe doesn't have the money, but things are closer to
> the spirit of real science there.
>
> -Souvik
The solution is to remove government involvement from education.
Government's involvement in education is WRONG. The very idea that
government should control education is WRONG. People who seek to
eulogize such control simply have the WRONG political ideas. If they
start indoctrinating our kids with such ideas under the pretence that
this was education, then it's not only WRONG, but it's also a LIE! When
education that is politically colored is falsely presented as if it was
neutral, then students are by definition indoctrinated with something
that doesn't add up, which in a very fundamental way will cause the
very mental paralysis you can observe so clearly in so many students.
If epistemologists don't want someone to raise a finger about this,
then what hope do we have for the education system in general?
Sam
Souvik
> Souvik wrote:
> > Sam Carana wrote:
> > > science is typically presented in the education system as a collection of
> > > dogmas and laws, rather than as the defiance of that. That brings us back to
> > > the old discussion as to what science is. So, what does the word science
> > > mean? Knowledge? What is knowledge? A collection of dogmas and laws?
> >
> > Scientific theories are tested by experiment. If a theory doesn't match
> > experiment or predicts phenomena that is not observed, it is wrong.
> > Simply, WRONG! It doesn't matter how grand its scope or the ancestry of
> > whoever invented it. It's chafed out.
>
> Well, that's not how public school appears to work. Children are forced
> to go to school. Many leave school socially irresponsible, unemployable
> and functionally illiterate. That is a phenomenon that can be observed.
> Yet, few people seem to draw the conclusion that public school is
> WRONG! Ergo, the method you describe above, appears not to be applied
> to public school itself. In other words, public school doesn't appear
> to teach such logic.
Can I safely assume you're talking about the US education system?
If so, my sympathies lie with you. It is hardly representative of the
rest of the world. I received my elementary, high school and
undergraduate education in India and all I can say is: we face a very
different problem there.
Of whatever little contact I've made with teaching science in
elementary and high schools in the US, I've come to conclude that it
suffers from the same syndrome as the rest of America: What do you do
when you have plenty?
Most science teachers at the school level in the US (and also in India)
are crap. They're themselves the product of the
knowledge-pushed-down-throat routine and are being paid to perpetrate
it. If they were any better, they wouldn't be school teachers with such
miserable pay, would they?
The way we get away with that in India is extreme competition. For
real. If you don't pass exams, you don't get a job and chances are
you'll be hungry on the streets within a few years. So high school kids
have to learn a LOT (which would put sophomores of an ivy league in the
US to shame). I know you're thinking: BUT HOW DOES THAT HELP? Now, some
kids realise soon enough that what their pathetic teachers taught them
doesn't add up -- they know enough to realise that. And so they
essentially re-invent their picture of the world from scratch, but this
time with much sharper logical skills. That is how some of my close
friends who did not have the good fortune of being insulated from
rote-education by thoughtful parents, but nevertheless are honest
formidable scientists now describe the process.
Such competition does not exist in Fatland. Kids know that even if they
don't understand crap, they'll still make a comfortable living. I think
the *only* solution to the US situation is by increasing the pay of
elementary and high school teachers and offering the posts to people at
the top of their profession who can communicate with utmost honesty to
impressionable minds.
There are *plenty* of such not geeky, but genuine professors out there
who'd like to teach kids, but would rather teach the preprogrammed
morons of grad school because of the pay. The US has enough money to do
that. Maybe it needs a little less Bush to see that.
> That doesn't happen much at public school. Children are locked up
> without having much contact with nature outside (except for sport,
> which is another story that I'll elaborate on another time).
Too bad.
> Not at public school. Children do not engage in scientific reserach or
> so. They are told what to do and to shut up.
Yeah, I find that weird. I got plenty of that when I was growing up.
One doesn't really need to teach a child stuff, one just needs to keep
the spirit of mystery and wonder alive.
By teaching children 'the answers' in school, we forget teaching them
to question!
> Wouldn't it be better not to present theories as if they were facts?
Certainly. It is a good practice to indicate what degree of 'maybe' we
know such and such a theory to be true. But alas, it requires a depth
of knowledge and reasoning to know alternative theories (to gravity,
electrodynamics etc..) and also know why each of them fail. That is
beyond the capacity of any school teacher I have met so far.
> Schools typically rank students as if one student had more "knowledge"
> then others. And what is regarded as "knowledge"? Some students may
> boast that they can recite by heart all the names of battles that have
> been forced down their throats, complete with the year, the date and
> the respective location where the battle was fought. But does that make
> them more scientifically inclined than students who dare to admit that
> a particular theory doesn't make sense to them? In school, taking a
> theory into consideration is typically regarded as a sign of stupidity,
> as if the longer the students are thinking about it, the more stupid
> they must be.
>
>
> We can start by admitting the sad situation. The, we can start
> discussing ways to improve the situation.
I will second you on that.
> > There's so much to learn today if one wants to command nature as an
> > engineer. That is so not the way real scientists are trained though.
>
> Indeed and public school does a poor job in preparing students to be an
> engineer. In fact, once they find a job, they will need to be
> deprogrammed for some time and re-educated, meaning that the employer
> basically looks after most of the education. To become a good engineer,
> apprenticeship would be a better alternative, complemented with
> self-study, tutoring, etc. But of course, not everyone does want to
> become an engineer. BTW, tell me how scientists are "trained".. Isn't
> the term training typically applied to menial work and sport (no, I
> will leave sport for another time)?
Scientists are 'trained' to question as vigorously as they're trained
to experiment, infer, reason and answer. Most excellent scientists I
know can solve a problem when it's set out for them. Genius lies in
questioning. Identifying the the relevant and central questions and
hacking it down to the point it may be tackled by ordinary intellect.
> The solution is to remove government involvement from education.
> Government's involvement in education is WRONG. The very idea that
> government should control education is WRONG. People who seek to
> eulogize such control simply have the WRONG political ideas. If they
> start indoctrinating our kids with such ideas under the pretence that
> this was education, then it's not only WRONG, but it's also a LIE! When
> education that is politically colored is falsely presented as if it was
> neutral, then students are by definition indoctrinated with something
> that doesn't add up, which in a very fundamental way will cause the
> very mental paralysis you can observe so clearly in so many students.
> If epistemologists don't want someone to raise a finger about this,
> then what hope do we have for the education system in general?
True. Idealistically speaking, education should be secular and free of
political hues. But again, where can the education system get its money
from, if not the government, i.e. the people? You might say private
organisations, but that'll obviously make things worse. If money for
education comes from the govt, then the govt can and definitely will
try to steer it somewhat. The fight lies in minimising this influence.
At least you're born in an age when the Church isn't given as much
control as it once was. And concepts like evolution are allowed to be
taught with sufficient evidence. (Except Texas?) [No other religion in
the world except the Judaist - Christian and Muslim tradition battles
the theory of evolution to this day when it is experimentally
reproducible in lab petridishes! (What do you say to them after the
Inquisition... bunch of dogmatic jerks?)]
But you are right though. The only thing that interferes with my
learning is my education.
-Souvik
goozlefotz
lay the information before you and hope you choose to learn it".
Sam Carana
..some kids realise soon enough that what their pathetic teachers taught them doesn't add up -- they know enough to realise that. And so they essentially re-invent their picture of the world from scratch, but this time with much sharper logical skills. That is how some of my close friends who did not have the good fortune of being insulated from rote-education by thoughtful parents, but nevertheless are honest formidable scientists now describe the process.
There's so much to learn today if one wants to command nature as an engineer. That is so not the way real scientists are trained though.Indeed and public school does a poor job in preparing students to be an engineer. In fact, once they find a job, they will need to be deprogrammed for some time and re-educated, meaning that the employer basically looks after most of the education. To become a good engineer, apprenticeship would be a better alternative, complemented with self-study, tutoring, etc. But of course, not everyone does want to become an engineer. BTW, tell me how scientists are "trained".. Isn't the term training typically applied to menial work and sport (no, I will leave sport for another time)?
Scientists are 'trained' to question as vigorously as they're trained to experiment, infer, reason and answer. Most excellent scientists I know can solve a problem when it's set out for them. Genius lies in questioning. Identifying the the relevant and central questions and hacking it down to the point it may be tackled by ordinary intellect.
The solution is to remove government involvement from education. Government's involvement in education is WRONG. The very idea that government should control education is WRONG. People who seek to eulogize such control simply have the WRONG political ideas. If they start indoctrinating our kids with such ideas under the pretence that this was education, then it's not only WRONG, but it's also a LIE! When education that is politically colored is falsely presented as if it was neutral, then students are by definition indoctrinated with something that doesn't add up, which in a very fundamental way will cause the very mental paralysis you can observe so clearly in so many students. If epistemologists don't want someone to raise a finger about this, then what hope do we have for the education system in general?
True. Idealistically speaking, education should be secular and free of political hues. But again, where can the education system get its money from, if not the government, i.e. the people? You might say private organisations, but that'll obviously make things worse. If money for education comes from the govt, then the govt can and definitely will try to steer it somewhat. The fight lies in minimising this influence. At least you're born in an age when the Church isn't given as much control as it once was. And concepts like evolution are allowed to be taught with sufficient evidence. (Except Texas?) [No other religion in the world except the Judaist - Christian and Muslim tradition battles the theory of evolution to this day when it is experimentally reproducible in lab petridishes! (What do you say to them after the Inquisition... bunch of dogmatic jerks?)]
But you are right though. The only thing that interferes with my
learning is my education.
Souvik
Sam Carana wrote:
> On 7/26/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree! But how much further would many have got, if they hadn't been
> held up by dogmatically narrowminded teachers.
wrong way so that I may know what the right way is.
> > Scientists are 'trained' to question as vigorously as they're trained to
> > experiment, infer, reason and answer. Most excellent scientists I know can
> > solve a problem when it's set out for them. Genius lies in questioning.
> > Identifying the the relevant and central questions and hacking it down to
> > the point it may be tackled by ordinary intellect.
> >
> But does this require training? Isn't this more of an attitude, a way of
> looking at things that one can adopt by choice? If scientists really did
> have an inquisitive mind, why then do they refuse to question the dogma of
> public school?
questions and good questions. It takes a certain sharpness to point out
the loose joints of a theory, or to invent explicit paradoxes that
illustrate them. With just the attitude of questioning and no sense of
relevance, you'd end up like so many flustering armchair philosophers
who go:
A: 'What is reality?'
B: 'Define what.'
Just questioning for the heck of it doesn't get us anywhere. It has to
be intelligent questioning.
The reason scientists do not question the dogma of public school is
because public school is not a dogma. It is an institution that has
withstood the ravages of war, politics, religion, Romans, communism,
capitalism, globalisation and modern corporate-isation of society.
Therefore, the institution of public school is something that evolves
time and again in different places out of simple necessity, not out of
dogma. The reason it crops up in every civilisation of the world is
because it is a jungle out there and you need basic reading, writing
and arithmetic skills to live in the world. Every person can't pay for
it out of their pockets, so they form groups -> govts to pay for them.
> Again, if we want students to have an inquisitive mind, why then hold on to
> the dogma of public school? You have to see public school separate from
> funding. Vouchers have been successfully introduced giving families choice
> as to what school they want to send their children to. Vouchers are a step
> in the right direction, in that it questions the public school dogma.
> Another dogma is funding. Does a good education need much funding?
learning. Walks in woods and meditation are not sufficient! One needs
to set up laboratories to isolate physical effects to study them. One
needs books, computers, good teachers. Even if I were a genuinely good
teacher, I'd still be professional about it and go for higher pay.
> As you
> say yourself, you and your friends basically had to start from scratch. In
> other words, you didn't need public school.
arithmetic, etc. In time we hacked away what we figured was wrong and
reinvented a lot for ourselves. But I don't think I'd come up with
every single theorem in mathematics and calculus by independent thought
without being told about them at some point! Public school also gave us
the opportunity to interact with our own ignorance -- to identify what
was inconsistent, or what we didn't understand. I do have my grudges
against school which pop up when I'm in my moods, but overall I cannot
undermine the whole experience.
> As I said above, to become a
> good engineer, apprenticeship would be a better alternative than public
> school, especially when complemented with self-study, tutoring, online
> studies, etc. That may imply that the study is partly paid for by an
> employer, but the point is that we need to question the dogma that a good
> education required funding by either government, churches or charities.
belive this point is simply the 'can read, write and add' point. A
metallurgist possessing a certain knowledge of geography, history and
Shakespeare which he/she might have picked up grudgingly at some point
is more desirable than a metallurgist who knows jack save metal.
> And another dogma is that to learn, kids must sit in a classroom together
> with their age-peers. In fact, there is some research that indicates that
> kids can work much better at home, but much more ominous is the fact that
> there is so little research done into such questions, despite the fact that
> so many people get paid high salaries for supposedly doing research in
> education.
> How can people who have supposedly "learned" all about such issues get it
> so dramatically wrong? The reason is politics. The situation is decided by
> politicians who see benefits in keeping the system as it is.
banning mixing education with shopping, playing and other activities
and condemning kids to 12 years in school?
> The sad truth
> is that many scientists collaborate with this, spreading political opinions
> like dogmas.
> Sam
-Souvik
goozlefotz
our schools. It is that the funding is tied to the NUMBER of students
and not to how much they learn. Thus the educators are loath to do
anything that will cause the loss of a warm body. Non-performers are
drug along with their contemporaries, lowering the overall atmosphere
and making a burden for the teachers.
Also, I have been curious since this thread started as to Sam's
educational history. Sam, would you mind giving us a resume of your
educational background?
Andrés
Souvik ha escrito:
> You love that word don't you? Dog-ma!
> > How can people who have supposedly "learned" all about such issues get it
> > so dramatically wrong? The reason is politics. The situation is decided by
> > politicians who see benefits in keeping the system as it is.
>
> And what are those benifits? What do politicians hope to gain by
> banning mixing education with shopping, playing and other activities
> and condemning kids to 12 years in school?
>
> > The sad truth
> > is that many scientists collaborate with this, spreading political opinions
> > like dogmas.
>
> Give me a reference here.
>
> > Sam
>
> -Souvik
Here's something to fuel Sam's arguments:
Some analysts (if desperately need the reference I can give it to you)
argue that the educational system has been designed to train students
to become employees in a factory. They do this to instill obedience in
them and following rules dictated by the management.
The problem is that since the Industrial revolution, the task force has
been growing exponentially but the amount of work to be done hasn't.
Now what's new about their point of view is that the length of the
compulsory education has been growing (first it was just primary, then
primary and part of kindergarten then part of secondary,.... This meant
that people were kept from work for a longer period of time. Nowadays
(here in Argentina) the unskilled work has been filled by university
students who finish their studies in twice the time they ought to. and
once they get their degree, as they had little or no experience they
find it next to impossible to get a job
A
goozlefotz
Andrés wrote:
>
> Here's something to fuel Sam's arguments:
> Some analysts (if desperately need the reference I can give it to you)
> argue that the educational system has been designed to train students
> to become employees in a factory. They do this to instill obedience in
> them and following rules dictated by the management.
all.
I have taught a couple of remedial algebra classes. At one university,
there was a math lab available to help the kids. I got fired for
refusing to take the kids (freshmen) over to the lab. My argument was
that at some point they had to assert SOME initiative if they wanted to
succeed. It seemed to me that walking to a different building all by
themselves was not overly taxing.
Sam Carana
zinnic
From: "Andrés" <andres.grom...@gmail.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:16:46 -0000
Local: Tues,Jul 26 2005 10:16 am
Subject: Re: What is Epistemology?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Hi
Souvik ha escrito:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > Sam
> -Souvik
Zinnic says:
So Andres- we should abolish public schools and Universities? Fire all
teachers who have been polluted by their own education ('training') in
the public school system? And allow society to 'prosper ' under the
guidance of the natural-born educational, philosophical, and scientific
geniuses who believe that discipline is the antithesis of scholastic
progress and creative thinking? Welcome to Sam's world!
Sam Carana
The reason it crops up in every civilisation of the world is because it is a jungle out there and you need basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills to live in the world. Every person can't pay for it out of their pockets, so they form groups -> govts to pay for them.
> Again, if we want students to have an inquisitive mind, why then hold on to
> the dogma of public school? You have to see public school separate from
> funding. Vouchers have been successfully introduced giving families choice
> as to what school they want to send their children to. Vouchers are a step
> in the right direction, in that it questions the public school dogma.
What are these vouchers?
proposed vouchers in his article, "The Role of Government in
Education," in 1951.
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/schoolchoice/
> Another dogma is funding. Does a good education need much funding?
Most certainly it does. It needs sufficient infrastructure to promote learning. Walks in woods and meditation are not sufficient! One needs to set up laboratories to isolate physical effects to study them. One needs books, computers, good teachers. Even if I were a genuinely good teacher, I'd still be professional about it and go for higher pay.
As you say yourself, you and your friends basically had to start from scratch. In other words, you didn't need public school.
No, we definitely needed public school. It taught us skills of memory, arithmetic, etc. In time we hacked away what we figured was wrong and reinvented a lot for ourselves. But I don't think I'd come up with every single theorem in mathematics and calculus by independent thought without being told about them at some point! Public school also gave us the opportunity to interact with our own ignorance -- to identify what was inconsistent, or what we didn't understand. I do have my grudges against school which pop up when I'm in my moods, but overall I cannot undermine the whole experience.
As I said above, to become a good engineer, apprenticeship would be a better alternative than public school, especially when complemented with self-study, tutoring, online studies, etc. That may imply that the study is partly paid for by an
employer, but the point is that we need to question the dogma that a good education required funding by either government, churches or charities.
Apprenticeship is a good idea, but only after a point. And I do not belive this point is simply the 'can read, write and add' point. A metallurgist possessing a certain knowledge of geography, history and Shakespeare which he/she might have picked up grudgingly at some point is more desirable than a metallurgist who knows jack save metal.
And another dogma is that to learn, kids must sit in a classroom together with their age-peers. In fact, there is some research that indicates that kids can work much better at home, but much more ominous is the fact that there is so little research done into such questions, despite the fact that so many people get paid high salaries for supposedly doing research in education.
Can't say. I've had the best of both worlds with no major regrets.
How can people who have supposedly "learned" all about such issues get it so dramatically wrong? The reason is politics. The situation is decided by politicians who see benefits in keeping the system as it is.
And what are those benifits? What do politicians hope to gain by banning mixing education with shopping, playing and other activities and condemning kids to 12 years in school?
The sad truth is that many scientists collaborate with this, spreading political opinions like dogmas.
Give me a reference here.
Andrés
was a negative one as such. I just read something and I thought it went
along the lines of thought (?) of Sam
zinnic
(and other posters) have tried to say in multiple posts.
Moving into Sam's world:
I admit to being biased, because I am grateful for the education I
received in public schools and universities. As the first university
graduate of my 'uneducated' blue collar family, I became one of those
'contemptible' professors 'dedicated to the destruction of
independent thinking'. According to some, I was not 'educated' but
brain-washed by a government-controlled system that rendered me
incapable of independent and creative thinking.
I admit to being unable to give credit to students who consistently
claimed that their 'independent' thinking should take precedence
over my conception of reality. Apparently my closed mind (and of
'educators' like me) proves that the "men in black's"' conspiracy to
control the minds and actions of the hoi poloi (thru public
education)has been successful.
IMO, no matter how imperfect, public education is the only system that
offers those of us, who lack exceptional talent, sufficient finances or
dedicated parents , the means of advancing ourselves and making a
significant contribution to society. A huge potential contribution
remains in the untapped gene pool of those economic classes who, as
yet, do not have the 'disadvantage' of being 'brain-washed' by a
public education.
This is not to deny that the educational system needs to be improved.
Compulsory education beyond the capabilities and interests of young
people is not productive. That everyone should remain in high school
until they are 18 years old without the requirement (and ability) to
participate in "advanced' classes is ridiculous. Once minimal
requirements of education are achieved (surely there is a consensus?),
students should have the choice to enter avenues by which they can be
gainfully employed and/or trained. Many programs currently exist, and
many more can be developed, for training individuals in skills that
will enable them to prosper in mainstream society.
I am not at all concerned with the possibility that most will not
ponder the 'mysteries' of epistemology, or the the tragic significance
of 'Romeo and Juliet'. You can be sure that, lacking any education,
they will waste their time trying to reinvent the wheel!
goozlefotz
Sam Carana
IMO, no matter how imperfect, public education is the only system that offers those of us, who lack exceptional talent, sufficient finances or dedicated parents , the means of advancing ourselves and making a significant contribution to society.
zinnic
Does OPPOSITION to a demand for abolition of public schools equate
with a demand for abolition of private schools?
Oh dear! Whose logic should we use?
goozlefotz
Sam Carana
Back to epistemology.
Does OPPOSITION to a demand for abolition of public schools equate with a demand for abolition of private schools?
Oh dear! Whose logic should we use?
zinnic
function for both public and private schools in our complex education
system. You do not!
Let me state my position once and for all.
I oppose your advocacy of the TOTAL abolition of public schools and
their replacement by private schools that would operate TOTALLY
independent of any control by government legislation.
Correct me if that is NOT what you advocate! (Whilst you are at it,
explain how your voucher system would operate independently of
government administration).
Apparently, what you demand from a discussion is an unquestioning
acceptance of all your views! I have no interest in participating on
such terms.
Souvik
> Why are you denying that private schools can be a better alternative than
> public school? Vouchers allow families who cannot pay the fees to do so.
> Sam
Isn't it obvious that education cannot and should not be privatised
because:
1. Corporations (citizens directly or whatever private party is funding
this) will invariably inject bias into their teachings and shut out
secular viewpoints. Corporate advertising in education is abhorrent
enough -- let alone THROUGH education.
2. It encourages eliticism in society at the very basic level: The
richer folk will get to send their wards to better schools with more
competent teachers and they in turn will get richer and richer with
better jobs and opportunities. It also shuts out play and discussion
between kids of rich people and poor people, thereby imbalancing
society at a very fundamental level.
Privatised education implies setting up a potential aristocracy. This
is something Communist / Socialist leaders recognised long back, and if
you go to Communist states in the world, you will see how reluctant
people are to even 'sell education' (or even books that can be bought
by only rich folk). Basic education, if anything should be universally
accessible and secular. Such a thing can only be done by the government
which usually have a minimum of vested interests compared to
corporations.
-Souvik
Sam Carana
On 8/1/05, zinnic < zeen...@gate.net> wrote:
Sam you are an extremist! I do believe that their is a valuable
function for both public and private schools in our complex education system. You do not!
On 7/29/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:
IMO, no matter how imperfect, public education is the only system that offers those of us, who lack exceptional talent, sufficient finances or dedicated parents , the means of advancing ourselves and making a significant contribution to society.
Let me state my position once and for all. I oppose your advocacy of the TOTAL abolition of public schools and
their replacement by private schools that would operate TOTALLY independent of any control by government legislation. Correct me if that is NOT what you advocate! (Whilst you are at it, explain how your voucher system would operate independently of government administration).
Apparently, what you demand from a discussion is an unquestioning acceptance of all your views! I have no interest in participating on such terms.
Sam Carana
Sam Carana wrote:
Why are you denying that private schools can be a better alternative than public school? Vouchers allow families who cannot pay the fees to do so.
Sam
Isn't it obvious that education cannot and should not be privatised because:
1. Corporations (citizens directly or whatever private party is funding this) will invariably inject bias into their teachings and shut out secular viewpoints. Corporate advertising in education is abhorrent enough -- let alone THROUGH education.
2. It encourages eliticism in society at the very basic level: The richer folk will get to send their wards to better schools with more competent teachers and they in turn will get richer and richer with better jobs and opportunities. It also shuts out play and discussion between kids of rich people and poor people, thereby imbalancing society at a very fundamental level.
Privatised education implies setting up a potential aristocracy. This is something Communist / Socialist leaders recognised long back, and if you go to Communist states in the world, you will see how reluctant people are to even 'sell education' (or even books that can be bought by only rich folk). Basic education, if anything should be universally
accessible and secular. Such a thing can only be done by the government which usually have a minimum of vested interests compared to corporations.
-Souvik
Sam
zinnic
From: Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:26:42 +1000
> On 8/1/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
> Sam you are an extremist! I do believe that their is a valuable
> function for both public and private schools in our complex education
> system. You do not!
If you are calling me an extremist for suggesting that vouchers
constitute
a good step in the right direction, ......
There you go again! I call you an extremist because you advocate the
total abolition of public schools. Whether you admit or not, that is an
extreme position!
> On 7/29/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
> IMO, no matter how imperfect, public education is the only system that
> offers those of us, who lack exceptional talent, sufficient finances or
> dedicated parents , the means of advancing ourselves and making a
> significant contribution to society.
I say this because
zinnic
From: Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:26:42 +1000
> On 8/1/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
> Sam you are an extremist! I do believe that their is a valuable
> function for both public and private schools in our complex education
> system. You do not!
If you are calling me an extremist for suggesting that vouchers
constitute
a good step in the right direction, ......
Zinnic:
There you squirm again! I call you an extremist because you advocate
the TOTAL abolition of public schools and removal of ALL governmental
control of education. IMO, that is an extreme position!
> On 7/29/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
> IMO, no matter how imperfect, public education is the only system that
> offers those of us, who lack exceptional talent, sufficient finances or
> dedicated parents , the means of advancing ourselves and making a
> significant contribution to society.
Zinnic:
Oops! The computer sent the incomplete reply! To continue----
I have copied the above text to refresh your memory, zinnic, since they
which were the basis of my response that same day. Now who takes the
extremist position? I'm not calling you an extremist, zinnic, but
explain
the word ONLY to me. Why do you think it was impossible for families
who
lack sufficient finance and thus receive vouchers, to send their
ordinarily-talented children to a private school or have their children
tutored?
Zinnic:
Successful private schools, driven by competition for profits, will
"cherry pick" the students most likely to succeed. Seriously
disadvantaged students will be picked over by 'for profit'
organizations generated solely to feed at the voucher trough. Many
students will be of no interest to these organizations and the ONLY
educational resource left to them would be government-funded public
schools! Does that answer your question?
I have no objection to experimenting with voucher systems for both
public and private schools, but IMO it can only (there is that word
again) operate under some control by our democratic government!
>Let me state my position once and for all. I oppose your advocacy of the
> TOTAL abolition of public schools and
> their replacement by private schools that would operate TOTALLY
> independent of any control by government legislation. Correct me if that is
> NOT what you advocate!
I have clarified my views many times, but I'll be happy to do so again.
I
advocate gradual change in society by implementing policies that better
reflect our rights. I advocate such policies to be implemented as a
package
of reform for all sectors of society, noting the urgency of reform in
security services.
Science is of particular interest in this group for a number of
reasons,
including the following:
1. The profile of science in the current education system;
2. The role of scientists in the military-industrial complex;
3. The profile of scientists as witnesses in the judicial system;
4. The influence of science on politics; and
5. The philosophy behind the scientifc method.
Zinnic:
This is not a clarification! It is a catalogue of your discontents! I
agree that policies need to be gradually improved to better reflect
our 'rights'. As to what those rights are, and how they are to be
implemented, are practical political questions and are only remotedly
founded on epistemological 'truths'.
> Apparently, what you demand from a discussion is an unquestioning
> acceptance of all your views! I have no interest in participating on such
> terms.
Always interesting to discuss terms of discussion. Once more, are you
calling me an extremist for advocating policies that have been
implemented
in full compliance with the democratic process?
Zinnic:
Your policy of TOTAL abolition of public schools and of government
control of education has not been implemented, and never will be so
long as we retain a democratic process.
Is such name-calling part of your terms? Do you demand from me an
unquestioning acceptance of your name-calling, even if the respective
label would actually better apply to
yourself? Let me know what terms you prefer to abide by, specifically
whether you like to include name-calling! And while you're at it,
zinnic,
also explain to me whether NOT answering my request for explanation of
the
curious use of the word "only" is also part of your terms.
Sam
Zinnic:
Sam, you are such a baby (Ooh...name calling again). Do you remember
calling me a 'socialist'?
On the night you did that, I cried myself to sleep. Even now, in
remembering, tears well to my eyes and cloud the keyboard :( :( :(
:( :(........(Sorry! I must compose myself)
To continue: my views on the educational system are moderately
political. Yours (IMO) are extremely political.
See my answer above, re my use of "only". However YOU seem to have
forgotten to explain how your voucher system would operate
independently of government administration.
Have I (and others) somehow missed your response?
Hey! humor me! Please explain..
Souvik
> Children at public school daily have to make the Pledge of Allegiance
> containing the words "under God".
I think that's an American thing. Also, it isn't the same as blatant
advertising through brainwashing children which is very possible in a
privatised system of education.
Can you imagine affiliating your education to Coke / Pepsi / HP / Dell?
Can you imagine little children saying "I come from a Coke school and
Pepsi sucks! Coke has the best yummies in it ever -- and they showed us
all the goodies that go into it today."
Already corporations like Walmart that are influential enough to exert
non-secular idealogies do so. For example: You cannot get abortion
pills in most Walmart stores. (A very Judeo-Christian atitude that the
owner of Walmart entertains.) Can you imagine what harm would become of
such idealogies if they were impressed into young minds by corporate
owners?
[The ideologies of nations is another matter, because the domain is
much larger. What you are proposing would lead to local pockets of
strife among impressed ideologues who grew up in Coke schools or Pepsi
schools.]
> Richer folks can send their children to better schools right now. This will
> happen in any mixed system of public and private schools. Even if all
> private schools were prohibited and only public school would be allowed,
> rich families would move to richer areas where their kids would mix
> predominantly with rich kids.
This too is largely an American thing. The problem is there are no
tough nationally standardised examinations that level the playing
field.
Where I grew up, richer schools did not necessarily mean better schools
-- that was determined by the performance of the school's students at
standardised national examinations. Of course, you'd say, then these
'better' schools would raise their fees -- but they CANNOT due to
government restrictions! That way everyone, the rich and poor get the
same headstart to life.
Then what is the incentive for schools to be good? Number of students.
The better a school, the higher volume of students it will have and
consequently higher its earnings (without even touching the fees
sector).
The government needs initiative and foresight into education that the
US govt obviously lacks. It spends trillions of dollars poking its nose
into the oil wells of the Middle East, ousting Saddam, training
soldiers for North Korea etc, but when it comes to education it won't
spend a fraction of the money on teachers and resources. So how can you
expect a plentiful harvest if you're not going to invest the money,
thought and care required behind it?
The fact that this apathetic education system is now driving citizens
to consider privatizing education is shocking enough. No tax-paying
citizen of a democracy should ever have to consider that.
> Explain this, because it doesn't seem to make sense. Vouchers appear to
> establish the exact opposite of the "inequality" that you seem to fear, i.e.
> vouchers bring better schools within reach of those who currently cannot
> afford it. Furthermore, homeschoolers are the living proof that education
> can be successfully given without government involvement.
I am new to what vouchers are. Can you explain that out to me?
Homeschooling is possible in a country without much competition and
insecurity -- that is America. With the rate of job outsourcing to well
educated but cheaper countries, I am not sure how long this
homeschooling paradigm will last.
-Souvik
Sam Carana
Sam Carana wrote:
Children at public school daily have to make the Pledge of Allegiance containing the words "under God".
I think that's an American thing. Also, it isn't the same as blatant advertising through brainwashing children which is very possible in a privatised system of education.
Can you imagine affiliating your education to Coke / Pepsi / HP / Dell? Can you imagine little children saying "I come from a Coke school and Pepsi sucks! Coke has the best yummies in it ever -- and they showed us all the goodies that go into it today."
Already corporations like Walmart that are influential enough to exert non-secular idealogies do so. For example: You cannot get abortion pills in most Walmart stores. (A very Judeo-Christian atitude that the owner of Walmart entertains.) Can you imagine what harm would become of such idealogies if they were impressed into young minds by corporate owners?
[The ideologies of nations is another matter, because the domain is much larger. What you are proposing would lead to local pockets of strife among impressed ideologues who grew up in Coke schools or Pepsi schools.]
Richer folks can send their children to better schools right now. This will happen in any mixed system of public and private schools. Even if all private schools were prohibited and only public school would be allowed, rich families would move to richer areas where their kids would mix predominantly with rich kids.
This too is largely an American thing. The problem is there are no tough nationally standardised examinations that level the playing field.
Where I grew up, richer schools did not necessarily mean better schools -- that was determined by the performance of the school's students at standardised national examinations. Of course, you'd say, then these 'better' schools would raise their fees -- but they CANNOT due to government restrictions! That way everyone, the rich and poor get the same headstart to life.
Then what is the incentive for schools to be good? Number of students. The better a school, the higher volume of students it will have and consequently higher its earnings (without even touching the fees sector).
The government needs initiative and foresight into education that the US govt obviously lacks. It spends trillions of dollars poking its nose into the oil wells of the Middle East, ousting Saddam, training soldiers for North Korea etc, but when it comes to education it won't spend a fraction of the money on teachers and resources. So how can you expect a plentiful harvest if you're not going to invest the money, thought and care required behind it?
The fact that this apathetic education system is now driving citizens to consider privatizing education is shocking enough. No tax-paying citizen of a democracy should ever have to consider that.
Explain this, because it doesn't seem to make sense. Vouchers appear to establish the exact opposite of the "inequality" that you seem to fear, i.e. vouchers bring better schools within reach of those who currently cannot afford it. Furthermore, homeschoolers are the living proof that education can be successfully given without government involvement.
I am new to what vouchers are. Can you explain that out to me?
Homeschooling is possible in a country without much competition and insecurity -- that is America. With the rate of job outsourcing to well educated but cheaper countries, I am not sure how long this homeschooling paradigm will last.
Sam Carana
61. Sam Carana Jul 31, 9:26 pm show options
From: Sam Carana < sam.car...@gmail.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:26:42 +1000
> On 8/1/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
> Sam you are an extremist! I do believe that their is a valuable
> function for both public and private schools in our complex education
> system. You do not!
If you are calling me an extremist for suggesting that vouchers
constitute a good step in the right direction, ......
Zinnic:
There you squirm again! I call you an extremist because you advocate the TOTAL abolition of public schools and removal of ALL governmental control of education. IMO, that is an extreme position!
On 7/29/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
IMO, no matter how imperfect, public education is the only system that offers those of us, who lack exceptional talent, sufficient finances or dedicated parents , the means of advancing ourselves and making a significant contribution to society.
I have copied the above text to refresh your memory, zinnic, since they were the basis of my response that same day. Now who takes the extremist position? I'm not calling you an extremist, zinnic, but explain the word ONLY to me. Why do you think it was impossible for families who lack sufficient finance and thus receive vouchers, to send their ordinarily-talented children to a private school or have their children tutored?
Zinnic:
Successful private schools, driven by competition for profits, will "cherry pick" the students most likely to succeed. Seriously disadvantaged students will be picked over by 'for profit' organizations generated solely to feed at the voucher trough. Many students will be of no interest to these organizations and the ONLY educational resource left to them would be government-funded public schools! Does that answer your question?
I have no objection to experimenting with voucher systems for both public and private schools, but IMO it can only (there is that word again) operate under some control by our democratic government!
<skip>
Zinnic:
I agree that policies need to be gradually improved to better reflect our 'rights'. As to what those rights are, and how they are to be implemented, are practical political questions and are only remotedly founded on epistemological 'truths'.
Always interesting to discuss terms of discussion. Once more, are you calling me an extremist for advocating policies that have been implemented in full compliance with the democratic process?
Zinnic:
Your policy of TOTAL abolition of public schools and of government control of education has not been implemented, and never will be so long as we retain a democratic process.
Is such name-calling part of your terms? Do you demand from me an unquestioning acceptance of your name-calling, even if the respective label would actually better apply to yourself? Let me know what terms you prefer to abide by, specifically whether you like to include name-calling! And while you're at it,
zinnic, also explain to me whether NOT answering my request for explanation of the curious use of the word "only" is also part of your terms.
Sam
Zinnic:
Sam, you are such a baby (Ooh...name calling again). Do you remember calling me a 'socialist'?
To continue: my views on the educational system are moderately political. Yours (IMO) are extremely political.
See my answer above, re my use of "only".
However YOU seem to have forgotten to explain how your voucher system would operate independently of government administration. Have I (and others) somehow missed your response? Hey! humor me! Please explain..
zinnic
From: Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 20:18:17 +1000
.
On 8/2/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
> 61. Sam Carana Jul 31, 9:26 pm show options
> From: Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com> - Find messages by this author
> Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:26:42 +1000
> > On 8/1/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
> > Sam you are an extremist! I do believe that their is a valuable
> > function for both public and private schools in our complex education
> > system. You do not!
> If you are calling me an extremist for suggesting that vouchers
> constitute a good step in the right direction, ......
> Zinnic:
> There you squirm again! I call you an extremist because you advocate the
> TOTAL abolition of public schools and removal of ALL governmental control of
> education. IMO, that is an extreme position!
It seems that you have little grasp of what I do advocate and instead
seek to misrepresent what I say. Perhaps that is why you prefer to
resort to name-calling, rather than to discuss the issues. As said, I
advocate gradual change in education by implementing policies that:
- improve aspects like quality, value for money, etc;
- better reflecting our rights; and
- are implemented as part of a wider reform package.
Zinnic:
Which involves the ultimate TOTAL abolition of Public schools and of
All government control? Yes or no? If yes...then I have not
misrepresented you! If no... then you have drastically changed your
extreme position. You cannot have it both ways!!
.
Zinnic:
So was I. You make exactly MY point.. You admit to the less extreme
position of favoring the retention of SOME government control but then
have the unmitigated gall to state "However, zinnic seems to disagree
with that, when saying: 'public education is the ONLY system that
offers those of us, who lack exceptional talent, sufficient finances or
dedicated parents , the means of advancing ourselves and making a
significant contribution to society.' "
You know very well that the public education system includes a wide
variety of facilities financed by public funds. I have no argument
against extending this funding, via vouchers or otherwise, in special
cases (decided in a democratic process). I suspect you believe all
individuals are 'special cases' . (Do not take this out of context by
expounding on how all individuals are special).
> Zinnic:
> I agree that policies need to be gradually improved to better reflect >our 'rights'. As to what those rights are, and how they are to be implemented, are practical political questions and are only remotedly >founded on epistemological 'truths'.
Are you suggesting that politicians decide what our rights were?
Zinnic:
No! I vote for individuals running for office (politicians) who I
believe will best uphold and balance the rights of the individual and
of the community at large. Who do you vote for? Non-politicians who do
not run for office?
>>Always interesting to discuss terms of discussion. Once more, are
you
> > calling me an extremist for advocating policies that have been implemented
> > in full compliance with the democratic process?
> Zinnic:
> Your policy of TOTAL abolition of public schools and of government control
> of education has not been implemented, and never will be so long as we
> retain a democratic process.
You seem to confuse policy and outcome. I suggest that you stop the
name-calling and instead try to get a better understanding of things.
Zinnic:
Let us start with you providing at least one line of text that leads to
"a better understanding of things" Oops! Does that hurt your feelings?.
> Zinnic:
> Sam, you are such a baby (Ooh...name calling again). Do you remember
> calling me a 'socialist'?
I didn't mean that as an offence and I merely asked. I still think you
are a socialist, but if you do seem to reject decisions taken in full
compliance with our democratic system, then the label does indeed not
apply. So, what is your political background?
Zinnic:
To the left of yours. But how could anyone not be! (Gee! was that name
calling?)
To continue: my views on the educational system are moderately
political.
> Yours (IMO) are extremely political.
I disagree. I advocate that vouchers be introduced (as they are) in a
democratic way.
You seem to take the extreme position that vouchers should
be abolished, even where they have been introduced democratically.
Zinnic:
The last sentence is either an outright lie, or an inane mistake. In
either case you owe me a retraction and an apology!!
I still don't understand it. If you say that public school is the only
system for some students, then where should such students go, if there
is no public school close to where they live? Should they be bussed for
hundreds of miles daily to the nearest public school, even if the cost
of that would twice pay for the school fees of a nearby private school?
Zinnic:
Of course not. This is an example of a special case in which the
government must ensure that students receive an education at public
expense in the private school (voucher) or, if no private school is
nearby, provision of a suitably qualified tutor/correspondence course.
The public education system already provides this facility for children
located in remote areas!
Private enterprise would not provide these facilities unless there was
payment either by parents or government organizations. Some services
are provided by charitable organizations, but I do not believe that any
child's education should depend on charity. Do you?
>However YOU seem to have forgotten to explain how your voucher system would operate independently of government administration. Have I (and >others) somehow missed your response? Hey! humor me! Please explain..
It's not my voucher system, but thanks for the credit. It works well,
thank you, but it typically is controlled narrowly by government
administrators, who will allow vouchers to be spent on school fees, but
not on other educational alternatives, such as homeschooling,
apprenticeships, tutoring, online courses and self-study. So, vouchers
are clearly not the end of the road and we have a long way to go in
removing government from education. But vouchers are a good step in the
right direction, as they challenge the paralysis of public school,
which is not an extremist position at all!
Sam
Zinnic:
Sam says:
"So, vouchers are clearly not the end of the
road and we have a long way to go in removing government from
education."
Exactly! And that is your extreme position ! Admit it!
And when "we" succeed "in removing government from education" will it
be 'governed' by the people? What people? Silly me...Sam's people of
course!
goozlefotz
Sam Carana
Sam: As said, I advocate gradual change in education by implementing policies that:
- improve aspects like quality, value for money, etc;
- better reflecting our rights; and
- are implemented as part of a wider reform package.
Zinnic:
Which involves the ultimate TOTAL abolition of Public schools and of All government control? Yes or no? If yes...then I have not misrepresented you! If no... then you have drastically changed your extreme position. You cannot have it both ways!!
I was talking about vouchers issued by government, which will by definition operate under some control of our democratic government. Our democratic government has, in its wisdom, chosen to introduce vouchers at many places.
Zinnic:
So was I. You make exactly MY point.. You admit to the less extreme position of favoring the retention of SOME government control...
...but then have the unmitigated gall to state "However, zinnic seems to disagree with that, when saying: 'public education is the ONLY system that offers those of us, who lack exceptional talent, sufficient finances or dedicated parents, the means of advancing ourselves and making a
significant contribution to society.' ...
You know very well that the public education system includes a wide variety of facilities financed by public funds. I have no argument against extending this funding, via vouchers or otherwise, in special cases (decided in a democratic process). I suspect you believe all individuals are 'special cases' . (Do not take this out of context by
expounding on how all individuals are special).
Zinnic:
I agree that policies need to be gradually improved to better reflect our 'rights'. As to what those rights are, and how they are to be implemented, are practical political questions and are only remotedly founded on epistemological 'truths'.
Are you suggesting that politicians decide what our rights were?
Zinnic:
No! I vote for individuals running for office (politicians) who I
believe will best uphold and balance the rights of the individual and of the community at large. Who do you vote for? Non-politicians who do not run for office?
Always interesting to discuss terms of discussion. Once more, are you calling me an extremist for advocating policies that have been implemented in full compliance with the democratic process?
Zinnic:
Your policy of TOTAL abolition of public schools and of government control of education has not been implemented, and never will be so long as we retain a democratic process.
You seem to confuse policy and outcome. I suggest that you stop the name-calling and instead try to get a better understanding of things.
Zinnic:
Let us start with you providing at least one line of text that leads to "a better understanding of things" Oops! Does that hurt your feelings?.
Yours (IMO) are extremely political.I disagree. I advocate that vouchers be introduced (as they are) in a democratic way. You seem to take the extreme position that vouchers should be abolished, even where they have been introduced democratically.Zinnic:
The last sentence is either an outright lie, or an inane mistake. In either case you owe me a retraction and an apology!!
I still don't understand it. If you say that public school is the only system for some students, then where should such students go, if there is no public school close to where they live? Should they be bussed for hundreds of miles daily to the nearest public school, even if the cost of that would twice pay for the school fees of a nearby private school?
Zinnic:
Of course not. This is an example of a special case in which the government must ensure that students receive an education at public expense in the private school (voucher) or, if no private school is nearby, provision of a suitably qualified tutor/correspondence course. The public education system already provides this facility for children located in remote areas! ...
..Private enterprise would not provide these facilities unless there was payment either by parents or government organizations. Some services are provided by charitable organizations, but I do not believe that any child's education should depend on charity. Do you?
However YOU seem to have forgotten to explain how your voucher system would operate independently of government administration. Have I (and others) somehow missed your response? Hey! humor me! Please explain..It's not my voucher system, but thanks for the credit. It works well, thank you, but it typically is controlled narrowly by government administrators, who will allow vouchers to be spent on school fees, but not on other educational alternatives, such as homeschooling, apprenticeships, tutoring, online courses and self-study. So, vouchers are clearly not the end of the road and we have a long way to go in removing government from education. But vouchers are a good step in the right direction, as they challenge the paralysis of public school, which is not an extremist position at all!
Zinnic:
Sam says:
"So, vouchers are clearly not the end of the road and we have a long way to go in removing government from education."
Exactly! And that is your extreme position! Admit it! And when "we" succeed "in removing government from education" will it be 'governed' by the people? What people? Silly me...Sam's people of course!
Souvik
> On 8/2/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sam Carana wrote:
> > > Children at public school daily have to make the Pledge of Allegiance
> > > containing the words "under God".
> >
> > I think that's an American thing. Also, it isn't the same as blatant
> > advertising through brainwashing children which is very possible in a
> > privatised system of education.
>
> It's an example of (supposedly) secular public schools indoctrinating
> children with the values associated with one specific religion. It shows
> that public school is no guarantee that indoctrination does not occur. Many
> private schools will have a specific religious background, but at least they
> are upfront with that and they do not force families with opposite values to
> send their children to their school.
Pledging allegience to 'God' is very general and common to most
religions (except Zoroasterism). What I am concerned about is making
children pledge allegience to very specific biases. You miss the point
that *advertising* corporations through *basic education* is a
dangerous possibility.
[By basic education I mean learning to read, write, add -- also the
time the deepest conceptions about the world begin to take root in a
child's mind.]
> Not only can I imagine it, it does already exist. McDonalds does run
> successful educational institutes in restaurant management. However, the
> point I made above is that private schools will target a specific area where
> they have special expertise. They will be upfront about this, without
> forcing families with other interests to attend their lectures.
What you are talking about is vocational education / education specific
to a trade. I think it is perfectly fine to allow corporations who have
the know-how to set up such trade-related educational institutes. And
yes, your idea of competition selecting out the best trade schools does
sound good here.
What I cannot endorse is handing over *basic education* to
corporations.
I hope we agree on this.
> Do nationally standardised examinations level the playing field? Don't they
> tilt the playing field in favor of those who design the tests?
The tests are designed by a mixture of scientists and teachers who are
indirectly elected by the people. It's like a national peer review
thing in effect. The ones who design the tests are not taking the tests
-- therefore there is no such thing as 'in favor of those who design
the tests.'
> Doesm't it
> take policy to change things, rather tests? Does anyone need such tests?
Yes, we need tests to make sure engineers coming out of schools don't
build bridges that collapse the next day. We need to chafe out the
grain from the husk. The policies and requirements are understandably
shaped by people and parts of the govt who work in that field.
What's your alternative to testing? Suppose you are an chief-engineer
who needs to assemble a group to design a road -- are you going to just
pick people at random from the schools / road? Applying any criterion
is synonymous to testing.
> They're not even good in measuring what they claim to be measuring.
That means the tests you are referring to are not good enough. In my
experience they work fine at a statistical level.
> What do
> you mean with the playing field? Are you suggesting there was >competition in
> education and that the playing field was tilted? Surely, public school does
> indeed spoil the low end of the market, but explain what you mean here
> before I start going into that.
The playing field is tilted initially from the fact that the rich kids
get to go to more expensive schools with better infrastructure and
facilities and the poor kids don't get quite the same.
[ I don't see how competition in education would mean 'the playing
field is tilted' unless we are used to widely different metaphors.
'Tilting the playing field' means introducing a bias external to fair
competition.]
> Why not let families decide what education they want for their children?
Because families are mostly stupid people bent on impressing their line
of work and paradigms on their children. I'm not saying teachers are
smarter, but at least in a public school, children get the widest
exposure to choose from out of their own will and tendencies.
> Indeed, why not let private schools set their own fees?
Because that would *accentuate* inequality in education.
> The fact that this apathetic education system is now driving citizens to
> > consider privatizing education is shocking enough. No tax-paying citizen of
> > a democracy should ever have to consider that.
>
> So, what do you suggest? I'd say let's improve things. What about you?
Yeah, but I'm afraid the improvement lies in electing better leaders
who don't compromise education for war and personal profits!
> > Homeschooling is possible in a country without much competition and
> > insecurity -- that is America. With the rate of job outsourcing to well
> > educated but cheaper countries, I am not sure how long this homeschooling
> > paradigm will last.
> >
> Homeschooling is possible anywhere, although not all families will embrace
> it.
Obviously you're foreign to financial insecurity and squalor in third
world countries. Homeschooling is risky business because at the end of
twelve years, you may discover that your child doesn't possess enough
technical knowledge to pursue whatever he wants to or has had enough
*exposure* to deal with trade or academia. Homeschooling in technical
matters and the physical sciences need large investments of money and
infrastructure. If the homeschooling isn't upto the mark, the child
doesn't have much of a graduation record to get a reasonable job with.
In a third world country, she'd be out on her knees in the streets.
Going with the flow affords the security homeschooling lacks.
Things are different in the USA because even if you're a homeschooling
disaster, you can still get a job waiting at McDonalds or something and
then try school and get a skilled job maybe. Such maybes don't exist in
many countries.
[ A girl I stayed with over the summer in the US claimed to be
homeschooled for 10 years and specialised in mathematics. She's 22 now
and to be honest, her skill in mathematics is comparable to a 16-17
year old. She's applying for jobs as a mathematics teacher now. ]
> I don't see what outsourcing has to do with this, can you explain?
> Sam
With jobs getting scarce in the US thanks to outsourcing and it's
citizens getting progressively insecure about jobs, the homeschooling
paradigm might lose its adherents. Homeschoolers are largely alien to
competition, at least cut-throat competition at every stage. Which is
what is coming into this country with globalisation -- fiercely
competitive, highly trained professionals taking over jobs from other
(often third world) countries.
Sam Carana
Pledging allegience to 'God' is very general and common to most religions (except Zoroasterism).
What I am concerned about is making children pledge allegience to very specific biases.
You miss the point that *advertising* corporations through *basic education* is a dangerous possibility.
[By basic education I mean learning to read, write, add -- also the time the deepest conceptions about the world begin to take root in a child's mind.]
Not only can I imagine it, it does already exist. McDonalds does run successful educational institutes in restaurant management. However, the point I made above is that private schools will target a specific area where they have special expertise. They will be upfront about this, without forcing families with other interests to attend their lectures.
What you are talking about is vocational education / education specific to a trade. I think it is perfectly fine to allow corporations who have the know-how to set up such trade-related educational institutes. And yes, your idea of competition selecting out the best trade schools does sound good here.
What I cannot endorse is handing over *basic education* to
corporations. I hope we agree on this.
Do nationally standardised examinations level the playing field? Don't they tilt the playing field in favor of those who design the tests?
The tests are designed by a mixture of scientists and teachers who are indirectly elected by the people. It's like a national peer review thing in effect. The ones who design the tests are not taking the tests -- therefore there is no such thing as 'in favor of those who design the tests.'
Doesm't it take policy to change things, rather tests? Does anyone need such tests?
Yes, we need tests to make sure engineers coming out of schools don't build bridges that collapse the next day. We need to chafe out the grain from the husk. The policies and requirements are understandably shaped by people and parts of the govt who work in that field.
What's your alternative to testing? Suppose you are an chief-engineer who needs to assemble a group to design a road -- are you going to just pick people at random from the schools / road? Applying any criterion is synonymous to testing.
They're not even good in measuring what they claim to be measuring.
That means the tests you are referring to are not good enough. In my experience they work fine at a statistical level.
What do you mean with the playing field? Are you suggesting there was competition in education and that the playing field was tilted? Surely, public school does indeed spoil the low end of the market, but explain what you mean here before I start going into that.
The playing field is tilted initially from the fact that the rich kids
get to go to more expensive schools with better infrastructure and facilities and the poor kids don't get quite the same.
[ I don't see how competition in education would mean 'the playing field is tilted' unless we are used to widely different metaphors. 'Tilting the playing field' means introducing a bias external to fair competition.]
Why not let families decide what education they want for their children?Because families are mostly stupid people bent on impressing their line of work and paradigms on their children. I'm not saying teachers are smarter, but at least in a public school, children get the widest exposure to choose from out of their own will and tendencies.
Indeed, why not let private schools set their own fees?
Because that would *accentuate* inequality in education.
The fact that this apathetic education system is now driving citizens to consider privatizing education is shocking enough. No tax-paying citizen of a democracy should ever have to consider that.
So, what do you suggest? I'd say let's improve things. What about you?
Yeah, but I'm afraid the improvement lies in electing better leaders who don't compromise education for war and personal profits!
Obviously you're foreign to financial insecurity and squalor in third world countries. Homeschooling is risky business because at the end of twelve years, you may discover that your child doesn't possess enough technical knowledge to pursue whatever he wants to or has had enough *exposure* to deal with trade or academia. Homeschooling in technical
matters and the physical sciences need large investments of money and infrastructure. If the homeschooling isn't upto the mark, the child doesn't have much of a graduation record to get a reasonable job with. In a third world country, she'd be out on her knees in the streets. Going with the flow affords the security homeschooling lacks.
Things are different in the USA because even if you're a homeschooling disaster, you can still get a job waiting at McDonalds or something and then try school and get a skilled job maybe. Such maybes don't exist in many countries.
[ A girl I stayed with over the summer in the US claimed to be
homeschooled for 10 years and specialised in mathematics. She's 22 now and to be honest, her skill in mathematics is comparable to a 16-17 year old. She's applying for jobs as a mathematics teacher now. ]
I don't see what outsourcing has to do with this, can you explain?
Sam
With jobs getting scarce in the US thanks to outsourcing and it's citizens getting progressively insecure about jobs, the homeschooling paradigm might lose its adherents. Homeschoolers are largely alien to competition, at least cut-throat competition at every stage. Which is what is coming into this country with globalisation -- fiercely competitive, highly trained professionals taking over jobs from other (often third world) countries.
Souvik
Sam Carana wrote:
> On 8/4/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is not general to believe in monotheism. Most people's beliefs and
> convictions are not monotheist. Add up the people in India, Japan, the two
> Chinas and the two Koreas and you've got a large majority of the world's
> population.
You're missing the point: Monotheism or Polytheism or whatever when
preached consistently and with moderation is not anywhere as dangerous
as corporate advertisement through basic education. Monotheism is a
relatively harmless doctrine compared to corporate advertisement
channeled into populace during the formative years.
Also, if a religion is taught consistently over a large populace, it
brings about a uniformity and hence less strife. Corporations if they
begin to incorporate dogmas at early ages will incite local strife.
> You miss the point that *advertising* corporations through *basic
> > education* is a dangerous possibility.
>
> Your remarks are an insult to private enterprise. What makes you think that
> private schools were dangerous?
I just told you. It seems you are unable to wrap your mind around the
danger of corporate advertisement through impressing young minds in
their early years.
> [By basic education I mean learning to read, write, add -- also the time
> > the deepest conceptions about the world begin to take root in a child's
> > mind.]
>
> What you're saying seems to be basically nonsense...
And what you're saying to me seems to be the very sloppy thinking of a
possibly academically challenged individual. You're not following your
arguments through keeping all possibilities open, simply haven't enough
experience with how things have been where people have tried
privatising education, are simply not logical enough to answer
questions directly when asked, and probably not travelled enough
(outside the US) to see where things get.
I don't think any educator will dispute the fact that a child's deepest
conceptions of the world embed themselves in his earliest years.
> > What I cannot endorse is handing over *basic education* to
> > corporations. I hope we agree on this.
>
> What is basic? McDonald's calls their institute a University and I'm sure
> they do use scientific research methods. Are you saying that private schools
> cannot teach the "basics"?
Can you read and comprehend English at least? That is your gift from
basic education which I fear now wasn't appropriately delivered. To
repeat myself, basic constitutes -- reading, writing, elementary
arithmetic, basic attitudes of fearlessness, compassion etc that need
to be taught to students before the age of 6 and as widely acknowledged
by educators should be universally accessible. Here is Article 26 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at
least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education
shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made
generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to
all on the basis of merit.
I'm just saying that private corporations taking over elementary
education would be as dangerous an affair as corporations taking over
the national army, or administrating social security or other national
concerns for reasons of brainwashed advertisement in formative years
mentioned so many times.
> For starters, standardised national test advocate a belief in nationalism
> and in standardisation. Furthermore, much depends on what political party is
> in control, showing further political bias that is inevitably contained in
> such tests.
Very sloppy extrapolation again. And I'm pretty sure now that you've
had NO experience with travelling to check out the education systems
around the world inspite of your passion for it. Political bias has
little to do with these tests because professionals (like civil
engineers and teachers of civil engineering) set these tests. Politics
can do little to taint technical education -- a bridge will stand or
fall depending solely on the physics understanding of the engineers who
built it. Therefore, professionals who set such standards can inject
little political motives to these examinations.
> > Yes, we need tests to make sure engineers coming out of schools don't
> > build bridges that collapse the next day. We need to chafe out the grain
> > from the husk. The policies and requirements are understandably shaped by
> > people and parts of the govt who work in that field.
>
> Don't we prefer educated engineers over tested engineers? Also, many kids
> leave school virtually uneducated, functionally illiterate and lacking any
> numeracy skills, socially irresponsible and unemployable. It can take an
> employer years to reprogram such kids after the damaging influence of public
> school has been deeply entrenched in their attitude. The last thing public
> school delivers is good engineers. I would prefer to ganble on a kid who has
> been an apprentice and who has done a lot of self-study. That may well mean
> that I have to do my own testing, but I would rather do that than rely on
> your politically biased tests that allow any fool to complete school anyway.
We'd prefer well educated and well tested engineers. A self-educated
engineer might well be a complete idiot on the field without knowing
all the conventions and peripheral knowledge that come with organised
education.
I think you're mixing up between the different strata of education.
Public schools do not deliver engineers. That is the job of
universities with undergraduate / graduate education facilities or
technical institutes.
> What's your alternative to testing? Suppose you are an chief-engineer who
> > needs to assemble a group to design a road -- are you going to just pick
> > people at random from the schools / road? Applying any criterion is
> > synonymous to testing.
>
> Another alternative is to let schools and other educational institutes
> handle things themselves. This makes the name and reputation of the
> respective institute the key to how to assess their certificates and
> degrees. The institutes may decide to let independent parties check things
> out, to imrpove their standing. It's basically up to private enterprise to
> work such things out. If politicians are going to do it, you'll end up with
> political bias.
That is the policy of recommendations. As any grad school will tell you
it is a commendable idea to include that in addition to testing.
However, before grad school, there isn't much to recommend people on.
> They're not even good in measuring what they claim to be measuring.
> > >
> >
> > That means the tests you are referring to are not good enough. In my
> > experience they work fine at a statistical level.
>
> They're biased and they're not very indicative either.
Give me an example. With references to real happenings. Preferrably
stick to technical examinations, (because cultural education and all
that is pretty dopey stuff and don't matter enough to society to be
paid much by it). And don't give me examples from your life with
personal opinions regarding the bias in them. Report one objectively.
> So, you're now saying that vouchers are a good idea, as they will allow
> poor kids to attend those more expensive schools with better infrastructure
> and facilities that the poor kids otherwise don't quite get?
Possibly.
> > Why not let families decide what education they want for their children?
> >
> > Because families are mostly stupid people bent on impressing their line
> > of work and paradigms on their children. I'm not saying teachers are
> > smarter, but at least in a public school, children get the widest exposure
> > to choose from out of their own will and tendencies.
> >
> So, you wouldn't let people decide what kind of education their children
> get, even if the respective parents have more education than the
> schoolteachers? What kind of politics is this?
Exposure was the keyword. Even if I were smarter and academically
superior to the teachers of a public school within limits, I would
still send my children to the public school for the exposure to the
world with all its foibles.
Unless of course the teachers are as inanely incompetent as I hear them
to be in US public schools. In that case I'd make sure the govt takes
steps to pay for better teachers.
> Indeed, why not let private schools set their own fees?
> >
> > Because that would *accentuate* inequality in education.
>
> So, you're a socialist. Correct me if you're not, but everything you're
> saying seems to scream out that you are. So, you want people who don't like
> your socialist ideas to see their children be indoctrinated with socialism?
> And I suppose you want them to pay for it as well? And you're trying to
> present this as unbiased "scientific" policy?
Isn't that a copy-paste from Zinnic's conversation? In my opinion, we
require socialism and communism to drive certain aspects of our life,
not all. Basic education is one of them. Just as is Social Security,
Medicare for the elderly etc. Those are all fundamentally socialist
ideas. That they stand on the money earned through capitalism doesn't
change the nature of those ideas. I don't see anything unscientific
about them anymore than I see why you'd like to put the words
scientific in quotes.
> > Yeah, but I'm afraid the improvement lies in electing better leaders who
> > don't compromise education for war and personal profits!
>
> That seems a strong political view, quite different from the unbiased tests
> you advocate.
So?
> Obviously you're foreign to financial insecurity and squalor in third world
> > countries. Homeschooling is risky business because at the end of twelve
> > years, you may discover that your child doesn't possess enough technical
> > knowledge to pursue whatever he wants to or has had enough *exposure* to
> > deal with trade or academia. Homeschooling in technical
> > matters and the physical sciences need large investments of money and
> > infrastructure. If the homeschooling isn't upto the mark, the child doesn't
> > have much of a graduation record to get a reasonable job with. In a third
> > world country, she'd be out on her knees in the streets. Going with the flow
> > affords the security homeschooling lacks.
>
> Obviously you have no idea what homeschooling is. Poor families can quite
> successfully homeschool their children.
Tell me how you'd set up whole labs and the infrastructure necessary
for the technical education of a child.
Also tell me where you'd get them to interact with hordes of other
children in a learning environment?
> Nonsense. Homeschooling allows the children to focus on development of
> their creative talents, something that schools are pretty bad in. More and
> more, work in the US requires people to be self-starters, take initiatives,
> come up with ideas and act accordingly.
*Yes, but they also end up reinventing the wheel.* Which accounts for
the fact that they're severely handicapped when competing for technical
jobs with their traditionally schooled peers.
Yes, the initiative thing is what I admire about Americans, and yes
that is honed by homeschooling. However, such initiatives are possible
in a rich country because such initiatives fundamentally imply a risk.
In a rich country you have the option of falling back on just some odd
job in case your big idea didn't work out. In a poor country you're
beggin on the streets.
-Souvik
Sam Carana
You're missing the point: Monotheism or Polytheism or whatever when preached consistently and with moderation is not anywhere as dangerous as corporate advertisement through basic education. Monotheism is a relatively harmless doctrine compared to corporate advertisement channeled into populace during the formative years.
Also, if a religion is taught consistently over a large populace, it brings about a uniformity and hence less strife. Corporations if they begin to incorporate dogmas at early ages will incite local strife.
Your remarks are an insult to private enterprise. What makes you think that private schools were dangerous?
I just told you. It seems you are unable to wrap your mind around the danger of corporate advertisement through impressing young minds in their early years.
And what you're saying to me seems to be the very sloppy thinking of a possibly academically challenged individual. You're not following your arguments through keeping all possibilities open, simply haven't enough experience with how things have been where people have tried privatising education, are simply not logical enough to answer questions directly when asked, and probably not travelled enough (outside the US) to see where things get.
I don't think any educator will dispute the fact that a child's deepest conceptions of the world embed themselves in his earliest years.
What I cannot endorse is handing over *basic education* to corporations. I hope we agree on this.
What is basic? McDonald's calls their institute a University and I'm sure they do use scientific research methods. Are you saying that private schools cannot teach the "basics"?
Can you read and comprehend English at least? That is your gift from basic education which I fear now wasn't appropriately delivered. To repeat myself, basic constitutes -- reading, writing, elementary arithmetic, basic attitudes of fearlessness, compassion etc that need to be taught to students before the age of 6 and as widely acknowledged by educators should be universally accessible.
Here is Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
I'm just saying that private corporations taking over elementary
education would be as dangerous an affair as corporations taking over the national army, or administrating social security or other national concerns for reasons of brainwashed advertisement in formative years mentioned so many times.
For starters, standardised national test advocate a belief in nationalism and in standardisation. Furthermore, much depends on what political party is in control, showing further political bias that is inevitably contained in such tests.
Very sloppy extrapolation again. And I'm pretty sure now that you've had NO experience with travelling to check out the education systems around the world inspite of your passion for it. Political bias has little to do with these tests because professionals (like civil engineers and teachers of civil engineering) set these tests.
Politics can do little to taint technical education -- a bridge will stand or fall depending solely on the physics understanding of the engineers who built it. Therefore, professionals who set such standards can inject little political motives to these examinations.
We'd prefer well educated and well tested engineers. A self-educated engineer might well be a complete idiot on the field without knowing all the conventions and peripheral knowledge that come with organised education.
I think you're mixing up between the different strata of education. Public schools do not deliver engineers. That is the job of universities with undergraduate / graduate education facilities or technical institutes.
What's your alternative to testing? Suppose you are an chief-engineer who needs to assemble a group to design a road -- are you going to just pick people at random from the schools / road? Applying any criterion is synonymous to testing.
Another alternative is to let schools and other educational institutes handle things themselves. This makes the name and reputation of the respective institute the key to how to assess their certificates and degrees. The institutes may decide to let independent parties check things out, to imrpove their standing. It's basically up to private enterprise to work such things out. If politicians are going to do it, you'll end up with political bias.
That is the policy of recommendations. As any grad school will tell you it is a commendable idea to include that in addition to testing.
However, before grad school, there isn't much to recommend people on.
<snip> Give me an example.
So, you're now saying that vouchers are a good idea, as they will allow poor kids to attend those more expensive schools with better infrastructure and facilities that the poor kids otherwise don't quite get?
Possibly.
So, you wouldn't let people decide what kind of education their children get, even if the respective parents have more education than the schoolteachers? What kind of politics is this?
Exposure was the keyword. Even if I were smarter and academically superior to the teachers of a public school within limits, I would still send my children to the public school for the exposure to the world with all its foibles.
Unless of course the teachers are as inanely incompetent as I hear them to be in US public schools. In that case I'd make sure the govt takes steps to pay for better teachers.
In my opinion, we require socialism and communism to drive certain aspects of our life, not all. Basic education is one of them. Just as is Social Security, Medicare for the elderly etc. Those are all fundamentally socialist ideas. That they stand on the money earned through capitalism doesn't change the nature of those ideas. I don't see anything unscientific about them anymore than I see why you'd like to put the words scientific in quotes.
Yeah, but I'm afraid the improvement lies in electing better leaders who don't compromise education for war and personal profits!
That seems a strong political view, quite different from the unbiased tests you advocate.
So?
Obviously you're foreign to financial insecurity and squalor in third world countries. Homeschooling is risky business because at the end of twelve years, you may discover that your child doesn't possess enough technical knowledge to pursue whatever he wants to or has had enough *exposure* to deal with trade or academia. Homeschooling in technical matters and the physical sciences need large investments of money and infrastructure. If the homeschooling isn't upto the mark, the child doesn't have much of a graduation record to get a reasonable job with. In a third world country, she'd be out on her knees in the streets. Going with the flow affords the security homeschooling lacks.
Obviously you have no idea what homeschooling is. Poor families can quite successfully homeschool their children.
Tell me how you'd set up whole labs and the infrastructure necessary for the technical education of a child.
Also tell me where you'd get them to interact with hordes of other children in a learning environment?
Nonsense. Homeschooling allows the children to focus on development of their creative talents, something that schools are pretty bad in. More and more, work in the US requires people to be self-starters, take initiatives, come up with ideas and act accordingly.
*Yes, but they also end up reinventing the wheel.* Which accounts for the fact that they're severely handicapped when competing for technical jobs with their traditionally schooled peers.
zinnic
what one "seems" to say, and then claims that this "implies" whatever
(s)he wishes . It gets tedious at times, but it gives me some insight
into the thought processes of my four year old grandaughter. I find my
grand daughter hilarious, but I am saddened by Sam. Such a waste of
gray matter!
Sam Carana
Sam knows (s)he cannot lose when (s)he translates what one says into what one "seems" to say, and then claims that this "implies" whatever (s)he wishes . It gets tedious at times, but it gives me some insight into the thought processes of my four year old grandaughter. I find my grand daughter hilarious, but I am saddened by Sam. Such a waste of gray matter!
Andrés
I would be very happy to keep on reading this discussion on a forum
called "Alternative schooling schemes" or something like it. Cold we go
back to the epistemological issues?
Unfortunately each new person who joins the group catches up with
Sam's argument. IMO the educational system shouldn't be a point to
discuss here.
Furthermore, I thought we were going to ignore these types of
non-epistemological topics
No offence meant
Andrés
Sam Carana
Sam
Souvik
epistemological debate -- it may be peripherally. Yeah, what you're
referring to science in schools, Sam, is *teaching science in US
schools* -- that is pedagogy, not epistemology. That has little to do
with the enterprise of science itself -- which is simply exploring
nature.
Science is about discovering patterns and laws in nature -- to people
who say scientific laws are socio-political constructs, I'd invite them
to transgress one of those laws by stepping out of my 7th story office
window.
-Souvik
Sam Carana
I think Andres is right. The schooling thing isn't quite a
epistemological debate -- it may be peripherally. Yeah, what you're referring to science in schools, Sam, is *teaching science in US schools* -- that is pedagogy, not epistemology. That has little to do with the enterprise of science itself -- which is simply exploring nature.
Science is about discovering patterns and laws in nature -- to people who say scientific laws are socio-political constructs, I'd invite them to transgress one of those laws by stepping out of my 7th story office window.
Souvik
himself over and over again those questions about objective and
subjective reality and the character of 'the physical law'. I know
where you're coming from, because those are questions that baffle
people when they begin to seriously examine nature -- most serious
theoretical physicists have been there very many times.
Most people, like myself, after having studied a range of phenomena
(which you might say are all subjective really -- apples falling off
trees, STM pictures of atoms, hadron collisions -- are all happening in
the mind) come to the conclusion that there is reality independent of
observer out there, and there exist patterns in them that allow general
statements to be made about them -- that is what a law is. A general
statement.
Oh yeah, and do let me know when you approach any physical phenomenon
without any a-priori prejudice. Because we all do to certain degrees
and then it shifts the better we understand it. This shifting based on
experimental evidence means that it is not dogma.
I can't restrain this personal poke, Sam, but really, you confirm my
view that people who end up studying epistemology without really having
a good grasp of what we know and how we know it. The ones I've come
across so far had tried to understand physics, given up due to
incompetent abstract mathematical thinking, and then find refuge in
post-modern epistemology with all its misinterpreted soundbites of
'relativism' and 'uncertainty' and musing over if nature really exists.
It's a grapes are sour thing mostly.
-Souvik
PS: An invitation to jump off my window is not a theory. It's an
*invitation*!
Sam Carana
Sam, every scientist, especially particle physics theorists has asked himself over and over again those questions about objective and subjective reality and the character of 'the physical law'. I know where you're coming from, because those are questions that baffle people when they begin to seriously examine nature -- most serious theoretical physicists have been there very many times.
Most people, like myself, after having studied a range of phenomena (which you might say are all subjective really -- apples falling off trees, STM pictures of atoms, hadron collisions -- are all happening in the mind) come to the conclusion that there is reality independent of observer out there, and there exist patterns in them that allow general
statements to be made about them -- that is what a law is. A general statement.
Oh yeah, and do let me know when you approach any physical phenomenon without any a-priori prejudice. Because we all do to certain degrees and then it shifts the better we understand it. This shifting based on experimental evidence means that it is not dogma.
I can't restrain this personal poke, Sam, but really, you confirm my view that people who end up studying epistemology without really having a good grasp of what we know and how we know it. The ones I've come across so far had tried to understand physics, given up due to incompetent abstract mathematical thinking, and then find refuge in post-modern epistemology with all its misinterpreted soundbites of 'relativism' and 'uncertainty' and musing over if nature really exists.
It's a grapes are sour thing mostly.
-Souvik
PS: An invitation to jump off my window is not a theory. It's an
*invitation*!
goozlefotz
Souvik wrote:
>
> Most people, like myself, after having studied a range of phenomena
> (which you might say are all subjective really -- apples falling off
> trees, STM pictures of atoms, hadron collisions -- are all happening in
> the mind) come to the conclusion that there is reality independent of
> observer out there, and there exist patterns in them that allow general
> statements to be made about them -- that is what a law is. A general
> statement.
>
observer. And, of course, I cannot prove it.
Souvik
> Listen to your own nonsense! "..there is reality independent of observer.."
> So, who did observe such a "reality"? Mr Nobody?
Well, even if neumenal reality were observed, you'd still claim it
isn't there because all you have is the observation of reality -- which
is still phenomenal reality.
The reason we suspect that there is objective reality out there is
because
1. There are unmistakable patterns in nature. (And by no amount of
drugging of our minds can we defy them, maybe defy our perception of
them.)
2. That billions of people observe the same patterns in nature
independent of social, lingual, religious or scientific background.
Example: Falling objects accelerate.
So, Sam, what's your proof that there is no reality independent of our
perception (of 'it')? It'd be best if you could design an experiment to
test this viewpoint.
I don't see philosophers who claim no objective reality really going
anywhere with their doctrine! Can they tell us diffraction limits in
quantum systems / why the CMB is uneven / or anything quantifiably
testable AT ALL?
[Such experiments *have* been designed and conducted. So, they're not
impossible.]
> And here you use such
> blatant nonsense to justify your political view: "...that is what a law
> is.." I'm sure you'll be happy to see your rhetoric used as the foundation
> of your preferred party-political program, as "evidence" that it was "true"
> that socialism was correct.
Law is used here in the sense of physical law. It entirely different to
what we mean by human law! Human laws are imposed by humans. Physical
laws are generalities in nature discovered by humans. I don't see how I
used the definition of physical law to justify political standpoints
that I may have. You must have serious issues comprehending language.
-Souvik
zinnic
tried to present your case as a rational scientist. The measured
discipline essential for rationality and scientific thinking is
anathema to Sam. Retrospection of Sam's posts to yourself and others
reveals a pattern (rule) that is verging on a becoming a 'fundamental
law 'in Sam's "world of wild assertions"
That is--one must accept unconditionally all his/her policies that
favor the formation of a simplistic world in which parental authority
rules and free enterprise is unfettered. The slightest deviation from
this rule results in one being labelled a 'socialist', and judged as
a participant in the political plot which is responsible for all of
Sam's discontents with our present society. There is no appeal.
You must be "devastated" by this judgement. We (and I presume to speak
for other 'victims') offer our only solace -- in your banishment you
are in excellent company.
My suspicion that Sam is serious saddens me! My best wish for Sam is
that (s)he is an untalented troll.