Biggest issues in epistemology?

[Sam]

What are the biggest questions in epistemology? This group's
description suggests questions such as: What is science, what is
knowledge and what is logic? Are there absolute and universal rules? Is
quantum theory superior? Is there just one universe? How does research
influence its outcome?

I would like to add five questions:

1. Does a Grand Unified Theory make sense? A Theory of Everything, does
it make sense? Are we making progress or is it a dead-end-street?

2. How objective and independent is Science? As I discussed earlier in
the Politics of Science, science appears to be intertwined with the
military-industrial complex. This is an unhealthy situation. I have
suggested how we can improve this. Any other ideas?

3. What is the philosophical answer to fundamentalism? Fundamentalist
religion seeks to tell scientists what to believe in, e.g. in regard to
evolution and the concept of God. I think fundamentalism a bad idea
that has run out of steam, but feel free to disagree with me about
that. Point is what position one should take in the light of the
pressure by religious fanatics that are increasingly spamming groups
like this. Objectivism? Independence of the Univerisity? Separation
between University and State, as between Church and State? What is the
philosophical answer to fundamentalism?

4. What is the Conscience of Science? Do scientists have a common
conscience? Some will argue that scientists make the world a better
place by inventing many good things. Others will say that scientists
also make inventions (such as weapons of mass destruction) that risk
destroying the entire planet. What do scientists say in reply?

5. Should there be something like an Oath of Hippocrates for
scientists? Something like: "I will work for the greater good of
people, without intentionally causing harm where this can be avoided."

I put the questions before you to get some feedback, before discussing
each of them in more detail. Any views? Also, if we all agree that it's
worth while discussing these questions, it would be a good idea to
include them in the description of this group.

Sam

[jrichard]

Whew! Each on of these could be a book. I'll give you a few brief
comments:

<1. Does a Grand Unified Theory make sense? A Theory of Everything,
does
it make sense? Are we making progress or is it a dead-end-street? >

I think we're making great progress in complexity theory. Until it is
proven inconsistent with reality I think this pursuit is valuable.

<2. How objective and independent is Science? As I discussed earlier in

the Politics of Science, science appears to be intertwined with the
military-industrial complex. This is an unhealthy situation. I have
suggested how we can improve this. Any other ideas? >

More public funding for the arts and sciences. I know you'll hate this,
but more public funds seems to be the only way to keep such endeavors
away from private interests.

<3. What is the philosophical answer to fundamentalism? Fundamentalist
religion seeks to tell scientists what to believe in, e.g. in regard
to
evolution and the concept of God. I think fundamentalism a bad idea
that has run out of steam, but feel free to disagree with me about
that. Point is what position one should take in the light of the
pressure by religious fanatics that are increasingly spamming groups
like this. Objectivism? Independence of the Univerisity? Separation
between University and State, as between Church and State? What is the

philosophical answer to fundamentalism? >

Well, fundamentalist is a rejection of modernity. Every society
contains and certain element of these counter-cultural forces.

But there are many different ways to build knowledge and many different
organizing principles around which to build a worldview.

I think greater inclusion of diverse worldviews is a better solution
than separation. Fundamentalism can only evolve as it adapts to
conflicts with other views.

<4. What is the Conscience of Science? Do scientists have a common
conscience? Some will argue that scientists make the world a better
place by inventing many good things. Others will say that scientists
also make inventions (such as weapons of mass destruction) that risk
destroying the entire planet. What do scientists say in reply? >

You've focused on outcomes and technical application. I think many
scientists would say that knowledge itself is their pursuit. What man
does with knowledge if for ethicists and politicians to fight over.

<5. Should there be something like an Oath of Hippocrates for
scientists? Something like: "I will work for the greater good of
people, without intentionally causing harm where this can be avoided."
>

Well, there are systems of ethics for the use of human subjects and for
the harm caused to the subject under study. But I think all science is
thought of in the pursuit of the betterment of humanity and society.

I just think there is more disagreement about what the "greater good"
is and what levels of harm are unacceptable than is generally stated.

[Sam Carana]

On 4/20/05, jrichard <jrichar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Whew! Each on of these could be a book.

 

 

I agree! We could spend many happy moments discussing each of these issues :) I'll quickly post a few comments to your remarks, to see what kind of further ideas come up. 

 

I plan to post each of them as a separate topic for further discussion.  

 

I'll give you a few brief
comments:

<1. Does a Grand Unified Theory make sense? A Theory of Everything, does it make sense? Are we making progress or is it a dead-end-street? >

I think we're making great progress in complexity theory. Until it is
proven inconsistent with reality I think this pursuit is valuable.

 

 

Isn't "proof" part of an equation that doesn't add up? Do we need proof, if it's obvious that it's inconsistent with reality?

<2. How objective and independent is Science? As I discussed earlier in the Politics of Science, science appears to be intertwined with the military-industrial complex. This is an unhealthy situation. I have suggested how we can improve this. Any other ideas? >

More public funding for the arts and sciences. I know you'll hate this, but more public funds seems to be the only way to keep such endeavors away from private interests.

 

 

Giving an addict more money means he's gonna buy more dope! Shouldn't we break with the dependency on government funding?

<3. What is the philosophical answer to fundamentalism? Fundamentalist religion seeks to tell scientists what to believe in, e.g. in regard to evolution and the concept of God. I think fundamentalism a bad idea that has run out of steam, but feel free to disagree with me about that. Point is what position one should take in the light of the pressure by religious fanatics that are increasingly spamming groups like this. Objectivism? Independence of the Univerisity? Separation between University and State, as between Church and State? What is the philosophical answer to fundamentalism? >

Well, fundamentalist is a rejection of modernity. Every society
contains and certain element of these counter-cultural forces.

But there are many different ways to build knowledge and many different organizing principles around which to build a worldview.

I think greater inclusion of diverse worldviews is a better solution
than separation. Fundamentalism can only evolve as it adapts to
conflicts with other views.

 

 

Should we embrace fundamentalism as part of the civilized world? Be tolerant towards intolerance and be peaceful in the face of agression. That sounds like a good-old christian view that many of these folks preach but don't practice. Why not expose the hypocrisy?

<4. What is the Conscience of Science? Do scientists have a common conscience? Some will argue that scientists make the world a better place by inventing many good things. Others will say that scientists also make inventions (such as weapons of mass destruction) that risk destroying the entire planet. What do scientists say in reply? >

You've focused on outcomes and technical application. I think many scientists would say that knowledge itself is their pursuit. What man does with knowledge if for ethicists and politicians to fight over.

 

 

Is there something like knowledge? That's an old question in epistemology. The question that remains is not if but why anyone would want to have knowledge without a clue as to what can be done with this knowledge. Can these two be separated from each other. Should they?
 

<5. Should there be something like an Oath of Hippocrates for
scientists? Something like: "I will work for the greater good of
people, without intentionally causing harm where this can be avoided."
>

Well, there are systems of ethics for the use of human subjects and for the harm caused to the subject under study. But I think all science is thought of in the pursuit of the betterment of humanity and society.

I just think there is more disagreement about what the "greater good" is and what levels of harm are unacceptable than is generally stated.

 

Yes, there are many ethical and moral considerations, which typically come from philosophers, etc. Question is whether there should be something built into science to compensate for what appears to be lacking now.

[mput]

This is certainly a way to wake up. adress most fundemental ideas of
existance before noon. Thanks for the ideas though. Here is a shot.

.1. Does a Grand Unified Theory make sense? A Theory of Everything,

does
it make sense? Are we making progress or is it a dead-end-street?

We are making what appears to be progress, which is very important. As
humans we have only one clear advantage (maybe it is just a difference
actually, not an advantantage), and that is the ability to gain
knowledge from past studies, and apply them to an understanding of
existance. Super String Theory is very mathmatically elegant, as are
other competing theories, but most importantly is our quest for such a
theory. It is a real reason to keep thinking, and expirementing.

. How objective and independent is Science? As I discussed earlier in
the Politics of Science, science appears to be intertwined with the
military-industrial complex. This is an unhealthy situation. I have
suggested how we can improve this. Any other ideas?

it is a bit scarey to think that the politics of the day are driving
science. This is nothing new though. Like Feynman said of science "It
is like a key which has the ability to open heaven or hell. It can open
the gates of hell, but without it we wil never know heaven." I always
found this very beautiful. It is easy to see this with world War 2
science. Not even just the manhatten project, which was hellish, but
also provided for atomic energy, but even lesser discussed government
projects like the synthetic rubber project, which was government
funded, industry supported, and lead to a a major innovation in
material science. I think that it is a bit more difficult to see
positive forces at work in modern government funded science. New
weapons are no longer ground breaking in what I would consider useful
ways. I do think that nano tech and sensor technologies have
interesting cross over potential in biology and health care, and maybe
even in understanding some fundemental material properties. I do wish
that I trusted the mental capacities of our leaders more, in order to
desigate that money.

3. What is the philosophical answer to fundamentalism?

I find it frustrating to always have to deal with the dark mentality of
religion which is so accepted in our society. Evolution should have
stopped being debated as a basic concept over 100 years ago. A general
fear and ignorance has brought this up again, and left open liter bible
interpretations as actual possiblities. I personally dont think that
religion has a place in science. What someone chooses to believe about
a god, is up to them, but is a waste of time when scientists shouls be
seeking answers that can have a proof.

4. What is the Conscience of Science?

General knowledge and technical advnaces can both come from a curiosity
that most scientists have. an understanding of the workings of nature,
and the desire to create something new are different things. a
technologist who has both the curiosty and the aptitude to innovate is
very unique and exciting.

[Byrne]

> <5. Should there be something like an Oath of Hippocrates for
> scientists? Something like: "I will work for the greater good of
> people, without intentionally causing harm where this can be
avoided."

> Well, there are systems of ethics for the use of human subjects and
for
> the harm caused to the subject under study. But I think all science
is
> thought of in the pursuit of the betterment of humanity and society.

> I just think there is more disagreement about what the "greater good"
is
> and what levels of harm are unacceptable than is generally stated.

>Yes, there are many ethical and moral considerations, which typically
>come from philosophers, etc. Question is whether there should be
something
>built into science to compensate for what appears to be lacking now.

Just as an Engineering Student from Ireland, I had a subject last year
which was called Technology and Society, although most of my classmates
dismissed it as a "filler" subject, I feel that it's one of the
subjects
that has influenced me the greatest. In the class we discussed that as
"professionals" working to develope new technologies, to take ethics
into our ideas, as our inventions will be used or affect humanity.
This class did change my perspective of what science and engineering
is or could be, my only negative comment would have to be from my
class,
whom didn't really take it seriously, I think what is needed is for
society
as a whole and not just the scientific community to take a greater
interest
in the way science is run, it should be embrassed by society. This may
create a better environment where communication is clear and the
science
is for the people and not just the money.

Here's an interesting lecture, both audio and a brief text summary:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2005/lecture1.shtml

[kimmy]

In reverse engineering of "us", we can easily put value to factors of
our existence. The only actual problem is figuring out the correct
values of the factors. I think we are quite capable of this. The
computer is something we created and we can use it to do formulas that
would take us a lifetime to resolve. I am a firm believer that
everything can be figured out and explained. Can you imagine being the
"first" being or thing with a concious thought? Must have been very
lonely floating through space. At least until crashing into a planet
capable of supporting life. People often boil down everything until you
are left with, "do you believe in God?" Then the debates get heated and
nothing is ever resolved. If people could broaden their perspectives
then one might understand. Adam, Atom & Eve? We are created in his
image, so is told. We are also told, "God is everywhere". Why are we so
egotistic to think that God would look like us instead of just a simple
atom or something our human eyes cannot see and our brains cannot
comprehend as of yet? Confused wording is the biggest problem we have
in the world today. Not to mention our simplistic numeric system, ie
language. Resolve those issues first, everything will simply fall into
place and nothing would be complicated or unresolved. A prime example
of this is when I try to read posts from people who have a million
typo's or cannot spell. I am not saying I am not without that fault or
that they are dumb, rather it is difficult to understand what they are
actually trying to say. Thus, I gain no knowledge from them. Not to
mention also that you could write a book about the simple fact that you
are a girl, just by having to explain things for other people to
understand.
Reflect on this to the point of madness and you will end up with the
same theory.
-Unethical scientists should be eliminated.

[kimmy]

One more thing then I will have said my peace. I have heard alot in
college this sentiment, "why do I have to take this or that class when
I am just wanting to be this?" To this I say, it is clear that you will
never see the beauty of life". Our economy encourages people to
specialize. Putting blinders onto people, stunting their contributions
to society. I am not against specialization, just think intelligent
scientist know to gain knowledge of all that is possible since indeed
everything in life and death, time and space, ect. are so
interconnected.
It is like a yenyang sign that spins and convexes and expands then
shrinks. (symbolism) I try to be literal, however, somethings are
impossible of human understanding if taken literal.
YES- we need to learn to communicate by means of telepathy.
This can be done by my factor method.

[kimmy]

We all have some factor in us that we need other people to fill.
-Together great minds can do many a great thing.

[Sam Carana]

On 4/27/05, kimmy <teagu...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

YES- we need to learn to communicate by means of telepathy.

...

 

That would be great, Kimmy, but now that we're here we might as well try and make sense by using groups like this to communicate. Unless of course you argue that a focus on verbal communication itself would constitute a barrier in communication... There are some very intelligent people who argue this, but that's not what you mean, is it?

 

Sam

[kimmy]

It is somewhat of a barrier. It is our best option however. Thanks for
the reply Sam, glad to know someone else cares where the world is
going.
What are some of your theories? Don't you ever worry who it is you are
communicating with?
kim

[B. Amjab]

Hello Sam
following the discussion, the following struck my eye

" Isn't "proof" part of an equation that doesn't add up? Do we need
proof,
if it's obvious that it's inconsistent with reality? "

what is or is not consistent in this case is how "reality" is defined.

so, in the light of the Cartesian scepticism, the problems of
empiricism and Kant's solution of the division of ding fur uns versus
ding an sich (noumenon), how do you understand or define reality?

looking forward to your reaction.

B. Amjab

[Sam Carana]

Are you saying that you don't know what is real and what's not?

 

Sam

[Anthony...@gmail.com]

Great stuff,

Can I ask that the item 4. What is the Conscience of Science? Do
scientists have a common conscience? be deconstructed. I have always
seen a clear difference between Science and Technology. Science is the
pursuit of knowledge, technology is the application of knowledge. The
contra position to knowledge is ignorance (unfortunately adopted by
many people especially by adherence to doctrine). Technology is far
more complex. I can understand atomic forces without having the need to
build an atomic bomb to kill people. It is the conscience of the
technologist, the marketer and the politicians we must question. Of
course they may be the one and the same person, their motivation to
undertake science may be for the end technology.

Thus Item 5 Hippocratic oath can be developed for science but I don't
think they need to work for the greater good, they need to work to
uncover the truth. To work for the greater good or bad will color the
facts. They must however commit to ensuring that the knowledge they
gain must be shared with all and not given when they expect it will be
used to harm. However the real people that need to take responsibility
are the technologists and there customers. If not we ask the scientists
to prefer ignorance.

Tony

[Anthony...@gmail.com]

Re:1. Does a Grand Unified Theory make sense? A Theory of Everything,
does it make sense? Are we making progress or is it a dead-end-street.

A theory remains so until a better one replaces it. It will make sense
as long as it is not falsified but only that long. However a bit like
the concept of God it will be dammed hard to falsify a utopic view of
"a Grand Unified Theory". Perhaps it will just become obsolete as we
move onto the "Theory of everything we know" or something. It is the
journey not the not it's end that makes us grow.

[Anthony...@gmail.com]

What is the philosophical answer to fundamentalism ?

Fundamentalism is the death throws of unsustainable arguments. They
are beliefs with when backed into a corner of failed logic lash out.
Fundmentalisium is the imposition of doctrine on the ignorant.
The answer, promote knowledge, education and the concept that is
alright for a belief to be a theory. And being a theory it must be
open to refutation and reform.
Evolution is a theory not a fact, thus it will be around a lot longer
than the grave yard of discarded facts. But in fact Evolution is many
theories (perhaps a General-Theory), each sub theory open to revision,
and refutation. It could take one or many refutations to destroy
totally a General-theory.
Lets re-look at belief as a General-theory.
Belief as a general theory is a theory not a fact, thus it will be
around a lot longer than the grave yard of discarded facts. But in fact
Each belief is many theories, a General-Theory) each open to revision,
and refutation. It could take one or many refutations to destroy
totally a Belief.
If this happened the lion could lay with the sheep and we could share
our common bonds and move towards a shared goal of heaven on earth.

[B. Amjab]

Sam Carana schreef:

Hello Sam,
It is not the problem of what I think/might appreciate as "real".
This is a philosophical discussion and I am referring to the problem of
scepticism.
Descartes took for undoubtable what came in front of his mind (s eye -
metaphor). The problem that rose then was how to know what he had in
mind was not an illusion. The referenceproblem. His answer was that God
would not mislead him. (his answer, not mine nor a entree to discuss
anything about God/god). English empirism took another turn and took
for reality that what via the senses could be sensed. But they were
confronted with the problem of causality (which is not apt for
sensations). And then Kant introduced his mental constructivism (not to
be confused with Berkeley's idealism).
So the expression "consistent with reality" is not unproblematic.
Therefore: how do you define "reality"?
regards
B. Amjab.

[Sam Carana]

This is the very problem. A GUT seeks to simplify reality into a coherent set of formulas, mathematical calculations, etc. However, this is inconsistent with the complexity of reality. By seeking to define reality, you ignore this very obvious problem with a GUT,  i.e. the unsubtantiated assumption that reality could be captured in simple definitions, formulas and calculations. 

 

Sam 

[Sam Carana]

Can a stubborn and dogmatic belief in Occam's Razor be seen as scientific fundamentalism?

 

Sam
 

[Sam Carana]

On 5/10/05, Anthony...@gmail.com <Anthony...@gmail.com> wrote:

Great stuff,

Can I ask that the item 4.  What is the Conscience of Science? Do
scientists have a common conscience? be deconstructed. I have always
seen a clear difference between Science and Technology. Science is the
pursuit of knowledge, technology is the application of knowledge. The
contra position to knowledge is ignorance (unfortunately adopted by
many people especially by adherence to doctrine). Technology is far
more complex. I can understand atomic forces without having the need to
build an atomic bomb to kill people. It is the conscience of the
technologist, the marketer and the politicians we must question. Of
course they may be the one and the same person, their motivation to
undertake science may be for the end technology.

 

Perhaps one does not have to be ignorant to deny having any knowledge that was universally and perpetually applicable. Perhaps acceptance of complixity is a better approach than assuming a single Truth.

 

Sam

Thus Item 5 Hippocratic oath can be developed for science but I don't
think they need to work for the greater good, they need to work to
uncover the truth. To work for the greater good or bad will color the
facts. They must however commit to ensuring that the knowledge they
gain must be shared with all and not given when they expect it will be
used to harm. However the real people that need to take responsibility
are the technologists and there customers. If not we ask the scientists
to prefer ignorance.

Tony

Should scientists take personal responsibility, if their theories turned out to harm a lot of people? Should politicians, if their views did harm? Should a cleaner who uses the wrong cleaning product be held liable in court, but should scientists, doctors and politicians be indemnified?
 

Sam

[shughart7]

"...the unsubtantiated assumption that reality could be captured in

simple definitions, formulas and calculations."

Have you ever taken Physics?

[shughart7]

"Should scientists take personal responsibility, if their theories
turned out
to harm a lot of people? Should politicians, if their views did harm?
Should
a cleaner who uses the wrong cleaning product be held liable in court,
but
should scientists, doctors and politicians be indemnified?"

So what your saying is; a doctor who tries to save someones life, but
in the end fails, should be accountable for murder? What!? Albert
Einstein discovered Atomic Physics, and essentially invented the Atomic
Bombs that were droped on Japan. Millions were killed. That was in
NOWAY Einstein's fault, he even later stated that if he knew what the
discovery would have led to, he would've told nobody of what he found.
Sam, you seem to be a very left wing extremist. Probally in your
twenties. You do not know everything. Although, I do find it very
stimulating that you think you do. I also enjoy reading your
ridiculous posts. I hope your life is going as planned.

[Sam Carana]

On 5/23/05, shughart7 <shad...@hotmail.com> wrote:

< "Should scientists take personal responsibility, if their theories
turned out to harm a lot of people? Should politicians, if their  views did harm? Should a cleaner who uses the wrong cleaning product be held liable in court, but should scientists, doctors and politicians be indemnified?" >

 

So what your saying is; a doctor who tries to save someones life, but in the end fails, should be accountable for murder?  What!?  

 

A doctor who knowingly and unnessecarily does harm to a patient should be held to account. Same with scientists.

 

Albert Einstein discovered Atomic Physics, and essentially invented the Atomic Bombs that were droped on Japan.  Millions were killed.  That was in NOWAY Einstein's fault, he even later stated that if he knew what the discovery would have led to, he would've told nobody of what he found.

 

There are scientists who took money to sell knowledge to countries how to make nuclear weapons. They knew very well what they were doing. They knew the countries offering them money had signed anti-proliferation pacts, yet they secretly approached those scientists to steal the knowledge for them. Their work agreements expressly prohibited this kind of behavior. Many people were bribed in the process, leading to further corruption and deceipt. And you are going to say these scientists were not to blame, because... they were scientists??????

 

Do scientists have ethics? Should scientists have ethics? How can we assess and verify this? How do scientist sleep, when they are knowingly working on the creation of weapons of mass destruction that are supposed to be outlawed under the treaties signed by their goivernments?

 

Sam

[shughart7]

First off, a lot of scientists dont set out to discover new weapons
(you might want to read about atleast a few scientists before you make
assumptions about all of them). Nuclear weapons weren't around till
around the Cold War era. No, scientists did NOT sell the atomic bomb
plans to anyone, because there were no atomic bomb plans. The Germans
and Americans were working on a atomic bomb at the same time (obviously
the Geramans did not get a chance to complete theirs'). We did, and we
used it. Your thoughts of God and the Bible are rediculous and have
already been shot down. WE as humans are beneath God. You obviously
don't get that.

A doctor who knowingly and unnessecarily does harm to a patient should
be
held to account. Same with scientists.

Reread what i posted. You have no argument against mine with this. I
did not say nething close to this. Although I understand what you mean,
don't copy and paste my post and try to put this under it like some
half-ass argument (it makes you look dumb).

think before you post... seriously

[jrichard]

I think what Anthony was saying is that there's a difference between
politics and scientific advancement. Once a knowledge set has been
developed, it really is just a matter of tme before it spreads to the
rest of the world.

[Sam Carana]

On 5/29/05, shughart7 <shad...@hotmail.com> wrote:

First off, a lot of scientists dont set out to discover new weapons
(you might want to read about atleast a few scientists before you make
assumptions about all of them).  

 

Yet, where are scientists typically employed? In military industries. Shouldn't scientists be made aware of this? And of the ethical conflicts this may result in?

Nuclear weapons weren't around till around the Cold War era.  No, scientists did NOT sell the atomic bomb plans to anyone, because there were no atomic bomb plans.  The Germans and Americans were working on a atomic bomb at the same time (obviously
the Geramans did not get a chance to complete theirs').  We did, and we used it.  

 

Sure, and scientists should now realize there are ethical aspects to their chosen profession that should be considered.

Your thoughts of God and the Bible are rediculous and have already been shot down.  WE as humans are beneath God.  You obviously don't get that.

 

And scientists should take responsibility, if it's likely they'll they work on something that will obviously be used to kill babies, like any weapon of mass destruction by definition is constructed to do. This is a valid concern. Taxpayers fund the studies of scientists who then develop weapons that endanger the lives not only of babies, but of all of us. If you deny that this was a valid concern, then come up with arguments.

A doctor who knowingly and unnessecarily does harm to a patient should
be held to account. Same with scientists.

 

Doctors, when graduating, make a pledge not to harm people in the course of exercizing their profession. Should a similar pledge be demanded from scientists? This is no silly matter!

Reread what i posted.  You have no argument against mine with this.  

 

I didn't realize that you had an argument. What was it that you were trying to say, other than to protest against my messages for no apparent reason?

I did not say nething close to this. Although I understand what you mean,
don't copy and paste my post and try to put this under it like some
half-ass argument (it makes you look dumb).

 

If you want my opinion, I don't think your posts do contribute much to this group. If you have something to say, then say it!

think before you post... seriously

 

.. and if you have nothing to say, then don't post for the sake of following your impulse that you have to. First think whether you actually have something to say. If you do, try and articulate that.

 

Sam

[shughart7]

Ok, lets start from the top:

Yet, where are scientists typically employed? In military industries.
Shouldn't scientists be made aware of this? And of the ethical
conflicts
this may result in?

Out of every scientist ever, more scientists are employed at schools,
rather than for the military.

Sure, and scientists should now realize there are ethical aspects to
their
chosen profession that should be considered.

So you're saying, theoretically, if I made an all new type of knife
that easily cuts through my steaks and spreads butter over toast; that
i should also be blamed for murder if someone took that knife and
killed someone with it? Please answer this time (this is atleast the
second time i posted a question similar to this and you not answer, but
that's to be expected i guess).

And scientists should take responsibility, if it's likely they'll they
work
on something that will obviously be used to kill babies, like any
weapon of
mass destruction by definition is constructed to do. This is a valid
concern. Taxpayers fund the studies of scientists who then develop
weapons
that endanger the lives not only of babies, but of all of us. If you
deny
that this was a valid concern, then come up with arguments

What is your obsession with babies? The scientists should not be held
at fault, the one who used it should. Einstein should'nt be blamed for
dropping the bombs on Japan, The US military should.

A doctor who knowingly and unnessecarily does harm to a patient should
> be held to account. Same with scientists.
Doctors, when graduating, make a pledge not to harm people in the
course of
exercizing their profession. Should a similar pledge be demanded from
scientists? This is no silly matter!

This is all yours, i never typed any of it. You copied from your own
post and argued with yourself, hahaha.

I don't think your posts do contribute much to this
group. If you have something to say, then say it!

As opposed to coping and pasting the same stuff. All my posts are
original and to the point. I do say what im arguing. e.i. there is a
God, the Bible is true, etc.... What is it that you are arguing
again?, the fact that you think killing babies is totally wrong (got
that, i think everyone does, seeings how it is in almost every post of
yours).

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:

> Should scientists take personal responsibility, if their theories turned out
> to harm a lot of people? Should politicians, if their views did harm? Should
> a cleaner who uses the wrong cleaning product be held liable in court, but
> should scientists, doctors and politicians be indemnified?
> Sam

I see the word 'should' a lot in these posts. I consider 'should' to
be the most worthless word in the English language. People cannot be
influenced to change their behavior just because they should. There
has to be a perceived advantage in order to cause change. You can
rattle on about what people 'should' do until the cows come home, but
if you cannot produce a reason for them to do it you are just pissing
in the air.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/2/05, shughart7 <shad...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Out of every scientist ever, more scientists are employed at schools, rather than for the military.

 

The education system and the industrial-military complex form a cartel that hides behind scientific independence, commercial and military secrecy to escape public accountibility. Scientists have a key role in all three areas, playing the same card all the time, i.e. that their supposed access to "secrets" of nature justified their taking of decisions without public scrutiny. It's just like the old religious elite who claimed exclusive access to god's word to justify their sole rule over society. These scientists hold the world to ransom in order to increase their power and increase the share of public funding going to education and the military without allowing people to look into what happens with this money, even worse, while claiming indemnity for the terror thes weapons they develop are intented to impose on society.

So you're saying, theoretically,  if I made an all new type of knife

that easily cuts through my steaks and spreads butter over toast; that i should also be blamed for murder if someone took that knife and killed someone with it? Please answer this time (this is at least the second time i posted a question similar to this and you not answer, but that's to be expected i guess).

 

I'm talking about weapons of mass destruction.

What is your obsession with babies?  The scientists should not be held at fault, the one who used it should.  Einstein should'nt be blamed for dropping the bombs on Japan, The US military should.

 

I have no obsession with babies. But, while your bible suggests that killing of babies was justified, I maintain that babies should not be put to death for sins they had supposedly committed. This is a question of values and ethics and the pledge I propose encourages scientists to consider ethical questions more closely.

As opposed to coping and pasting the same stuff. All my posts are original and to the point.  I do say what im arguing.   e.i. there is a God, the Bible is true, etc....  What is it that you are arguing
again?, the fact that you think killing babies is totally wrong (got
that, i think everyone does, seeings how it is in almost every post of yours).

I'm proposing to introduce some ethics and moral values into an education system that appears to lack any.

 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/6/05, goozlefotz <dgra...@ieee.org> wrote:

Sam Carana wrote:

I see the word 'should' a lot in these posts.  I consider 'should' to
be the most worthless word in the English language.  People cannot be influenced to change their behavior just because they should.  There has to be a perceived advantage in order to cause change.  You can rattle on about what people 'should' do until the cows come home, but if you cannot produce a reason for them to do it you are just pissing in the air.

Who says "should"? I'll rephrase what I just said in my previous post. The education system and the industrial-military complex form a cartel that is led by scientists who hold the world to ransom in order to increase their power and increase the share of public funding going to education and the military without allowing people to look into what happens with this money, even worse, while claiming indemnity for the terror these weapons they develop are intented to impose on society.

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

OK I don't disagree with your view of what is, but making someone sign
a pledge is not going to change it. Making a law is not going to
change it. The "Iron Triangle" - the military, congress and defense
contractors - have us in a strangle hold from which there appears to be
no way out. [Remember what Eisenhower said?] The universities get
much of their funding from one or another of this triangle, so they
dance to the tune as well. Please! If you have a solution let me in
on it!

Dave

[Sam Carana]

On 6/7/05, goozlefotz <dgra...@ieee.org> wrote:

OK  I don't disagree with your view of what is, but making someone sign a pledge is not going to change it.  Making a law is not going to change it.  

 

It's a step in the right direction, because it makes scientists think about what they're doing. The system currently selects the nerds, those who have been deprived of social contact. The system deliberately keeps children occupied from a young age with maths exercizes, to prevent them from developing social and ethical conscience.
 

The "Iron Triangle" - the military, congress and defense
contractors - have us in a strangle hold from which there appears to be no way out.  [Remember what Eisenhower said?]  The universities get much of their funding from one or another of this triangle, so they dance to the tune as well.  Please!  If you have a solution let me in on it!

Dave

As said, the pledge is one little step in the right direction and we do have a long way to go. Indeed, we need structural reform across all sectors of society. Most urgently, the military needs to be split up into multiple pieces, each of which is to compete in all areas for clients seeking security services. Clients should choose and pay for the security services they want directly. Security firms that seek to develop weapons in secrecy should be exposed by the media and by whistleblowers, which is where the pledge comes in. 

 

Sam 

[zinnic]

Please, puleeze, Oracle Sam I humbly beseech YOU! Give us ordinary
folks a SiGN that you know how to educate ALL members of society into
"independent thinkers' . In your system, how do you propose to deal
with stubborn teachers who insist that real knowledge is gained by
standing on the shoulders of our intellectual predessors. How do you
convince them that learning to think 'independently"is not a discipline
but a 'natural' phenomena available to every individual, no matter
their circumstance?
Sammy, Sammy, sooner or later, you must PUT UP or SHUT UP!
You really are making a fool of yourself! I know that this will hurt
you to the quick, but I am beginning to question your
integrity/intelligence. Your choice!. Please reassure me with a
straight answer to my questions in this and other posts.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/7/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Please, puleeze, Oracle Sam   I humbly beseech YOU!   Give us ordinary folks a SiGN that you know how to educate ALL members of society into "independent thinkers' .

 

"Independent thinker" isn't a degree that should be enforced upon everyone, zinnic. That's the old system that has proven not to work. Independent thinkers can to a large extent figure out what they want to learn themselves, zinnic, they don't need disciplinary masters who pretend to have exclusive access to "real knowledge", but who in the real reality turn out to have only false ideas and values! What people need instead are good ideas, people who help by example rather than discipline, role models with moral values and with real skills and presence. Teachers fail in all respects.

In your system, how do you propose to deal with stubborn teachers..

 

Well, for starters, let's stop these guys from collecting payments for holding our kids at ransom! Let's invoke anti-racketeering laws against these practices!

.. who insist that real knowledge is gained by standing on the shoulders of our intellectual predessors.  

 

Their predecessors must have been despots and terrorists. Real knowledge... com'on! Teachers stand on the gates of a protection racket, designed to imprison our beautiful children and to twist our children's mind into robotims. Teachers falsely appropriate the inventions and artwork of others and present this as if it was theirs. Teachers exploit the privileges in copyright laws to build up a monopoly. The values associated with that system are evil. Teachers stand on a pile of horror!  

How do you convince them ..

 

They should be sacked. What they think about it is pretty irrelevant. This entire education system is based on false values and should be wiped off the soil of the earth!
 

that learning to think 'independently"is not a discipline but a 'natural'  phenomena available to every individual, no matter their circumstance?

 

Independent thinking may require more than what comes naturally, zinnic, but school is pretty detrimental to it.

Sammy, Sammy, sooner or later, you must PUT UP or SHUT UP!
You really are making a fool of yourself!  I know that this will hurt
you to the quick, but I am beginning to question your
integrity/intelligence. Your choice!. Please reassure me with a
straight answer to my questions in this and other posts.

You're not making any sense, zinnic. I've answered your questions ad nauseum. I've given it to you as staright as possible. Let's shake up the system and don't leave anything standing. We'll have to start from scratch, because the whole system is rotten to the bone.
 

If, after the shake-up, there are any teachers left with integrity, then they shouldn't fear the future. But the parasites who sit there in their ivory towers, designing new schemes to force honest people to give up their hard-earned cash for a load of nonsense, they deserve all that's coming to them. 

 

Sam 

[zinnic]

No! you have not answered. You repeatedly rant ..."Let's shake up
tthe system and don't leave anything standing. We'll have to start from

scratch, because the whole system is rotten to the bone."

We have got this message from you ad nauseum. Now pulleeze! Just a
teey weeny detail as to how you propose that we start from scratch.

[Sardonic Witt]

So,, can you back up these charges of evil? Can you show that teachers
are former despots and terrorists, or was that just posturing?

[Sam Carana]

What makes you think that we would ever want to rebuild the very system that we opposed? You keep asking: "How are we going to rebuild the system?" Obviously, the answer is: "Not at all!"  The education system is a predatory system that systematically forces children into the hands of those who seek to feed on this! Without these predators, society will be so much better off. Families will finally be able to live in piece as the children can finally develop their talents to their fullest extent and can reach their full potential.

 

How exactly parents want their children educated is, first of all, in their own hands. Parents may take advice in this decision and they may make arrangements acting on this advice. But the decision how their children are to be educated remains, first of all, a decision that parents make. You may continue to insist that this decision should be taken out of the hands of parents. If so, I can only conclude and repeat that this reflects bad values, values that are the very opposite of the values we want our children to learn. This is not just a matter of opinion. We have the right and the duty to protect our children from predators and to see that our children are educated in accordance with values we believe in.

 

Sam

 

On 6/8/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

No!  you have not answered.  You repeatedly  rant ..."Let's shake up the system and don't leave anything standing. We'll have to start from scratch, because the whole system is rotten to the bone." We have got this message from you ad nauseum. Now pulleeze! Just a teey weeny detail as to how you propose that we start from scratch.

[zinnic]

You are being patently dishonest! You, and all readers of this thread,
know very well that I keep asking for some general information about
the NEW system you believe should replace the current "evil" education
system that you are so eager to totally tear down. Will your new system
teach your "beautiful" children to deliberately avoid/distort
legitimate questions? Quite a role model are'nt you?
You insist that the parents decide! And if parents see fit that their
children not waste their time learning to read and write when they
could be 'slaving' in some menial occupation? What then? The Devil take
the hindmost?
People! Meet Sam....the Closet Elitist!.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/9/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

You are being patently dishonest!

 

I'll make you eat your own words, zinnic!

You, and all readers of this thread, know very well that I keep asking for some general information about the NEW system you believe should  replace the current "evil" education system that you are so eager to totally tear down.

 

New system? Who wants a systematic approach that would lead to the same centrally controlled bureaucracy? What makes you think I wanted to rebuild the education system? Parents have and should have the first decision as to what they want their children to be taught, not the system!

Will your new system teach your "beautiful" children to deliberately avoid/distort legitimate questions? Quite a role model are'nt you?
You insist that the parents decide! And if parents see fit that their
children not waste their time learning to read and write when they
could be 'slaving' in some menial occupation? What then? The Devil take the hindmost? People! Meet Sam....the Closet Elitist!.

If parents strongly feel that their children should spend more time on learning honest skills, rather than to waste time with things they don't need, then that's not something to ridicule. Who are you to dictate to people what they should learn anyway? Where is the evidence that school was any good in teaching these things in the first place? I just told you that homeschooling is far more successful than school anyway, so you haven't got a leg to stand on!

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

No, I seem to remember you saying things like "home schooling and
vouchers are a good start, but we need big changes" over and over. So,
I think zinnic is just asking what big changes you, as the one who
claims to understand education better than those who went or those who
are there now, have planned out to replace what you are advocating we
toss aside.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/9/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, I seem to remember you saying things like "home schooling and vouchers are a good start, but we need big changes" over and over. So, I think zinnic is just asking what big changes you, as the one who claims to understand education better than those who went or those who are there now, have planned out to replace what you are advocating we toss aside.

Education is just one part of the picture. We need reform across the board. Most urgently, the military should be split up into pieces that compete for clients in the supply of security services as poeple want them.
 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

Well, let's stick with this part of the picture. What reform are you
proposing for education? What are your suggestions.

Let's finish one discussion before we start another, shall we?

[zinnic]

Home schooling forr Sam.

This is NOT good work Sam--you must try to be more disciplined in
expressing yourself. Please clarify the following points and resubmit
your post.

"Honest skills" -such as?

"things they don't need" -such as reading and writing?,

"Who are you to dictate....?"---provide a quote from any of my posts
in which I dictated what people should learn! .

"Where is the evidence that school was any good in teaching these

things in the first place?" --what things?

"I just told you that home schooling is far more successful than
school...." -- Sam! You must not use assertions in the place of
evidence. You should have learned in school that this is not rational!

Try harder Sam. I know you can do better, so I will grade your post
when you submit your corrections!.
Eve L. Teecha.

[zinnic]

Sam, this raises so many questions.
Do you mean home security or national security?
Will it be COD or will they take a check?
Will there be service to go?
etc. etc. etc.

[Sam Carana]

Education reform should not be looked at in isolation from reform elsewhere. Currently, government controls who can practice as doctor, surgeon, lawyer, judge, teacher, lecturer, scientist, etc, through its control of the education system. If we're going to separate "School and State", as we do with "Church and State", then this will have great impact on other sectors of society, which should be properly addressed.
 

Reform must come as a package and one of the areas where reform is most urgently needed is security services. This includes security services in all areas, such as security inside homes, on the street, in the woods, in airplanes and on ships, security against attacks by fists and by missiles. People should have more choice in what kind of security services they want from what suppliers.

 

There are many arguments in favor of this reform. As Deborah likes to say, allowing people more choice better reflects the rights of people to have a say in matters of security, which - after all - should be of the utmost importance to anyone. Furthermore, the current monopolization of security services by the police and military doesn't give much incentives to innovation, efficiency and improvement of services levels.

 

What makes this one of the biggest issues in epistemology is that scientists have one foot in the education system, another foot in the military-industrial complex and a third foot popping out for their recognition as experts in many fields. How can scientists give honest advice that has led to the situation we're in? Scientists should take away their eyes from their microscopes for a change and recognize their duty to listen to their conscience. For scientists, the first step is to recognize the influence they have in this process and their duty to get us out of this mess.

 

Sam

[zinnic]

Prologue:
The Constitution starts- "We the people...'' We have a government of
the people. Enactment of compulsory education for all children by the
people (government), and introduction of school taxes to afford it,
was a tremendous step forward in the advancement of children (and
IMO the nation) whose parents had no interest in, or were unable to
afford, their children's education.
Neither of my parents were 'educated' beyond the 8th grade but
recognized that we, their children, should advance beyond what their
'home schooling' could offer. They made the economic sacrifice, that
many parents do not, of insisting that we stay in state school, rather
than working to obtain money that would have alleviated their rather
desperate financial circumstances. We had great parents!
What of those who do not? Is it not in our interest, as a community,
to do all we can to help "school' all children who are born to
"unenlightened' parents?

Now addressing your post-
First, explain how the education system controls the practice of
'elected' judges? Then clarify your position as to whether or not you
believe that anyone, regardless of their lack of education, training or
community-accepted qualifications, should be free to practice as
doctors, surgeons, lawyers, teachers and lecturers (I presume you mean
college lecturers)? Would you disqualify all 'dependent thinkers' who
have been 'brainwasheding' by their formal education?

Currently, we already have the opportunity to select from many
competitive agencies offering security services inside homes, on the
street, in the woods, and against personal attacks. In your envisaged
reforms, will "people" be allowed to opt out of paying for security in
airplanes, or on ships or against missiles and attacks by terrorists
and other nations?. Selecting this option, do not they give up their
right to protection ( by 'We the people') as American citizens?

You assert that there are many arguments in favor of your reforms I
assert (for what it is worth without specifics) that there are many
arguments as to why your reforms are impractical, and would be
deleterious to the safety and prosperity of our nation. Do you
recognize that assertions are no more persuasive than 'you said as
opposed to I said?

To continue..
Does Deborah (whoever she is)like to say that "allowing people more
choice" in disposal of their waste in an urban area (for example) would
be better than the community's legal requirement that they use the
sewage system? I think not!
Should there be restricions on the disposal of toxic waste or would you
allow it to be left to the choice of your 'independent thinkers". Sam-
why do you not realize that your generalizations raise infinitely more
questions than they address?

Your claim that the "police and the military monopolize security" is
absurd.
Monopoly- the EXCLUSIVE control or possession of something.
Is it your contention that the military 'polices' the nation with
the monolithic involvement of ALL the local police jurisdictions
throughout the nation?. Ask your local police jurisdiction! They will
be horrifed by the suggestion that they do not aswer to their local
community.

Please address at least one of the questions posed in this post! Oh!
dear! I forgot! You see no need to provide evidence or justification of
your assertions.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/12/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Prologue:
The  Constitution starts- "We the people...''   We have a government of the people. Enactment of compulsory education for all children by the people (government), and introduction of school taxes to afford it, was a  tremendous step forward in the advancement of children (and IMO the nation) whose parents had no interest in, or were unable to afford, their children's education.
Neither of my parents were  'educated' beyond the 8th grade but
recognized that we, their children, should advance beyond what their 'home schooling' could offer. They made the economic sacrifice, that many parents do not, of insisting that we stay in state school, rather than working to obtain money that would have alleviated their rather desperate financial circumstances. We had great parents! What of those who do not? Is it not in our interest, as a community, to do all we can to help "school' all children who are born to "unenlightened' parents?

 

Interesting discussion, is it "we the people" or is it "we the government bureaucrats"? Why do you add government between brackets, without making an effort to discuss such issues?

 

Compulsory school has been a huge failure. It's a common myth that homeschooling was only good for pre-schoolers and early-levels of education. I'm certainly not arguing that everyone should do homeschooling, but homeschooling is much more successful than school at all levels, i.e. at higher levels as well. Typically, homeschoolers are parents who care most about the education of their children, while parents who don't care much about educating their children will send them to school.

Now addressing your post-
First, explain how the education system controls the practice of
'elected' judges?  

 

Isn't that obvious? The education system controls what is taught and who gets degrees, i.e. who enters certain professions.
 

Then clarify your position as to whether or not you believe that anyone, regardless of their lack of education, training or community-accepted qualifications, should be free to practice as
doctors, surgeons, lawyers,  teachers and lecturers (I presume you mean college lecturers)?  

 

Instead of government bureaucrats, free markets should decide who is good in certain occupations. Free markets will also expose who is not. Finally, free markets will offer consultancy services for those who want more details on this. In all these (and further) areas, free markets are superior to government controlled systems. 

Would you disqualify all 'dependent thinkers' who have been 'brainwasheding' by their formal education?

 

As I said, free markets should decide who is good in certain occupations.
 

Currently, we already have the opportunity to select from many
competitive agencies offering  security services inside homes, on the street, in the woods, and against personal attacks.

 

The military operate on a monopoly basis as a conglomorate. The police, coast guards, customs and border control officers operate in the same way. There's no competition between service providers, which means security services are provided less efficiently and with less innovation that what people are entitled to.

In your envisaged reforms, will "people" be allowed to opt out of paying for security in airplanes, or on ships or against missiles and attacks by terrorists and other nations?

 

Free markest will work out what kind of services are offered and people will decide what services they want.

Selecting this option, do not they give up their right to protection ( by 'We the people') as American citizens?

 

This "protection" is part of a range of security services that should be offered by multiple companies, organisations and individuals in free markets.

You assert that there are many arguments in favor of your reforms. I assert (for what it is worth without specifics) that there are many arguments as to why your reforms are impractical, and would be deleterious to the safety and prosperity of our nation. Do you recognize that assertions are no more persuasive than 'you said as opposed to I said?

 

Practical experience in many areas has shown that free markets provide increasingly better services at ever more affordable prices. By contrast, central control in services that are controlled by government and run on a monopoly-basis (or through cartels) causes economic stagnation and waste without much innovation and growth. A monopoly exploits a captive market and drives up prices, while getting away with lower quality services, resulting in inevitably more government control and bureaucracy, as people start complaining about it. The proven solution is to let such services be provided in free markets. I see no reasons why the same wouldn't apply to security services.

To continue..
Does Deborah (whoever she is) like to say that "allowing people more choice" in disposal of their waste in an urban area (for example) would be better than the community's legal requirement that they use the sewage system?  I think not!

 

Allowing people to use, e.g. sceptic tanks, is more in line with our rights than forcing a communist-type sewage system upon all. Deborah typically articulates the "rights" argument, which would apply in this case as well. My argument is the above-mentioned concern about monopolies.

Should there be restricions on the disposal of toxic waste or would you allow it to be left to the choice of your 'independent thinkers". Sam - why do you not realize that your generalizations  raise infinitely more questions than they address?

 

My proposal is to start addressing concerns about toxic waste from a much earlier stage, i.e. with the scientists who come up with ways to produce things that result in toxic waste.

Your claim that the "police and the military monopolize security" is

absurd. Monopoly - the EXCLUSIVE control or possession of something. Is it your contention that  the military  'polices'  the nation with the monolithic involvement of ALL the local police jurisdictions throughout the nation?. Ask your local police jurisdiction!  They will be horrifed by the suggestion that they do not aswer to their local community.

 

The military may claim to look after certain security services, such as against attacks from abroad. The point is that these operations are controlled by government bodies on an exclusive basis. This is paid for by tax money. In a more competitive environments, people can choose more directly what is to happen with their money, rather than to put all their eggs in the hands of one president.
 

Please address at least one of the  questions posed in this post! Oh! dear! I forgot! You see no need to provide evidence or justification of your assertions.

 

You make quite a few assertions yourself, zinnic, without even putting forward an argument in favor of your claims.

 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

We ARE the government.

What "myth" are you talking about? Zinnic was simply pointing out that
parents have a natural limit to their ability to teach. I'm sure
homeschooling is VERY successful for replicating early
knowledge-building, but how are children supposed to learn more than
their parents if they limit their education to the resources at home
until they are adults? How do they prepare for an engineering major?

Homeschooling parents care more than other parents? Proof? Do you have
any reason for us to agree with you?

Uh, and your conclusion about judges is just wrong. At the local and
county levels, there is no prerequisite for being elected judge in many
places. No degrees required.

And in the places that do require a law degree, it doesn't say from
where. Someone could go to a community college or get licensed at night
school. Public education has nothing to do with it.

And here comes the "free market is better" junk. Just looking at
healthcare exposes the problem in your logic. If demand is the only
driver in the selection of doctors, we'll have less agreement about
techniques (some hacks will have little techniques at all), no
advancement of treatment, no collaboration or knowledge-sharing, and
increasing rise of "proprietary knowledge" claims when discoveries are
made, etc.

So you want to return to return to frontier medicine?

You say alot about "free markets this" and "free markets that.' Do you
have any reason why we should agree? Any sources? Any examples? Any
proof? Your word is not good enough.

What "practical experience" are you talking about? That's just
gibberish without support.

And my goodness, your plan to turn everything over to the free
seriously undermines your drive to have all scientists sign an oath of
ethics. It's the exact opposite. Scientists will have no standards and
will sell whatever the discover to the highest bidder ...

[Sam Carana]

On 6/13/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

We ARE the government.

 

We are the people! Government consists of a number of people who claim to represent us. That's the problem!

 

What "myth" are you talking about? Zinnic was simply pointing out that parents have a natural limit to their ability to teach.

 

It's a myth. Homeschooling is far more successful than the teachings of those "learned" teachers.

 

I'm sure homeschooling is VERY successful for replicating early
knowledge-building, but how are children supposed to learn more than their parents if they limit their education to the resources at home until they are adults?

 

You are ignorant of the learning process. It does work like a shop where the shop has the "resources" and the customer ends up with those "resources" in their basket. But even if we did use this incorrect transfer model of the learning process, then listening to a teacher in a classroom isn't very effective as a method. Obtaining information over the Internet is far more effective. 
 

 How do they prepare for an engineering major?

 

High school certainly doesn't deliver skilled engineers. To gain the necessary practical experience, people with a serious interest in that direction would be better off working as an apprectice with a good engineer.

 

Homeschooling parents care more than other parents? Proof? Do you have any reason for us to agree with you?

 

Don't try and put words into my mouth! I said that parents who don't care much about educating their children will send them to school. 

 

Uh, and your conclusion about judges is just wrong. At the local and county levels, there is no prerequisite for being elected judge in many places. No degrees required.

And in the places that do require a law degree, it doesn't say from
where. Someone could go to a community college or get licensed at night school. Public education has nothing to do with it.

Are you saying that the education system gives everybody equal chances? What chances does a poor, black kid have to become a judge? Just check the figures, man, before you make silly remarks. Kids from rich families end up in far higher proportions in professions like law and medicine, while kids from a poor, black family end up in prison in far higher proportions. These poor families are forced to cough up the very taxes that pay for the rich kids to get their degrees and convict the poor. The whole system is geared towards keeping a small elite in their position of power. Don't come up with this "equity" rhetoric in a vain effort to defend a system that has class written all over it!  
 

And here comes the "free market is better" junk. Just looking at
healthcare exposes the problem in your logic. If demand is the only
driver in the selection of doctors, we'll have less agreement about
techniques (some hacks will have little techniques at all), no
advancement of treatment, no collaboration or knowledge-sharing, and increasing rise of "proprietary knowledge" claims when discoveries are made, etc. So you want to return to return to frontier medicine? You say alot about "free markets this" and "free markets that.' Do you have any reason why we should agree? Any sources? Any examples? Any proof? Your word is not good enough.

 

There are plenty of arguments, but I'll mention just two that have been put forward repeatedly:

 

1. When government operates schools and hospitals, it typically does so on a monopoly basis. There is plenty of evidence that monopolies stagnate innovation and result in bad services. More competitive environments result in lower prices and at the same time more efficiency and better services. Experience shows that, once monopolies are opened up, the situation improves.

 

2. More direct choice by the people better reflects out rights. Deborah came up with the argument and it is probably better for Deborah to work this argument out on more detail, specifically where matters of principle are discussed. Nevertheless, the argument as it stands is strong.
 

What "practical experience" are you talking about? That's just
gibberish without support.

 

Only those who close their eyes for the evidence will insist the opposite. Were the hospitals operated so much better in the old Soviet Union? It seems to me that the denail of the obvious results from a political leaning towards socialism that clouds your vision.
 

And my goodness, your plan to turn everything over to the free
seriously undermines your drive to have all scientists sign an oath of ethics. It's the exact opposite. Scientists will have no standards and will sell whatever the discover to the highest bidder ...

 

The contrary, as discussed in more detail under the pledge thread.  

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

On 6/13/05, Sardonic Witt <sardonic...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >We ARE the government.

> We are the people! Government consists of a number of people who claim to represent us. That's the problem!

We do elect those people ...

>>What "myth" are you talking about? Zinnic was simply pointing out that parents have a natural limit to their ability to teach.

> It's a myth. Homeschooling is far more successful than the teachings of those "learned" teachers.

Um, any facts? Any evidence at all?

>>I'm sure homeschooling is VERY successful for replicating early knowledge-building, but how are children supposed to learn more than their parents if they limit their education to the resources at home until they are adults?

> You are ignorant of the learning process. It does work like a shop where the shop has the "resources" and the customer ends up with those "resources" in their basket. But even if we did use this incorrect transfer model of the learning process, then listening to a teacher in a classroom isn't very effective as a method. Obtaining information over the Internet is far more effective.

Oh, you have GOT to be kidding? There is so much crap on the Internet
that means nothing! And I don't think I want my kids raised by
Microsoft and Google ...

>> How do they prepare for an engineering major?

> High school certainly doesn't deliver skilled engineers. To gain the necessary practical experience, people with a serious interest in that direction would be better off working as an apprectice with a good engineer.

Many schools do prepare students for specific college programs. Have
you ever been to a prep school? Or a magnet school centered around an
industry? Or even a public high school with a good shop class or an
active internship program? All of these would seem to be better than
sitting at home with mom and reading a book or watching a video ...

>>Homeschooling parents care more than other parents? Proof? Do you have any reason for us to agree with you?

> Don't try and put words into my mouth! I said that parents who don't care much about educating their children will send them to school

Well, the difference you're stating seems to be splitting hairs. But
sure, how about providing some support for THAT crazy assertion?

>>Uh, and your conclusion about judges is just wrong. At the local and county levels, there is no prerequisite for being elected judge in many places. No degrees required.

> >And in the places that do require a law degree, it doesn't say from where. Someone could go to a community college or get licensed at night school. Public education has nothing to do with it.

>Are you saying that the education system gives everybody equal chances? What chances does a poor, black kid have to become a judge? Just check the figures, man, before you make silly remarks. Kids from rich families end up in far higher proportions in professions like law and medicine, while kids from a poor, black family end up in prison in far higher proportions. These poor families are forced to cough up the very taxes that pay for the rich kids to get their degrees and convict the poor. The whole system is geared towards keeping a small elite in their position of power. Don't come up with this "equity" rhetoric in a vain effort to defend a system that has class written all over it!

OK, 1: don't call me man. I never said I was male. 2: What "figures"
are you asking me to check? 3: Kids from rich families wind up in
better professions because they can afford better EDUCATION. Duh. And
they pay for most of it themselves. Ivy League schools do not receive
public funds.

The sad thing is that I don't disagree that our system helps a small
minority stay in power. But I think it's because they have money and
can buy their way into power. Killing off the public services only
makes it cheaper for them to keep their dominance.

>> And here comes the "free market is better" junk. Just looking at healthcare exposes the problem in your logic. If demand is the only driver in the selection of doctors, we'll have less agreement about techniques (some hacks will have little techniques at all), no advancement of treatment, no collaboration or knowledge-sharing, and increasing rise of "proprietary knowledge" claims when discoveries are made, etc. So you want to return to return to frontier medicine? You say alot about "free markets this" and "free markets that.' Do you have any reason why we should agree? Any sources? Any examples? Any proof? Your word is not good enough.

> There are plenty of arguments, but I'll mention just two that have been put forward repeatedly:
> 1. When government operates schools and hospitals, it typically does so on a monopoly basis. There is plenty of evidence that monopolies stagnate innovation and result in bad services. More competitive environments result in lower prices and at the same time more efficiency and better services. Experience shows that, once monopolies are opened up, the situation improves.

Except that companies and organizations compete with one an other to
win those government contracts. You always seem to leave this part out.
The government is not some external force. It's us, deciding what to
find FROM the marketplace.

> 2. More direct choice by the people better reflects out rights. Deborah came up with the argument and it is probably better for Deborah to work this argument out on more detail, specifically where matters of principle are discussed. Nevertheless, the argument as it stands is strong.

But I'm not talking to Deborah. I'm talking to you. Don't being other
people into this. ("My friend Chuck says different? So WHAT?!)

And I read some of those old posts. The "better reflect our rights"
stuff seems like gibberish anyway.

>> What "practical experience" are you talking about? That's just gibberish without support.

> Only those who close their eyes for the evidence will insist the opposite.

Well it might help if you ever presented any of this evidence you refer
to ...

Why are you holding out, Sam? If you have the evidence that will
convince us, why aren't you sharing?

>Were the hospitals operated so much better in the old Soviet Union? It seems to me that the denail of the obvious results from a political leaning towards socialism that clouds your vision.

Well, I have no "denail" of anything, but I am certainly not a
socialist. And I saw where you accused others of this when you ran out
of arguments.

Not me. I am a capitalist through and through. And enough of one to
understand the difference between my government buying contracts out of
a competitive marketplace and the USSR creating industry in a
noncompetitive world.

Keep your slander to yourself.

> >And my goodness, your plan to turn everything over to the free seriously undermines your drive to have all scientists sign an oath of ethics. It's the exact opposite. Scientists will have no standards and will sell whatever the discover to the highest bidder ...

> The contrary, as discussed in more detail under the pledge thread.

Yeah, that was worthless too. So you think education should be free
from constraint, but those who have it should be restrained? What a
fascinating paradox you have there ...

[Sam Carana]

On 6/14/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >We ARE the government.
>
> We are the people! Government consists of a number of people who claim to
> represent us. That's the problem!

We do elect those people ...

 

While we are offered a choice to get bitten by the cat or the dog, we prefer to make our own decisions.  

>>What "myth" are you talking about? Zinnic was simply pointing out that parents have a natural limit to their ability to teach.

> It's a myth. Homeschooling is far more successful than the teachings of those "learned" teachers.

Um, any facts? Any evidence at all?

 

I'm convinced that homeschooling works better, but I do not suggest that all families should be forced into homeschooling. The onus is not on me to justify homeschooling, since I'm not saying that everyone should be doing homeschooling. Government, on the other hand, does force children into public school and because of that, the onus is on government to justify this move by tabling unbiased research. The absence of the latter proves my point.

>>I'm sure homeschooling is VERY successful for replicating early knowledge-building, but how are children supposed to learn more than their  parents if they limit their education to the resources at home until they  are adults?

> You are ignorant of the learning process. It does work like a shop where the shop has the "resources" and the customer ends up with those "resources"  in their basket. But even if we did use this incorrect transfer model of the  learning process, then listening to a teacher in a classroom isn't very  effective as a method. Obtaining information over the Internet is far more effective.

Oh, you have GOT to be kidding? There is so much crap on the Internet
that means nothing! And I don't think I want my kids raised by
Microsoft and Google ...

 

It must be you who is kidding. There are more resources on the web that any school library can ever dream of. In many schools, the Internet is an essential part of learning. Correspondence school has proven to be very successful as well.

>> How do they prepare for an engineering major?

> High school certainly doesn't deliver skilled engineers. To gain the necessary practical experience, people with a serious interest in that  direction would be better off working as an apprectice with a good engineer.

Many schools do prepare students for specific college programs. Have
you ever been to a prep school? Or a magnet school centered around an
industry? Or even a public high school with a good shop class or an
active internship program? All of these would seem to be better than
sitting at home with mom and reading a book or watching a video ...

 

As I said, school doesn't deliver good engineers, because school cannot give the necessary practical experience.
 

>>Homeschooling parents care more than other parents? Proof? Do you have any reason for us to agree with you?

> Don't try and put words into my mouth! I said that parents who don't care much about educating their children will send them to school

Well, the difference you're stating seems to be splitting hairs. But
sure, how about providing some support for THAT crazy assertion?

 

People who do care for their children are not crazy at all.
 

>>Uh, and your conclusion about judges is just wrong. At the local and county levels, there is no prerequisite for being elected judge in many places. No  degrees required.

> >And in the places that do require a law degree, it doesn't say from where. Someone could go to a community college or get licensed at night school. Public education has nothing to do with it.

>Are you saying that the education system gives everybody equal chances? What chances does a poor, black kid have to become a judge? Just check the  figures, man, before you make silly remarks. Kids from rich families end up  in far higher proportions in professions like law and medicine, while kids  from a poor, black family end up in prison in far higher proportions. These poor families are forced to cough up the very taxes that pay for the rich  kids to get their degrees and convict the poor. The whole system is geared  towards keeping a small elite in their position of power. Don't come up with  this "equity" rhetoric in a vain effort to defend a system that has class  written all over it!

OK, 1: don't call me man. I never said I was male.

 

1. I suspect that you are male. Furthermore, I suspect that your name is jrichard stevens.

2: What "figures" are you asking me to check?

 

I'm not asking. I'm telling you that the idea that anyone can become a judge is absurd.

3: Kids from rich families wind up in better professions because they can afford better EDUCATION. Duh. And they pay for most of it themselves. Ivy League schools do not receive public funds.

 

So much about public school and free education.

The sad thing is that I don't disagree that our system helps a small
minority stay in power. But I think it's because they have money and
can buy their way into power. Killing off the public services only
makes it cheaper for them to keep their dominance.

 

The current system institutionalizes thuis. Things cannot get much worse. It's an elitist system that fools some people into believing that it protected the poor. The reality is that the poor are forced into inferior public schools. The fact that public school is "free" makes it hard for commercial alternatives to compete with it. The irony is that it's not free at all, since we've all got to pay for the inferior education that public school gives.

>> And here comes the "free market is better" junk. Just looking at healthcare exposes the problem in your logic. If demand is the only  driver in the selection of doctors, we'll have less agreement about  techniques (some hacks will have little techniques at all), no  advancement of treatment, no collaboration or knowledge-sharing, and  increasing rise of "proprietary knowledge" claims when discoveries are made,  etc. So you want to return to return to frontier medicine? You say alot  about "free markets this" and "free markets that.' Do you have any reason  why we should agree? Any sources? Any examples? Any proof? Your word is not  good enough.

> There are plenty of arguments, but I'll mention just two that have been put forward repeatedly:
>  1. When government operates schools and hospitals, it typically does so on a monopoly basis. There is plenty of evidence that monopolies stagnate  innovation and result in bad services. More competitive environments result  in lower prices and at the same time more efficiency and better services.  Experience shows that, once monopolies are opened up, the situation improves.

Except that companies and organizations compete with one an other to
win those government contracts. You always seem to leave this part out.
The government is not some external force. It's us, deciding what to
find FROM the marketplace.

 

Government is not us, it's the opposite, it's alien to us, as it represents the very opposite of what we believe in. The cartels that feed on government do not represent competition in the market. That is not what free markets are about. Government is not a marketplace, it's a monopoly. As I said, experience shows that once monopolies are opened up, the situation improves.

>  2. More direct choice by the people better reflects out rights. Deborah came up with the argument and it is probably better for Deborah to work this  argument out on more detail, specifically where matters of principle are  discussed. Nevertheless, the argument as it stands is strong.

But I'm not talking to Deborah. I'm talking to you. Don't being other
people into this. ("My friend Chuck says different? So WHAT?!)

And I read some of those old posts. The "better reflect our rights"
stuff seems like gibberish anyway.

 

You can close your eyes for this argument, but it remains a strong argument, whether or not you like it. The strength of an argument does not hinge on the approval of those who oppose it for political, rather than rational reasons. The fact that you appear unable to refute this argument can only add to its strength.

Not me. I am a capitalist through and through. And enough of one to
understand the difference between my government buying contracts out of a competitive marketplace and the USSR creating industry in a
noncompetitive world.

 

It's government that is the monopoly and it creates cartels of collaborators around it to cement its position of power over society. There may be a bit more competition, but it only goes that much further than the situation in the USSR.

> >And my goodness, your plan to turn everything over to the free seriously undermines your drive to have all scientists sign an oath of  ethics. It's the exact opposite. Scientists will have no standards and will  sell whatever the discover to the highest bidder ...

> The contrary, as discussed in more detail under the pledge thread.

Yeah, that was worthless too. So you think education should be free
from constraint, but those who have it should be restrained? What a
fascinating paradox you have there ...

The issue is principle, it's listening to your conscience. Here's the real paradox: How much conscience is there in science and without conscience, isn't science just a con?

 

Sam 
 

[zinnic]

Sam, I have not made " quite a few assertions." I asserted that the
introduction of compulsory education has greatly benefited our children
and our nation. I know you disagree, but I suspect that we will never
agree as to what constitutes a benefit , so I see no future in
discussing it furthur.
Can you indicate (chapter and verse), as to other "claims" I have
made "without even putting forward an argument in favor of..." ? The
major thrust of my posts has been to question how you propose, in
general outline, to replace the current 'failing' schools and the
'dishonest and corrupt' universities that you so despise and recommend
be totally torn down. Sam- my questions are no more assertions than
are your assertions evidence!
I was hoping to 'learn' something from you (on the internet!) but, so
far, all you have come up with is home schooling (thru K9?) and
apprenticeships (trade, craft and engineering skills?). Apparently, you
see no need for "institutions' of higher learning in which knowledge is
pursued for its own sake. Your contention that the university system
has contributed very little to modern society indicates that you
believe that the technological wonders, that contribute so much to our
comfort and prosperity, primarily arose 'de novo' from 'eureka'
brainstorms by brilliant amateur inventors.
Sardonic wit's comment on frontier medicine was really on the mark. I
believe that you were born after your time, and secretly yearn for
the simple life of a frontier pioneer, in which self-sufficiency and
free enterprise were the paramount requirements for survival. Sam-
those days are no more. Complexity and inter-dependence are the keys to
survival of the modern society, whether or not you approve.
I believe that society is advanced by human enterprise and stabilized
by regulation of that enterprise. There is plenty of historical
evidence of disastrous outcomes when one is not buffered by the other.
We are getting nowhere in discussing 'education'. How about providing
more details on the administration of your pledge for scientists. It
would be helpful , for a start, to know the limits you set on the
meaning of 'harm' and how you define a scientist as opposed to a
technician and/or engineer!

[Sardonic Witt]

> I'm convinced that homeschooling works better, but I do not suggest that all families should be forced into homeschooling. The onus is not on me to justify homeschooling, since I'm not saying that everyone should be doing homeschooling. Government, on the other hand, does force children into public school and because of that, the onus is on government to justify this move by tabling unbiased research. The absence of the latter proves my point.

You said homeschooling is more effective. What is your measure? What
data do you have.

And right now kids can be homschooled. I don't think the government has
forced anyone to leave homeschooling for public school.

>>I'm sure homeschooling is VERY successful for replicating early
> knowledge-building, but how are children supposed to learn more than
their
> parents if they limit their education to the resources at home until
they
> are adults?

> > You are ignorant of the learning process. It does work like a shop where
> the shop has the "resources" and the customer ends up with those
"resources"
> in their basket. But even if we did use this incorrect transfer
model of the
> learning process, then listening to a teacher in a classroom isn't
very
> effective as a method. Obtaining information over the Internet is
far more
> effective.

> Oh, you have GOT to be kidding? There is so much crap on the Internet
> that means nothing! And I don't think I want my kids raised by
> Microsoft and Google ...

>It must be you who is kidding. There are more resources on the web
that any school library can ever dream of. In many schools, the
Internet is an essential part of learning. Correspondence school has
proven to be very successful as well.

But there's the question of quality control. Illogical ranting, porn,
cliff notes instead of books ... this is your proposed education?

>> How do they prepare for an engineering major?

> > High school certainly doesn't deliver skilled engineers. To gain the
> necessary practical experience, people with a serious interest in
that
> direction would be better off working as an apprectice with a good
engineer.

> Many schools do prepare students for specific college programs. Have
> you ever been to a prep school? Or a magnet school centered around
an
> industry? Or even a public high school with a good shop class or an
> active internship program? All of these would seem to be better than

> sitting at home with mom and reading a book or watching a video ...

< As I said, school doesn't deliver good engineers, because school
cannot give the necessary practical experience. >

And homeschooling does?

> >>Homeschooling parents care more than other parents? Proof? Do you have
> any reason for us to agree with you?

> > Don't try and put words into my mouth! I said that parents who don't
> care much about educating their children will send them to school

> Well, the difference you're stating seems to be splitting hairs. But
> sure, how about providing some support for THAT crazy assertion?

>People who do care for their children are not crazy at all.

Which ignores my question. You said parents that don't care much about
educating their kids send them to school. I'm asking you to back up
that claim.

- Hide quoted text -

LOL! I suspect YOU are make and your name is Dan Akroyd ... except Dan
Akroyd makes more sense?

But please, keep guessing ....

Are you Michael Jackson?

>2: What "figures" are you asking me to check?

You said " Just check the figures, man, before you make silly remarks"

What figures?

>I'm not asking. I'm telling you that the idea that anyone can become a judge is absurd.

You're also telling me my name instead of asking. And based on your
lack of accuracy there, I'd prefer the figures, thank you ...

3: Kids from rich families wind up in better professions because they
can
> afford better EDUCATION. Duh. And they pay for most of it
themselves. Ivy
> League schools do not receive public funds.

> So much about public school and free education.

Hey, you get what you pay for.

The sad thing is that I don't disagree that our system helps a small
> minority stay in power. But I think it's because they have money and

> can buy their way into power. Killing off the public services only
> makes it cheaper for them to keep their dominance.

> The current system institutionalizes thuis. Things cannot get much worse. It's an elitist system that fools some people into believing that it protected the poor. The reality is that the poor are forced into inferior public schools. The fact that public school is "free" makes it hard for commercial alternatives to compete with it. The irony is that it's not free at all, since we've all got to pay for the inferior education that public school gives.

"Public" does not = "free." EVER.

And education is bad, but you want to make it worse. What's wrong with
you?

> find FROM the marketplace.

Government buys contracts FROM the marketplace. And you're just
suggesting more of the same.

> 2. More direct choice by the people better reflects out rights. Deborah
> came up with the argument and it is probably better for Deborah to
work this
> argument out on more detail, specifically where matters of principle
are
> discussed. Nevertheless, the argument as it stands is strong.

> But I'm not talking to Deborah. I'm talking to you. Don't being other
> people into this. ("My friend Chuck says different? So WHAT?!)

> And I read some of those old posts. The "better reflect our rights"
> stuff seems like gibberish anyway.

> You can close your eyes for this argument, but it remains a strong argument, whether or not you like it. The strength of an argument does not hinge on the approval of those who oppose it for political, rather than rational reasons. The fact that you appear unable to refute this argument can only add to its strength.

So strong you have to rely on someone else to defend it? What a joke
...

Not me. I am a capitalist through and through. And enough of one to
> understand the difference between my government buying contracts out
of a
> competitive marketplace and the USSR creating industry in a
> noncompetitive world.

> It's government that is the monopoly and it creates cartels of collaborators around it to cement its position of power over society. There may be a bit more competition, but it only goes that much further than the situation in the USSR.

Hey, the government lets you choose right now. No one's stopping ya.

> >And my goodness, your plan to turn everything over to the free seriously
> undermines your drive to have all scientists sign an oath of ethics.
It's
> the exact opposite. Scientists will have no standards and will sell
whatever
> the discover to the highest bidder ...

> > The contrary, as discussed in more detail under the pledge thread.

> Yeah, that was worthless too. So you think education should be free
> from constraint, but those who have it should be restrained? What a
> fascinating paradox you have there ...

>The issue is principle, it's listening to your conscience. Here's the real paradox: How much conscience is there in science and without conscience, isn't science just a con?

Witty joke. Meaningless, but witty. Except I think the logical
punchline is that "without conscience, science ISN'T or DOESN'T HAVE a
con ..."

[Sam Carana]

On 6/15/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

You said homeschooling is more effective. What is your measure? What data do you have.

 

As I said, I'm convinced that homeschooling works better, but I do not suggest that  all families should be forced into homeschooling. Thus, the onus is not on me to  justify homeschooling, since I'm not saying that everyone should be doing  homeschooling. Government, on the other hand, does force children into  public school and because of that, the onus is on government to justify this  move by tabling unbiased research. The absence of the latter proves my point.

And right now kids can be homschooled. I don't think the government has forced anyone to leave homeschooling for public school.

 

Families who cannot afford to homeschool are forced to send their children to public schools. Government refuses to inform families of their right to homeschool. Government makes it hard for families to homeschool by taxing them to pay for the school habits of other families. Government makes it hard for homeschoolers in all kinds of ways, while instead pouring millions of our hard-earned dollars into the indoctrinary propaganda machine represented by public school.

But there's the question of quality control. Illogical ranting, porn,
cliff notes instead of books ... this is your proposed education?

 

A pledge would go some way towards better quality education. Right now, the education system forces children into public schools. The associated force, bullying, deceipt and coercion expresses and thus teaches inherently bad moral values. Vouchers would go some way to improve things, but more generally we should get rid of any government involvement in education.

< As I said, school doesn't deliver good engineers, because school cannot give the necessary practical experience. >

And homeschooling does?

 

Homeschooling may do so. Apprecticeship may be another avenue. There are many alternatives and ways to mix them. School is not the best place to learn practical skils and get practical experience. Yet, the education system falsely hangs on to school as the sole educational alternative. That in itself expresses an unacceptable message, which is made worse by the way this message is forcibly imposed upon children.
 

Which ignores my question. You said parents that don't care much about educating their kids send them to school. I'm asking you to back up that claim.

 

What else would they do? Government forces them to send the children to school.

> OK, 1: don't call me man. I never said I was male.

>1. I suspect that you are male. Furthermore, I suspect that your name is jrichard stevens.

LOL! I suspect YOU are make and your name is Dan Akroyd ... except Dan Akroyd makes more sense? But please, keep guessing .... Are you Michael Jackson?

 

The fact that you don't deny it speaks for itself. It also exposes the hypocrisy behind attacking others for using nicknames and dual usernames.

> > 2: What "figures" are you asking me to check?

>I'm not asking. I'm telling you that the idea that anyone can become a  judge is absurd.

You're also telling me my name instead of asking. And based on your lack of accuracy there, I'd prefer the figures, thank you ...

 

Are you saying that you were NOT the same person who previously used the username jrichard stevens in these groups? As to figures, the situation is clear, as you admit yourself in your own point 3. below. I'm saying that the idea that anyone can become a judge is absurd. Proportionally more students from rich families end up in legal professions.    

3: Kids from rich families wind up in better professions because
> they can afford better EDUCATION. Duh. And they pay for most
> of it themselves. Ivy League schools do not receive public funds.

> So much about public school and free education.

Hey, you get what you pay for.

 

No, unfortunately we get what the government enforces upon us in disrespect for our rights and against better alternatives.

The sad thing is that I don't disagree that our system helps a small
> minority stay in power. But I think it's because they have money and
> can buy their way into power. Killing off the public services only
> makes it cheaper for them to keep their dominance.

> The current system institutionalizes this. Things cannot get much worse. It's an elitist system that fools some people into believing that it  protected the poor. The reality is that the poor are forced into inferior  public schools. The fact that public school is "free" makes it hard for  commercial alternatives to compete with it. The irony is that it's not free  at all, since we've all got to pay for the inferior education that public  school gives.

"Public" does not = "free." EVER.

 

Glad to hear we do agree on that point.

And education is bad, but you want to make it worse. What's wrong with you?

 

I propose ways to improve education and I give arguments why. By contrast, you have only put forward empty and offensive rhetoric originating from bad manners and a questionable political view. Your attitude reflects one of the worst examples of what school teaches kids.

Government buys contracts FROM the marketplace. And you're just suggesting more of the same.

 

Another misrepresentation of what I said. I propose to remove government from education altogether.

> You can close your eyes for this argument, but it remains a strong  argument, whether or not you like it. The strength of an argument does not  hinge on the approval of those who oppose it for political, rather than  rational reasons. The fact that you appear unable to refute this argument  can only add to its strength.

So strong you have to rely on someone else to defend it? What a joke
...

 

I like to give credit where it's due.

> Not me. I am a capitalist through and through. And enough of
> one to understand the difference between my government
> buying contracts out of a competitive marketplace and the
> USSR creating industry in a noncompetitive world.

> It's government that is the monopoly and it creates cartels of collaborators around it to cement its position of power over society. There  may be a bit more competition, but it only goes that much further than the  situation in the USSR.

Hey, the government lets you choose right now. No one's stopping ya.

 

No, government only gives people one single choice every few years. That's as close to the opposite of choice as one can get.

 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/16/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Sam,  I have not made " quite a few assertions."  I asserted that the introduction of compulsory education has greatly benefited our children and our nation. I know you disagree, but I suspect that we will never agree as to what constitutes a benefit , so  I see no future in discussing it furthur.
Can you indicate (chapter and verse), as to   other "claims"  I have made "without even putting forward an argument in favor of..." ?

 

Well, what else do you advocate, zinnic, except a continuation of the current discrimination against homeschoolers? I don't even know what it is that you advocate, let alone that I have ssen you put forward any argument in favor of it.

The major thrust of my posts has been to question how you propose, in general outline, to replace the current 'failing' schools and the 'dishonest and corrupt' universities that you so despise and recommend be totally torn down. Sam- my  questions are no more assertions than are your assertions evidence!

 

Your questioning of my attempt to improve things in itself reflects a questionable attitude, zinnic, as if anyone who seeks change was bad and as if anyone who opposes change was good.

<snip> Complexity and inter-dependence are the keys to

survival of the modern society, whether or not you approve. I believe that society is advanced by human enterprise and stabilized by regulation of that enterprise. There is plenty of historical evidence of disastrous outcomes when one is not buffered by the other.

 

What you say reflects a very specific political view, zinnic, which appears to be in conflict with your earlier views that education should be independent from politics. Didn't you earlier advocate independence for science and the university? Yet, you on the other hand seek to impose a very specific political view upon society at large. How can you talk about interdependence of society on the one hand, yet on the other hand call for independence of science and regulation of enterprise?  

We are getting nowhere in discussing 'education'. How about providing more details on the administration of your pledge for scientists. It would be helpful, for a start, to know the limits you set on the meaning of  'harm'  and how you define a scientist as opposed to a technician and/or engineer!  

 

Indeed, we haven't even gone into the possibl;e details of such a pledge and already you have expressed opposition in principle to it. Similarly, when I ask you for arguments, you deny to have made any claims.

 

So, what is it that what you want students to to 'learn', zinnic?

 

Sam

[zinnic]

Sam- You say the silliest things! Everyone reading this thread,
excepting you, can get closer to the opposite of choice! Altogether
now! The opposite of choice is NO choice, ever, never!

[zinnic]

>Well, what else do you advocate, zinnic, except a continuation of the
>current discrimination against homeschoolers? I don't even know what it is
>that you advocate, let alone that I have ssen you put forward any argument
>in favor of it.

There you go again! (apologies to Reagan)
I have said nothing to indicate that I support discrimination against
home schoolers, provided that there is evidence that the parents are
reasonably qualified to 'school' their children or are in a position
to provide a suitable tutor. To allow illiterate parents to
'homeschool' their own children is, IMO, child abuse. Do YOU
disagree? Please answer!
Despite your claim to the contrary, I HAVE advocated (in a post to
you) that I favor significant changes in public education because, I
believe, a set curriculum for all students through K12 is ridiculous.
Many students (sometimes the best) are bored by 'academic learning'
but become enthusiastic 'learners' when the practicality of knowledge
is revealed in trade or technological schools. I ADVOCATE that 15-16
yr-olds be given the choice of staying in senior high school or
transferrng to state-financed (or private) business/trade/technology
schools. Many of these transfers from the K12 system will produce
entrepreneurs who will fuel the capalistic system (which I favor).

>Your questioning of my attempt to improve things in itself reflects a
>questionable attitude, zinnic, as if anyone who seeks change was bad and as
>if anyone who opposes change was good.

I question you and I become questionable? If I ask a question, does it
follow that I oppose change? Sam, even you must admit that is
illogical!

>>There is plenty of historical evidence of disastrous outcomes

>> when one is not buffered by the other [private enterprise and governmental regulation- Zinnic]

>What you say reflects a very specific political view, zinnic, which appears
>to be in conflict with your earlier views that education should be
>independent from politics. Didn't you earlier advocate independence for
>science and the university? Yet, you on the other hand seek to impose a very
>specific political view upon society at large. How can you talk about
>interdependence of society on the one hand, yet on the other hand call for
>independence of science and regulation of enterprise?

My specific political point of view is what?
Show me where I stated that education, science and the university
should be independent of politics. Never did! Though, I believe it!
Never, ever, did I call for independence of science and regulation of
enterprise? What do you mean by that, anyway? Please cite the
relevant statements in my posts! I believe you are becoming confused
by "religious" fervor for your 'end all and be all' advocacy of the
self-sufficiency of individuals in modern society.

>>We are getting nowhere in discussing 'education'. How about providing more
>> details on the administration of your pledge for scientists. It would be
>> helpful, for a start, to know the limits you set on the meaning of 'harm'
>> and how you define a scientist as opposed to a technician and/or engineer!

>Indeed, we haven't even gone into the possibl;e details of such a
pledge
>and already you have expressed opposition in principle to it.

There you go again! My opposition is not "in principle" but in
practicality. Your suggestion of a pledge for scientists is no more
practical than is a requirement for elected politicians to pledge that
they would never, ever, vote for anything that would directly or
indirectly do 'harm'.
I take it that you have no intention to try to define, as I
requested, what you mean by 'harm' and 'scientist'? Is it because
your definitions would be "questionable?

>Similarly, when I ask you for arguments, you deny to have made any claims.
> So, what is it that what you want students to to 'learn', zinnic?

First, how do you imagine that I could possibly argue for what I do
not claim?
What I want students to learn is to how to make a good living that will
contribute to an advancement of society leading to an increase in
prosperity for all, including the most unfortunate and least talented
among us.

But then, when all is said and done, what do I know! I am an
indoctrinated, brainwashed product of the evil, conspiratorial
education system that is totally controlled by 'government' that (in
your view) is not of, nor for, the people.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/17/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

I have said nothing to indicate that I support discrimination against
home schoolers, provided that there is evidence that the parents are reasonably qualified to 'school' their children or are in a position
to provide a suitable tutor. To allow illiterate parents to 'homeschool'  their own children is, IMO, child abuse. Do YOU
disagree? Please answer!

 

You call for government control over what is up to families to decide. Furthermore, your suggestion that school was a better alternative defies the reality that many kids leace complete school, yet are functionally illiterate. If you regard that as child abuse, then teachers should be jailed and scholl should be abolished, while you should eat your own words.

Despite your claim to the contrary, I HAVE advocated  (in a post to
you) that I favor significant changes in public education because, I
believe, a set curriculum for all students through K12 is ridiculous.
Many students (sometimes the best) are bored by 'academic learning' but become enthusiastic 'learners' when the practicality of knowledge is revealed in trade or technological schools. I ADVOCATE that 15-16 yr-olds be given the choice of staying in senior high school or transferrng to state-financed (or private) business/trade/technology schools. Many of these transfers from the K12 system will produce entrepreneurs who will fuel the  capalistic system (which I favor).

 

Yes, we do agree on the point that such diversity is good. But how can this be achieved? A good step in that direction is vouchers. They allow families to choose the type of education that best fits their needs. Eventually, we should aim to remove all government control from education. Government control has led to the poor education situation we're in now.

>Your questioning of my attempt to improve things in itself reflects a
>questionable attitude, zinnic, as if anyone who seeks change was bad and as
>if anyone who opposes change was good.

I question you and I become questionable? If I ask a question, does it follow that I oppose change? Sam, even you must admit that is illogical!

 

If you question the direction that I propose, then I can only conclude that you either want no change or a change in the opposite direction. Why else do you question what I propose?

>>There is plenty of historical evidence of disastrous outcomes
>> when one is not buffered by the other [private enterprise and governmental regulation- Zinnic]

>What you say reflects a very specific political view, zinnic, which appears
>to be in conflict with your earlier views that education should be
>independent from politics. Didn't you earlier advocate independence for
>science and the university? Yet, you on the other hand seek to impose a very
>specific political view upon society at large. How can you talk about
>interdependence of society on the one hand, yet on the other hand call for
>independence of science and regulation of enterprise?

My specific political point of view is what? Show me where I stated that education, science and the university should be independent of politics. Never did! Though, I believe it! Never, ever, did I call for independence of science and regulation of enterprise? What do you mean by that, anyway? Please cite the relevant statements in my posts!  I believe you are becoming confused by "religious" fervor for your 'end all and be all' advocacy of the self-sufficiency of individuals in modern society.

 

It's a conundrum that you created yourself when you called for government regulation, zinnic. I don't want government control. I see such control as political influence, leading to indoctrination that is in conflict with the views of families who are forced to pay for it. If you, on the other hand, call for government regulation, then you'll have to explain yourself.

>>We are getting nowhere in discussing 'education'. How about providing more
>> details on the administration of your pledge for scientists. It would be
>> helpful, for a start, to know the limits you set on the meaning of 'harm'
>> and how you define a scientist as opposed to a technician and/or engineer!

>Indeed, we haven't even gone into the possibl;e details of such a
pledge
>and already you have expressed opposition in principle to it.

There you go again!  My opposition is not "in principle" but in
practicality. Your suggestion of a pledge for scientists is no more
practical than is a requirement for elected politicians to pledge that
they would never, ever, vote for anything that would directly or
indirectly  do 'harm'. I take it that you have no intention to try to define, as I requested, what you mean by 'harm'  and 'scientist'?  Is it because your definitions would be "questionable?

 

I haven't even said yet whether the term "harm" should be used. At this stage, I haven't even been able to take the next step and discuss the content of such a pledge, because people like you have already rejected the idea, because it wouldn't work in practice. Well, perhaps it wouldn't stop all possible hartm in the world, but if such a pledge would only stop a little bit of harm, then it would be a good move and it have some practical effect. As I see it, the your reasoning behind your rejection doesn't seem to make sense. Furthermore, as I said repeatedly, I see such a pledge as a step in the right direction, and as part of a package of reform measures that should be taken to shake up education, the military and further sectors of society.  

>Similarly, when I ask you for arguments, you deny to have made any claims.
> So, what is it that what you want students to to 'learn', zinnic?

First, how do you imagine that I could possibly argue for what I do
not claim? What I want students to learn is to how to make a good living that will contribute to an advancement of society leading to an increase in prosperity for all, including the most unfortunate and least talented among us.

 

And you think government control is the best way to achieve that?

But then, when all is said and done, what do I know!  I am an
indoctrinated, brainwashed product of the evil, conspiratorial
education system that is totally controlled by  'government' that (in
your view) is not of, nor for, the people.

 

Well, if that's what you want to be. BTW, it's no secret conspiracy. The tragedy is that it's all done openly, with the deliberate intention to add insult to injury of those who do an honest job in the hope their kids will get a good education, only to see their hard-earned money taken away by force and wasted on teachers who do the exact opposite. And if someone like me raises a finger, there's zinnic who attacks me for doing so. What values is such a system supposed to teach? And how do you sleep at night?

 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/17/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

The opposite of allowing people to make up their own mind is to take as many decisions as possible out of their hands and centralize control over society into something called government. By definition, government is the opposite of choice. Some governments are worse than others, some do allow people no choice at all. But the very essence of government is that it decides, rather than that it allows people to look after things.

 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

I am fighting back the urge to call you names.

YOU claimed that homeschooling was superior, YOU have the onus to back
up the claim.

No one forces families to send their kids to public school. You don't
seem to know what you are talking about. Were you homeschooled?

And here's the kicker: you say you want government out of education,
but you advocate vouchers, which is GOVERNMENT MONEY for school. So now
we're paying taxes to make sure that everyone has a chance at a good
education and YOU want the government to take that money and dole it
out to the private schools that are already doing well? And you call
this getting rid of government involvement?

You say that parents who don't care as much about educating their kids
send them to public school. But you offer nothing in way of support, so
I can only assume you dreamed this.

Oh, the identity part is my favorite. No, I am not the person who used
to post here as jrichard stevens. If I were, would you ban me too?

Is everyone who disagrees with your preposterous positions the same
person? Is this your vast conspiracy theory?

And when did I ever attack others for using nicknames and dual
usernames? What in the world are you talking about?

And why do I have to say the same thing three times before you
understand? Is English your first language?

YOU told me to check figures. WHERE ARE THE FRIGGIN' FIGURES?! How can
you jump on me for not checking something you can't provide me with?

And you say the government gives people one single choice every few
years? What in the HECK does that even mean? We choose lots of things
every day. I can choose to send my kid to public school and change my
mind tomorrow and send them to private school. Then next week, I can
decide to homschool them.

Your cartels conspiracy theory is LAME. How about you just answer some
of my basic questions:

Were you homeschooled? Did you attend university? What is your
expertise in the educational system?

[Sam Carana]

On 6/17/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am fighting back the urge to call you names.

 

You must have picked up that bad habit of name-calling at school.

YOU claimed that homeschooling was superior, YOU have the onus to back up the claim.

 

You're free to disagree, but anyone can look up the facts if in doubt. There's no onus on me to educate you, es[ecially not given that fact that you've shown yourself to be unwilling to listen to reason.  

No one forces families to send their kids to public school. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

 

Poor families where both parents have to work are not in a position to homeschool. They've got to work hard to cough up the taxes that government imposes on them.

Were you homeschooled?

 

That's none of your business.

And here's the kicker: you say you want government out of education, but you advocate vouchers, which is GOVERNMENT MONEY for school.

 

As I've always said, voucehsr are a step in the right direction. It's certainly better then having government fund public school directly, no questions asked. But more generally, I propose reform that oincludes removal of government from education altogether. If you're not aware of that, re-read some of the earlier posts, before making false statements and accusations.

You say that parents who don't care as much about educating their kids send them to public school. But you offer nothing in way of support, so I can only assume you dreamed this.

 

Where else would they send them? Governm,ent forces them to do so.

Oh, the identity part is my favorite. No, I am not the person who used to post here as jrichard stevens.

 

Quite frankly, I find that hard to believe. There's an awkward and eery similarity between posts' content and writing style. No substance, personal attacks, same choice of wording and rethoric, same invalid style of reasoning.. the similarities are too much to ignore. One took over where the others stopped posting.

If I were, would you ban me too?

 

I'm not aware the jrich stevens is banned from any group. Please inform me. I like to hear good news from you for a change!

And you say the government gives people one single choice every few years? What in the HECK does that even mean? We choose lots of things every day. I can choose to send my kid to public school and change my mind tomorrow and send them to private school. Then next week, I can decide to homschool them.

 

Perhaps you have ythat choice, because you've wormed yourself into the system and feed from it. But poor people who do honest work don't have the choice to send their kids to private schools. Government forces them to send the kids to public school!

Your cartels conspiracy theory is LAME. How about you just answer some of my basic questions:..

 

Basic questions? Is there a basis underlying your posts, that yet have to reveal any substance? Tell me more about these basics..

..Were you homeschooled? Did you attend university? What is your expertise in the educational system?

That's none of your business. We're discussing issues here, not the messengers. Members should be assured that they can discuss issues here in the confidence that nobody will pressure them into revealing their personal details. Anyone who attempts to do so should rightfully be exposed for this. The only people I know who tend to pressure members into giving personal details are pedophiles. What are the "basics" behind your conduct here?

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

I believe that home schooling is better when administered by capable
and conscientious parents. I believe that a majority of the parents in
the U.S. are incapable of providing adequate home schooling. I believe
that there is no "onus" on anyone to prove anything in a newsgroup such
as this one. Usually, when someone demands "proof", it is a red
herring to avoid debate.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/17/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I believe that home schooling is better when administered by capable and conscientious parents.  

 

Good to hear you speak your mind, goozlefotz, but what are you trying to say? Sure, any education is better when the people involved are capable and conscientious. But what is capable? Who decides who is capable? Isn't school worse off, if we start comparing things? Aren't the ones who keep calling for figures here the same people who desperately seek to hide the full extent of the horror they inflict on our children? Teachers demands high saleries, while parents - without getting paid - do take the effort to ensure their children do get a good education. Schools are less capable if we look at the results. This should be obvious if you take just one look at the values behind the system.

I believe that a majority of the parents in the U.S. are incapable of providing adequate home schooling.  

 

Again, what are you trying to say here? Did you hear me say that all families should start homeschooling? If we're to compare things, are the majority of schools capable of providing adequate education? Again, what is capable? A brief look at the number of functionally illiterates leaving school indicates that schools are not adequate. And what about moral values? What can be taught by a system founded on bullying, coercion, forcing and patronizing kids? Can that be adequate in anyone's language?

I believe that there is no "onus" on anyone to prove anything in a newsgroup such as this one.  Usually, when someone demands "proof", it is a red herring to avoid debate.

 

Indeed, some members here keep calling for evidence for the sake of it. Their intention must be to deliberately sabotage this group, probably because they cannot stand that some good issues are being discussed here, in sharp contrast to the nonsense that is taught at school. If they only had done a minimal study into the issue of homeschooling, they would have bitten their tongue in shame.

 

And, as so many times before, they resort to personal attacks against me for bringing up these issues, with the silly rhetoric that the one who brings up any issue first had to "prove" things, as if only criticism was "allowed" to be posted here. Well, this is not a classroom here, where negativity is the norm. Instead, members here don't let themselves be silenced by these persistent personal attacks and deliberate efforts to degenerate the intellectual level of discussions here.   

 

But their conduct here shouldn't go unquestioned. Obviously, homeschoolers are not the ones seeking to enforce their ideas about education onto others. Instead, it's those who take least part in the education of their children, who seek to force children of others into schools! They do so without even bothering to find educational arguments. They just want kids out of their way. It's the opposite of having the best future of those kids in mind.

 

Now I ask you. Should there conduct here go unquestioned? Should the bullying, the amoral conduct and intellectual diarrhea they seek to impose on our children go unquestioned? Especially when this is supposed to be a reflection of what the education system stands for? Isn't any kid who is forced into such a horrific scenario not entitled to an explanation? Obviously, the onus to explain things is on those who seek to impose their nightmare upon others, not on the one who raises a finger against it the horror. 

 

Sam 

[Sardonic Witt]

So you accuse me of being a different person and harass me, and then
you have the balls to claim "We're discussing issues here, not the
messengers?"

Here's another Sam gem: explain to me how if I am not poor why I can't
be hardworking?

THe point is that we all have choices. Those with more money have more
choices. It;s called capitalism.

[Sardonic Witt]

THe only time I demand proof on someone's statements is when those
statements are the basis for the argument.

When sam says "Homeschool is obviously better than public school,
THEREFORE ..." I can't get to the therefore until the "obvious"
underpinning foundation comes into view.

Similarly, sam saying that parents who care about their kid's education
homeschool as evidence of one of his points begs that question.

No one HAS to prove anything. I just simply can't agree with
unsupported assertions and move on.

Sam is very difficult to talk to.

[zinnic]

OK Sam!-no questions, no politics, no government control. Take it from
there. Describe your pledge and how you propose that it be selectively
administered. Oops! 'administered' sounds rather controlling , but give
it your best effort, anyway.

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> Good to hear you speak your mind, goozlefotz, but what are you trying to
> say?

<snip>
> Sam

XXX begs the question by demanding proof; you beg the question by
acting stupid. What I was trying to say was what I said. There is no
need for me to provide endless explanations when the original was
plenty clear enough.

Dave

[Sam Carana]

Some explanation would help, goozlefotz, if you accuse someone of acting stupid. Without clarification, such an accusation itself is not very smart.

 

Sam
 

[Sam Carana]

The posts of this person are persistently negative and destructive, lacking a logical and rational basis, typically lacking any substance at all. They keep calling for evidence, in the face of the obvious or things that are plainly self-evident. Such silly, empty or outright destructive rhetoric is the more disturbing where it's intended to sabotage the integrity of a group, which in itself is a gross insult to all its members. But such calls for evidence are even more inappropriate when matters of conscience are at stake. In this regard, people's rights are self-evident and require no prior justification. In matters of principle, calls for evidence become not just inaapropriate, but outright offensive, since they do not only attack one specific person's right to have a say in this group, but they effectively constitute an attack on everyone in this group.

 

He now tries to worm himself away from his obvious insults by saying that "No one HAS to prove anything", and adding that he "just simply can't agree with unsupported assertions and move on."

 

Well, perhaps he can't agree, but nobody is forcing him to do so. The point is that he shouldn't have posted insults and offensive comments in the first place. In conclusion, the non-apologetic replies and the consitent pattern of conduct of this member call for closer moderation.  

 

Sam

 

On 6/17/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Andrés]

Hi
I have been following this conversation for a couple of weeks. First I
want to thank you all I learnt a new word! Onus! Thanks
Now going into the discussion.
I have to say that I both agree and disagree with both sides of this
argument.
SAM'S SIDE:
I agree with the idea that we should be cautious as to the extent of
faith we put on the educational system. The modern analysis of the
purpose of educational system agrees to two conclusions:
1.- we train our students to become better workers, that is to follow
the commands of a hierarchy
2.- we try to keep students in the educational system longer so that
they do not become part of the working force because there aren't as
many positions as there ought to be.
THE OTHER SIDE
Now when Sam advocates for home schooling I believe, and please clarify
this for me, he doesn't take into consideration Intelligence in its
modern version that is Multiple Intelligences. This means that each
person has a different genetic area of intelligence (natural,
mathematical, linguistic, logical, just to mention a few of them) which
is latent in their brains. Now imagine that such a child has the
potential to become a modern Einstein but the child never got a deep in
enticing education in physics, the society would never be able to go a
step forward in the development in physics.
AN EXAMPLE OF HOME SCHOOLING
I live in Argentina and here we have a somehow laxer educational
system. Home schooling isn't forbidden nor is it strongly supported.
Especially in rural areas where schools are scarce home schooling is a
real option.
The government only tries to ensure (though I must admit to a very
limited extent) that most of the population receives a barest minimum
of equations which involves mathematics, language, argentine history
and argentine geography as well as science oriented towards health
awareness. Unfortunately this system isn't really efficient because
in many cases the parents are either working most of the day or they
even need the children to help them to support their lives.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
I am a teacher who has been working in education for the last 10 years.
I had teaching experience long before I started my teacher training.
This made me extremely critical of the educational system overall.
Furthermore I have been working in bilingual schools where I had access
to modern teaching techniques as well as material and schools of
thought. If I compare the Argentine educational resources with their
British counterparts I have to admit that the argentine resources have
been found REALLY wanting.
CONCLUSIONS
If a system of completely independent home schooling is imposed without
any external moderation is imposed, how could we ensure that everyone
receives the best education they could get? That is building on the
innate abilities of the children.
In such a system, who and how are resources to be selected?
Mind you that I didn't once mention the moral/religious issue on
puropose.
Best regards to all
Andrés

[goozlefotz]

Ooops XXX -> Sardonic Witt

[Sam Carana]

On 6/19/05, Andrés <andres....@gmail.com> wrote:

..Now when Sam advocates for home schooling I believe, and please clarify this for me, he doesn't take into consideration Intelligence in its modern version that is Multiple Intelligences. This means that each person has a different genetic area of intelligence (natural, mathematical, linguistic, logical, just to mention a few of them) which is latent in their brains.

 

Whatever you're trying to say, this seems an argument against the standardization that the education system imposes on kids.

Now imagine that such a child has the potential to become a modern Einstein but the child never got a deep in
enticing education in physics, the society would never be able to go a step forward in the development in physics.

 

Are you saying that Einstein shouldn't have started working in a patent office? Or that Bill Gates should have continued with his university study, instead of founding Microsoft?

If a system of completely independent home schooling is imposed without any external moderation is imposed, how could we ensure that everyone receives the best education they could get? That is building on the innate abilities of the children. In such a system, who and how are resources to be selected? Mind you that I didn't once mention the moral/religious issue on purpose.
Andrés

Firstly, the moral issues are important. Homeschooling isn't a system imposed on families; instead, it's families keeping the education of their children into their own hands, where it rightfully belongs.

 

Secondly, I never said that everyone should keep their kids at home. Homeschooling comes with many activities outside the family home, undertaken under the guidence of parents and the family in general.

 

Thirdly, I mentioned apprenticeships as a good alternative to the lack of skills learned at school, especially in regard to practical skills and experience, both in regard to gaining specialized expertise and skills, and developing work mentality, social and business contacts, etc.

 

In summary, we need to take a very critical look at the education system. It does NOT "ensure that everyone receives the best education they could get". Instead, it gives some of the worst possible outcomes that could easily have been avoided, had we not been deceived into falsely putting our trust in school. Without government control over education, we''ll be better off.  
 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> Are you saying that Einstein shouldn't have started working in a patent
> office? Or that Bill Gates should have continued with his university study,
> instead of founding Microsoft?
>

> Sam

Einstein worked in the patent office after he got his Ph.D. because he
couldn't get a job in physics. His math was too poor.

Anyway, it sounds a lot like Sam is back pedalling. If he had any guts
he would admit that he is out-gunned.

[zinnic]

State schooling does not, and never will, "ensure that everyone
receives the best education that they could get". Are you claiming that
universal homeschooling will achieve this ideal, despite the enormous
differences in the capability and motivation of the parents?
Free enterprise does not ensure that EVERYONE gets the best deal that
they COULD get , but we do not tear down the free enterprise system.
Rather, we regulate it in the hope of developing a stable society
that benefits as many individuals as possible.
After your "very critical look" do you have even one suggestion (other
than its total destruction) for the modification, regulation, or
deregulation of the current educational system that would help to
avoid "some of the worst possible outcomes?
There are good parents and there are bad parents, just as there are
good teachers and bad teachers. Do you not see that good parents can
make up for bad teachers? And that good teachers may partially overcome
the disadvantage for a child with bad parents. Or do you insist that,
under all circumstances, parents know best?

[Sam Carana]

Einstein didn't keep doing "research" at a university, didn't he? Research is simply better done at labs and research centers of large companies than at universities.

 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/20/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

State schooling does not, and never will, "ensure that everyone
receives the best education that they could get".

 

Glad to hear you admit that, zinnic!

Are you claiming that universal homeschooling will achieve this ideal, despite the  enormous differences in the capability and motivation of the parents?

 

Universal homeschooling? I just answered this question in:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/5690a1999373250b

Free enterprise does not ensure that EVERYONE gets the best deal that they COULD get, but we do not tear down the free enterprise system.

 

Could you clarify what you're trying to say here, zinnic? What kind of statement is this? Are you expressinjg some personal experiences? An a-priori hatred towards free enterprise? Are you expressing merely a political view here? Are you suggesting that children should be taught a dislike for free enterprise? Or, are you saying that free enterprise should change, before it could replace public school? What are you trying to say?

Rather, we regulate it in the hope of developing a stable society
that benefits as many individuals as possible.

 

So, should we assume that you're a socialist, and that this was a message we needed to hear in order to understand where you're coming from? Again, what are you trying to say, zinnic? How about posting some educational views, instead of politically-based criticism?

After your "very critical look" do you have even one suggestion (other than its total destruction)  for the modification, regulation, or
deregulation of the current educational system that would help to
avoid "some of the worst possible outcomes?

 

I have mentioned plenty of things that are wrong. You're repeatedly suggesting that I didn't answer your requests for further details, despite my many and lengthy replies. If you have overlooked them, them read the earlier posts first, zinnic, before making false accusations. The current system results in some of the worst outcomes. It's rotten to the bone. We need more fundamental change than some patching up. Such fundamental change is not destructive, it's constructive!

There are good parents and there are bad parents, just as there are
good teachers and bad teachers. Do you not see that good parents can make up for bad teachers? And that good teachers may partially overcome the disadvantage for a child with bad parents. Or do you insist that, under all circumstances, parents know best?

 

Again, I never said that everyone should be homeschooling. Why do you keep misreading my posts and making false accusations, zinnic?

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:

> Einstein didn't keep doing "research" at a university, didn't he? Research
> is simply better done at labs and research centers of large companies than
> at universities.
> Sam

Einstein did his best work at home while he worked at the patent
office, publishing many important papers during that period. After he
became famous he spent the rest of his life at universities.

[zinnic]

Sam Carana Jun 20, 5:48 am show options

From: Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com> - Find messages by this author

Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:48:24 +1000
Local: Mon,Jun 20 2005 5:48 am
Subject: Re: [epistemology] Re: Biggest issues in epistemology?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

On 6/20/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

> State schooling does not, and never will, "ensure that everyone
> receives the best education that they could get".

Glad to hear you admit that, zinnic!

Heartbroken that you do not admit that ''free enterprise does not
ensure that EVERYONE gets the best possible deal that they could get."
>From my post ,quote--"Rather, we regulate it [free enterprise} in the

hope of developing a stable society that benefits as many individuals

as possible-unquote.
Winning and LOSING is the essence of the free enterprise capitalist
system. I have stated that I support capitalism, provided that it is
stabilized by sensible regulation. You are well aware of my position
and for you to imply my "socialism" (see below)is a desperate resort
to dishonest politics.

Are you claiming that universal homeschooling will achieve this ideal,
> despite the enormous differences in the capability and motivation of the
> parents?

Universal homeschooling? I just answered this question in:

http://groups-beta.google.com/­group/epistemology/msg/5690a19­99373250b

Free enterprise does not ensure that EVERYONE gets the best deal that
they
> COULD get, but we do not tear down the free enterprise system.

Could you clarify what you're trying to say here, zinnic? What kind of

statement is this? Are you expressinjg some personal experiences? An
a-priori hatred towards free enterprise? Are you expressing merely a
political view here? Are you suggesting that children should be taught
a
dislike for free enterprise? Or, are you saying that free enterprise
should
change, before it could replace public school? What are you trying to
say?

What a rant!
You know very well that I am pointing out that one should not trash
something because it is not ideal. Nothing is perfect. One should
endeavour to improve rather than completely destroy.

So, should we assume that you're a socialist, and that this was a
message
we needed to hear in order to understand where you're coming from?
Again,
what are you trying to say, zinnic? How about posting some educational
views, instead of politically-based criticism?

Who is we? Are you taking it on yourself to speak for this group?
Add your assumption that I am a socialist to the long list of your
other incorrect assumptions. Sam's way---assert and label, assert and
label!

.After your "very critical look" do you have even one suggestion (other

than
> its total destruction) for the modification, regulation, or
> deregulation of the current educational system that would help to
> avoid "some of the worst possible outcomes?

I have mentioned plenty of things that are wrong. You're repeatedly
suggesting that I didn't answer your requests for further details,
despite
my many and lengthy replies. If you have overlooked them, them read the

earlier posts first, zinnic, before making false accusations. The
current
system results in some of the worst outcomes. It's rotten to the bone.
We
need more fundamental change than some patching up. Such fundamental
change
is not destructive, it's constructive!

You are correct in your claim that you have made "many and lengthy
replies." to my request for details of the "fundamental change" you
propose. You simply repeat previous assertions. You again state
(above)-"It's rotten to the bone . We need more fundamental change than
some patching up. Such fundamental change, is not destructive, it's
constructive"

What is the SUCH in "Such fundamental change"? Sam- you are "full of
sound and fury, signifying nothing." If you want to be taken
seriously, you need to expand on this 'constructive' fundamental change
you repeatedly advocate.
Start by explaining how 'free enterprise and apprenticeships' will
adequately replace the university system you wish to destroy.

There are good parents and there are bad parents, just as there are
> good teachers and bad teachers. Do you not see that good parents can make
> up for bad teachers? And that good teachers may partially overcome the
> disadvantage for a child with bad parents. Or do you insist that, under all
> circumstances, parents know best?

Again, I never said that everyone should be homeschooling. Why do you
keep
misreading my posts and making false accusations, zinnic?

Then explain how the education of children, who are not home
schooled, will be financed and operated without involvement of
government. Please! just a brief outline!

[Sam]

I'm not saying that all research should be done in the labs of large
corporations, goozlefotz, I merely said that research is better done at
labs and research centers of large companies AS OPPOSED to at
universities. Indeed, much research can ALSO be better done at home.

Let's put this issue back in perspective. This whole discussion about
Einstein started, because Andrés said: "Now imagine that such a child

has the potential to become a modern Einstein but the child never got a
deep in enticing education in physics, the society would never be able
to go a step forward in the development in physics."

When I asked whether Andrés meant that Einstein shouldn't have started
working in a patent office, goozlefotz commented: "Einstein worked in

the patent office after he got his Ph.D. because he couldn't get a job
in physics. His math was too poor. Anyway, it sounds a lot like Sam is
back pedalling. If he had any guts he would admit that he is
out-gunned."

Einstein was very unhappy at the Catholic elementary school he attended
in Munchen, where discipline, obedience and conformity were preached,
which was especially hard to digest for Einstein, who apparently was
dyslexic. Yes, like many famous inventors (including Thomas Edison and
Alexander Graham Bell), Albert Einstein appeared to be dyslexic as a
child. We will never know for sure, because deslyxia was hardly
recongized in those days and Einstein, like any obedient child, was
described as a good pupil at school.

Yet, Einstein appeared to grow up with a "retarded" stigma. Dyslexics
think more in pictures than in verbal concepts, they need to translate
their "pictures" into words and vice versa, taking more time to process
verbal language, especially concepts that cannot be easily put into
pictures, like the words "the," "was," and "and." This makes dyslexic
people appear to be "slow", especially in a school environment that
seems to prepare boys only for reading bible texts. For his teachers,
the young Einstein appeared slow in both literacy (reading, writing and
spelling) and numeracy (math, formulas and symbols), the very two
academic subjects that were regarded in such high esteem by his school.

At home, at the age 10, Einstein sets into a program of self education,
reading as much about science as he can. Most of his education
consisted of the study and reading he undertook on his own, and under
the guidance of his Uncle Jakob and the young medical student and
family friend Max Talmud.

Einstein subsequently dropped out of school without a degree and
applied at the Zurich Polytechnic for a teacher training program, but
failed the entrance examinations. His family then sent him to a Swiss
secondary school, where he spent another year with the family of one of
the teachers there. Away from his family, Einstein spent time writing
his first scientific work, which was never published. At the age of 17,
he was finally accepted for at the Zurich Polytechnic. This was not a
research institute for physics. It was a four year long teacher
training program. After completion, Einstein applies without success
for the job of an assistant at the Polytechnic and at various
universities. It was not only that he couldn't get a job in physics or
that his math was too poor, there was no university that would
recognize any talent in Einstein for years to come.

While continuing to apply without success for a job as assistant,
Einstein took up a series of posts as a teacher and tutor in Germany
and Switzerland for the next two years and in 1902, he started to work
in the patent office in Bern, a job a former fellow student had helped
him find. To make a living he puts ads in newspapers offering private
tutoring, while working a "third-class technical expert on probation"
at the Patent Office in Bern.

Indeed, as goozlefotz says, Einstein did his best work at home while he
worked at the patent office and by 1905 he had completed his major
work. He later received a doctorate from the University of Zurich, but
no position there. Instead, he was promoted to "second-class technical
expert" at the Patent Office and only in 1909 did Einstein stop working
for the Patent Office. After first rejecting his application for a
doctorate degree, the University of Bern eventually awarded him the
doctorate and Einstein became a private college lecturer.

So, what conclusion can we draw from the Einstein example? That the
education system wasn't very helpful in recognizing his talents when he
needed it? That the educational established first ignored his talents,
only to give Einstein some credit years after he had completed his
major work? That the current education system, with its emphasis on
literacy and numeracy testing, wouldn't have acted any better? That
homeschooling and doing research at home is likely to give better
results than putting trust into the education system?

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/21/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

> State schooling does not, and never will, "ensure that everyone
> receives the best education that they could get".

Glad to hear you admit that, zinnic!

Heartbroken that you do not admit that ''free enterprise does not
ensure that EVERYONE gets the best possible deal that they could get."

 

Not everyone? Free enterprise (including apprenticeships, working in the family business and setting up your own firm) will give people better opportunities to work and to learn, while other alternatives to public school (including homeschooling, tutors, self-education) will also give people a better "deal" for those interested in education alone. Sorry to hear if this breaks your heart, but let's face it, the truth sometimes hurts.

>From my post ,quote--"Rather, we regulate it [free enterprise} in the hope of developing a stable society that benefits as many individuals as possible-unquote.

 

In the end, nobody benefits from government control, not even those who narrow-mindedly believe to be better off in the short-term.  

Winning and LOSING is the  essence of the free enterprise capitalist system.  

 

Winning and losing is the essence of school. School is into ranking and setting kids up against each other, handing out educational qualifications and entry tickets to elite professions to the must gullible students and those who collaborate most with the system.

I have stated that I support capitalism, provided that it is
stabilized by sensible regulation.

 

You mean free enterprise that isn't free? Regulation doesn't make sense, it doesn't give "stability", it nurtures misery and poverty.

You are well aware of my position and for you to imply my "socialism" (see below) is a desperate resort to dishonest politics.

 

You use socialist rhetoric in your ranting about the poorest students who supposedly were better off with government-controlled and subsidized school. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it probably is a duck...

You know very well that I am pointing out that one should not trash
something because it is not ideal. Nothing is perfect. One  should
endeavour to  improve rather than completely destroy.

 

Destroy? I suggest to take away the disease.

So, should we assume that you're a socialist, and that this was a
message we needed to hear in order to understand where you're coming from? Again, what are you trying to say, zinnic? How about posting some educational views, instead of politically-based criticism?

Who is we? Are you taking it on yourself to speak for this group?

 

I was trying to help you make up your mind as to your political inclination. You say that you're capitalist, yet you speak like a socialist.

Add your assumption that I am a socialist to the long list of your
other incorrect assumptions.  Sam's way---assert and label, assert and label!

 

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it probably is a duck..

What is the SUCH in "Such fundamental change"? Sam- you  are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."  If you want to be taken
seriously, you need to expand on this 'constructive' fundamental change you repeatedly advocate. Start by explaining how 'free enterprise and apprenticeships' will adequately replace the university system you wish to destroy.

 

Personally, I see no need for universities at all, but - quite likely - some private universities will continue to exist after removal of government control, be it that they will no longer be able to dominate education, research and preparation for specific positions. Instead, people will enter occupations more on their drive, interest, merit and prospects, rather than as an award for wasting years at university. Much research and training will be done by firms and companies that are better fit and specialized in the respective area than universities are in the first place. Work and education will be much more combined, rather than the artificial separation that is now enforced by the system.

Then explain how the education of  children, who are not home
schooled, will be financed and operated without involvement of
government. Please! just a brief outline!

Perhaps they'll take apprenticeships or start working in a company and learn the skills under the supervision of managers. Perhaps they'll learn on their own, while setting up their own firm. There will be many different avenues, all of them will be more effective than public school. Note also that public school is partly funded with the money that was forcibly extracted from the poor - without such tax, those parents could have spent more on their children's education, e.g. through tutoring. More generally, the economy as a whole will be boosted so substantially that there will be plenty of work, even for those who don't study much at all.

 

I'm just repeating what should be obvious in the first place. Asking me for such details is a bit like demanding slaves to first describe their future destiny in detail, before allowing them their freedom.

 

Sam

[Andrés]

Sam Carana wrote:
> On 6/19/05, Andrés <andres....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >

> > ...Multiple Intelligences. This means that each person has a

> > different genetic area of intelligence (natural, mathematical, linguistic,
> > logical, just to mention a few of them) which is latent in their brains.
>
> Whatever you're trying to say, this seems an argument against the
> standardization that the education system imposes on kids.
>

I disagree with your statement. Standardisation does not mean that all
students are taught the same way. Most teachers (at least that is my
perception) try to use different teaching tools to ensure students get
a chance to understand each topic. Of course this is not always
possible. There are topics where not even the most ingenious person
would be able to create an activity which will take into consideration
all the possible ways to access knowledge.
In my opinion a person who hasn't been trained to take all of these
different possible ways to access knowledge would find it much harder
to take them into consideration.

> Are you saying that Einstein shouldn't have started working in a patent
> office? Or that Bill Gates should have continued with his university study,
> instead of founding Microsoft?

As someone else pointed out Einstein didn't write his papers thanks
to his work in the patent's office. It was because he had the spare
time to do it. Imagine how much more he would have accomplished if he
had had the financial and material support to do further
investigations.
I remind you too that in order for a new cosmology to take over it
needs to get the approval of an important segment of the scientific
community.

>
> Firstly, the moral issues are important.

I emphasise what I said. I did not include the religious/ moral issues
on purpose. I did not say that there were not important. I just tried
to narrow the scope of this discussion a little for simplicity.

> Homeschooling isn't a system
> imposed on families; instead, it's families keeping the education of their
> children into their own hands, where it rightfully belongs.

I believe I understand your point but I have to say that I still
disagree. Being a teacher I realise that too many parents (at least the
sample of parents I have met) tend to be the most anti educational
elements in the society. The reason, in my opinion, is that love tends
to make them loose focus on what is good for a child. They tend to be
permissive, over attentive to an extent that it may cases tend to harm
the children they love.
Giving parents the chance to control another aspect of the live of
their children would tend to create ostracised children who would have
a diminished sense of social interaction.

> Secondly, I never said that everyone should keep their kids at home.
> Homeschooling comes with many activities outside the family home, undertaken
> under the guidence of parents and the family in general.

If I were an extremist I would say that parents are the only ones
responsible and accountable for the welfare of their children. Though I
must admit that, to the best of my knowledge, you never said so.
In the country I live in there is a wide variety of schools which
differ in the specialisation they teach and the type of orientation
they have. This applies both to private and state schools. The
parent's sedition is which school represents my ideals better and
which one would provide my children with the best education. The real
problem is that private schools, in their need for revenue, tend to see
the families as clients. This leads to a distortion of the educational
ideals I would consider moral.

> Thirdly, I mentioned apprenticeships as a good alternative to the lack of
> skills learned at school, especially in regard to practical skills and
> experience, both in regard to gaining specialized expertise and skills, and
> developing work mentality, social and business contacts, etc.

I agree that there is a huge need for hands on experience in any type
education, but how would you apply this to the academic areas such as
physics, history or philosophy?

> In summary, we need to take a very critical look at the education system.
> It does NOT "ensure that everyone receives the best education they could
> get". Instead, it gives some of the worst possible outcomes that could
> easily have been avoided, had we not been deceived into falsely putting our
> trust in school. Without government control over education, we''ll be better
> off.

I agree we need to take a very critical look at the education system.
In my opinion the society as a whole as benefited a lot from this type
of education. Since the beginning of this educational system, together
with the advance of telecommunications, we have seen an explosive
(almost virulent to some people) development in almost all areas. If
society trains children to believe that education should take place at
home and that communal education (I hope this term is clear) is a bad
thing then, despite the best communication technology, they will start
working as isolates.
Andrés

[Andrés]

Sam Carana wrote:
> >
> Einstein didn't keep doing "research" at a university, didn't he? Research
> is simply better done at labs and research centers of large companies than
> at universities.
> Sam

Again I disagree with your statement.
There is a problem with having companies funding research. Companies
tend to be single minded about what they invest money in. they do not,
in general invest in basic research (the type of research that gets the
basic information new theories will use). This type of investigation is
not profitable in the short or medium term therefore it is what in the
business jargon is called an unwarranted investment.
You can probably see that we would be maiming humanity's ability to
develop if they only type of research done is the "profitable"
A

[Andrés]

Sam wrote:
> I'm not saying that all research should be done in the labs of large
> corporations, goozlefotz, I merely said that research is better done at
> labs and research centers of large companies AS OPPOSED to at
> universities. Indeed, much research can ALSO be better done at home.
>
> Let's put this issue back in perspective. This whole discussion about
> Einstein started, because Andrés said: "Now imagine that such a child
> has the potential to become a modern Einstein but the child never got a
> deep in enticing education in physics, the society would never be able
> to go a step forward in the development in physics."
>

I believe I should keep on working on my English because I believe I
wasn't clear enough with what I meant.
Taking into consideration the complexity of science, and I apologise if
I keep on turning this way but I think it is the best example of why
home schooling is in my opinion impractical, the need of extensive
funding is necessary to keep the advancement in our understanding of
the universe. Some may argue if this type of understanding is both
desirable and profitable but I think it is outside the point of this
discussion.
Sam, how would you propose to develop subatomic physics or astronomy,
just to mention two areas, when there is no short term profit to be
made out of it other than some minor developments not really related to
the investigation such as data analysis software?

>
> So, what conclusion can we draw from the Einstein example? That the
> education system wasn't very helpful in recognizing his talents when he
> needed it? That the educational established first ignored his talents,
> only to give Einstein some credit years after he had completed his
> major work? That the current education system, with its emphasis on
> literacy and numeracy testing, wouldn't have acted any better? That
> homeschooling and doing research at home is likely to give better
> results than putting trust into the education system?
>
> Sam

I believe I should stop saying I disagree with you Sam. Just take for
granted that my opinions are always opposed to yours unless I state
otherwise.
You are making an ahistorical analysis of the problem. I hypothesised
on what would happen if an Einstein would be born in your type of
educational system, you tell me what happened to Einstein in his time
(i.e. 100 years ago). The three realities are hardly connected and are
based on educational paradigms extremely different.
Or do you mean that the educational system in Germany pre WW1 is
basically the same as the one we have now?
Andrés

[goozlefotz]

Sam wrote:
> So, what conclusion can we draw from the Einstein example? That the
> education system wasn't very helpful in recognizing his talents when he
> needed it? That the educational established first ignored his talents,
> only to give Einstein some credit years after he had completed his
> major work? That the current education system, with its emphasis on
> literacy and numeracy testing, wouldn't have acted any better? That
> homeschooling and doing research at home is likely to give better
> results than putting trust into the education system?
>
> Sam

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with you; I was merely adding some
information. Another example is that De Broglie was thrown out of the
Ecole because he presented as his dissertation the idea that matter had
both wave and particle characteristics; the idea which later won him
the Nobel Prize.

[goozlefotz]

Andrés wrote:

> I believe I should keep on working on my English because I believe I
> wasn't clear enough with what I meant.

> Andrés

Your English is fine. Sam acts stupid when it is to his advantage.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/22/05, Andrés <andres....@gmail.com> wrote:

I disagree with your statement. Standardisation does not mean that all students are taught the same way.

 

Kids are all given much the same type of tests, aren't they? There's just a single public school in each area, each using the same curriculum, isn't it?

 

Most teachers (at least that is my perception) try to use different teaching tools to ensure students get a chance to understand each topic.

 

What teaching tool? Laws that force kids into school? Laws that take money from the poor so that kids from rich families who study law can pay nice laptops to play with if they get bored during lectures?

 

Of course this is not always possible. There are topics where not even the most ingenious person would be able to create an activity which will take into consideration all the possible ways to access knowledge.

 

Schools are following the standard approach by definition. Some types of school more so than others, but if you force thirty-odd kids into a classroom to listen to one single teacher who stands in front of the class with a stick in his hands, then.. yes.. that is standardization.

 

In my opinion a person who hasn't been trained to take all of these
different possible ways to access knowledge would find it much harder to take them into consideration.

 

Nonsense, just browse on the net in the comfort of your home and you'll find things quicker than if you're sitting in the classroom without access to the net.
 

>  Are you saying that Einstein shouldn't have started working in a patent
> office? Or that Bill Gates should have continued with his university study,
> instead of founding Microsoft?

As someone else pointed out Einstein didn't write his papers thanks to his work in the patent's office. It was because he had the spare time to do it.

 

Indeed, schoolteachers should keep their hands from our children! Now you start making sense!

 

Imagine how much more he would have accomplished if he
had had the financial and material support to do further
investigations.

 

Imagine how much more he would have accomplished if he had not been held back by schools so much and instead would have been able to access the net and engage in meaningful discussions!

 

I remind you too that in order for a new cosmology to take over it
needs to get the approval of an important segment of the scientific
community.

 

Yes, that's a big problem with scientists, isn't it?

 

>
> Firstly, the moral issues are important.

I emphasise what I said. I did not include the religious/ moral issues on purpose. I did not say that there were not important. I just tried to narrow the scope of this discussion a little for simplicity.

 

I didn't refer to religious values. I referred to the epistemological questions.

 

> Homeschooling isn't a system
> imposed on families; instead, it's families keeping the education of their
> children into their own hands, where it rightfully belongs.

I believe I understand your point but I have to say that I still
disagree. Being a teacher I realise that too many parents (at least the sample of parents I have met) tend to be the most anti educational elements in the society.

 

That must be why they send their children to school....

 

The reason, in my opinion, is that love tends to make them loose focus on what is good for a child. They tend to be permissive, over attentive to an extent that it may cases tend to harm the children they love. Giving parents the chance to control another aspect of the live of their children would tend to create ostracised children who would have a diminished sense of social interaction.

 

Firstly, it's not a question of giving parents a chance to control their children's education. Parents have the right to decide what education their children get. Secondly, experience shows that school is inferior, both in regard to academic aspects, but even more in regard to social aspects.

 

>  Secondly, I never said that everyone should keep their kids at home.
> Homeschooling comes with many activities outside the family home, undertaken
> under the guidence of parents and the family in general.

If I were an extremist I would say that parents are the only ones
responsible and accountable for the welfare of their children. Though I must admit that, to the best of my knowledge, you never said so.

 

Parents have the first right to decide what education their children get.

 

In the country I live in there is a wide variety of schools which
differ in the specialisation they teach and the type of orientation
they have. This applies both to private and state schools. The
parent's sedition is which school represents my ideals better and
which one would provide my children with the best education.

 

Vouchers would be a good step in the right direction, but in many cases, homeschooling will easily be the best alternative and voucher systems tend to ignore that.

 

The real problem is that private schools, in their need for revenue, tend to see the families as clients. This leads to a distortion of the educational ideals I would consider moral.

 

That must be because you are a socialist. But not all parents are socialists.

 

>  Thirdly, I mentioned apprenticeships as a good alternative to the lack of
> skills learned at school, especially in regard to practical skills and
> experience, both in regard to gaining specialized expertise and skills, and
> developing work mentality, social and business contacts, etc.

I agree that there is a huge need for hands on experience in any type education, but how would you apply this to the academic areas such as physics, history or philosophy?

 

Well, there's little need for that isn't there. Business will be keen to take along any research of interest, but universities shouldn't force people to hand over their hard-earned money under the pretense that they were doing anything useful, should they?  

 

>  In summary, we need to take a very critical look at the education system.
> It does NOT "ensure that everyone receives the best education they could
> get". Instead, it gives some of the worst possible outcomes that could
> easily have been avoided, had we not been deceived into falsely putting our
> trust in school. Without government control over education, we''ll be better
> off.

I agree we need to take a very critical look at the education system.

 

I don't think you're critical at all, I think you're just a mouthpiece for the existing system.

 

In my opinion the society as a whole as benefited a lot from this type of education. Since the beginning of this educational system, together with the advance of telecommunications, we have seen an explosive (almost virulent to some people) development in almost all areas.

 

Yes, and you can thank the very free enterprise for that.

 

If society trains children to believe that education should take place at home and that communal education (I hope this term is clear) is a bad thing then, despite the best communication technology, they will start working as isolates.

 

Nonsense, Andrés, working and learning in the supportive environment of free enterprise is very healthy for learning and developing new ideas.

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/22/05, Andrés <andres....@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam, how would you propose to develop subatomic physics or astronomy, just to mention two areas, when there is no short term profit to be made out of it other than some minor developments not really related to the investigation such as data analysis software?

 

Are you asking me how I "propose" that scientists should develop weapons of mass destruction?

You are making an a historical analysis of the problem. I hypothesised on what would happen if an Einstein would be born in your type of educational system, you tell me what happened to Einstein in his time ( i.e. 100 years ago). The three realities are hardly connected and are based on educational paradigms extremely different. Or do you mean that the educational system in Germany pre WW1 is basically the same as the one we have now?

Indeed, the education system has changed little over the years. In this age of computers, the teachers are still in front of the classroom with sticks and chalk, forcing kids to be obedient and listen to their indoctrination. An Einstein born today would go through the same misery that Einstein went through when he was forced to attend schools.
 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/22/05, Andrés <andres....@gmail.com> wrote:

There is a problem with having companies funding research. Companies tend to be single minded about what they invest money in.

 

What do you mean? Aren't Universities single-minded? They have everything divided up into departments that each have their own little area of interest, splitting up the total research funding while being quite single-mindedly about that. What is the problem with single-mindedness? Many companies will see their focus as their recipe for success. Mind you, some large companies do invest a huge amount of research into various things, with a multiplicity that dwarfs the research efforts of many universities. In the end, universities are much more single-minded than private enterprise.

they do not, in general invest in basic research (the type of research that gets the basic information new theories will use).

 

There is no such thing as "basic" research and "basic" information. It's just a trick invented by scientists to fool people into funding research that is of no practical use to nobody.

This type of investigation is not profitable in the short or medium term therefore it is what in the business jargon is called an unwarranted investment. You can probably see that we would be maiming humanity's ability to develop if they only type of research done is the "profitable"

 

Universities need to make submissions for funding annually. Companies can approve projects that run for many years. I don't see your point. Are you suggesting that unprofitable research was good and that business was inherently bad? It's not a socialist thing, is it?

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Andrés wrote:
> There is a problem with having companies funding research. Companies
> tend to be single minded about what they invest money in. they do not,
> in general invest in basic research (the type of research that gets the
> basic information new theories will use). This type of investigation is
> not profitable in the short or medium term therefore it is what in the
> business jargon is called an unwarranted investment.
> You can probably see that we would be maiming humanity's ability to
> develop if they only type of research done is the "profitable"
> A

Your analysis is correct. I would bet money that Sam is a
"Libertarian".

[Sam Carana]

On 6/23/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I would bet money that Sam is a "Libertarian".

You better hold on to that money, goozlefotz!

 

Yes, I do strongly favor free markets, but few libertarians seem willing to take the logical step and agree with me on the urgent need to split up the military.

 

Most libertarians I know are obsessed with property rights and people's rights. Deborah did present the "rights" argument in earlier posts here at this and other groups. While I acknowledge that it can be a strong argument, it's not an argument that I like to identify with. Yet, it's a great argument to expose the hypocrisy behing the empty rhetoric of those who have no argument at all.

 

Sam, for freedom!

[goozlefotz]

Well, noone exactly fits the common labels. People call me a "liberal"
but I certainly don't agree with all liberal positions.
Dave

[Andrés]

> Kids are all given much the same type of tests, aren't they? There's just a
> single public school in each area, each using the same curriculum, isn't it?

I agree that all the class gets the same tests but they also get the
same activities. Evaluation of achievement takes place during exams and
activities.
Yes the basic curriculum is the same. but there are always options you
can choose from. Not in primary school where every school works with
the same curriculum.

> What teaching tool? Laws that force kids into school? Laws that take money
> from the poor so that kids from rich families who study law can pay nice
> laptops to play with if they get bored during lectures?

I don't see what is the relationship between what I said and your
statement.

> Schools are following the standard approach by definition. Some types of
> school more so than others, but if you force thirty-odd kids into a
> classroom to listen to one single teacher who stands in front of the class
> with a stick in his hands, then.. yes.. that is standardization.

I don't think your picture of the school is the same as mine. As far
as I know, physical punishment is forbidden in your country as well as
in mine. There is an expression here "la escuela no es una máquina de
hacer chorizos" it means that school isn't just a factory where we
produce identical products following a predefined METHOD, mind you I
refer to the teaching strategies not the contents.

> Nonsense, just browse on the net in the comfort of your home and you'll
> find things quicker than if you're sitting in the classroom without access
> to the net.

I never referred to your comments as nonsense.
I believe someone else said to you that the net isn't such a
wonderful thing. I can if you want send you several websites where the
information displayed is either misleading or downright wrong. How
could a young learner or an untrained parent discern whether the
definition of Diffusion is right or wrong?

> > As someone else pointed out Einstein didn't write his papers thanks to his
> > work in the patent's office. It was because he had the spare time to do it.
>
> Indeed, schoolteachers should keep their hands from our children! Now you
> start making sense!

I believe again that my poor command of English might have given you
the wrong impression. I didn't mean that as Einstein wasn't at the
university he had free time to work on his theories. I said that he
used his free time after working at the patent office to develop his
theories. None of which would have seen the light if hadn't received
all the theoretical mathematical work of (I believe) Minkowski (hope
this is the correct spelling). Which had been done at a university as a
totally speculative work.

> Imagine how much more he would have accomplished if he had not been held
> back by schools so much and instead would have been able to access the net
> and engage in meaningful discussions!

Interesting. But as you might infer from some of my previous statements
how can a person take part in a discussion of the person doesn't have
a clear and full understanding of the topic? say if the person wants to
discuss quantum physics and doesn't understand what an operator
means. Or if another person wants to discuss epistemology and doesn't
understand that two persons working under two different paradigms cant
communicate.

> Yes, that's a big problem with scientists, isn't it?

I hope that wasn't an attempt on sarcasm. No it isn't a problem
it's something great for the communication between different persons
they can get a better understanding of a certain phenomena

> > > Firstly, the moral issues are important.
> >

> > I emphasize what I said. I did not include the religious/ moral issues on

> > purpose. I did not say that there were not important. I just tried to narrow
> > the scope of this discussion a little for simplicity.
>
> I didn't refer to religious values. I referred to the epistemological
> questions.

Would you care to elaborate?

> > Homeschooling isn't a system
> > > imposed on families; instead, it's families keeping the education of
> > their
> > > children into their own hands, where it rightfully belongs.
> >
> > I believe I understand your point but I have to say that I still
> > disagree. Being a teacher I realise that too many parents (at least the
> > sample of parents I have met) tend to be the most anti educational elements
> > in the society.
>
> That must be why they send their children to school....
>
> The reason, in my opinion, is that love tends to make them loose focus on
> > what is good for a child. They tend to be permissive, over attentive to an
> > extent that it may cases tend to harm the children they love. Giving parents
> > the chance to control another aspect of the live of their children would
> > tend to create ostracised children who would have a diminished sense of
> > social interaction.
>
> Firstly, it's not a question of giving parents a chance to control their
> children's education. Parents have the right to decide what education their
> children get. Secondly, experience shows that school is inferior, both in
> regard to academic aspects, but even more in regard to social aspects.

I disagree with your statement that school is inferior to home
schooling especially at the 12+ age group. The reason for this is that
the amount of specialization needed to explain the topics is higher.

> Parents have the first right to decide what education their children get.

You insist on emphasizing a point that you have already made clear. I
agree to the letter of what you said but not to the spirit.

> Vouchers would be a good step in the right direction, but in many cases,
> homeschooling will easily be the best alternative and voucher systems tend
> to ignore that.

Could you please explain the voucher system to me?

> The real problem is that private schools, in their need for revenue, tend
> > to see the families as clients. This leads to a distortion of the
> > educational ideals I would consider moral.
>
> That must be because you are a socialist. But not all parents are
> socialists.

I thank you for the compliment but sadly though it is not true.

> > Thirdly, I mentioned apprenticeships as a good alternative to the lack of
> > > skills learned at school, especially in regard to practical skills and
> > > experience, both in regard to gaining specialized expertise and skills,
> > and
> > > developing work mentality, social and business contacts, etc.
> >
> > I agree that there is a huge need for hands on experience in any type
> > education, but how would you apply this to the academic areas such as
> > physics, history or philosophy?
>
> Well, there's little need for that isn't there. Business will be keen to
> take along any research of interest, but universities shouldn't force people
> to hand over their hard-earned money under the pretense that they were doing
> anything useful, should they?

I don't think I understand the relationship between my statement and
yours. Could you please elaborate.

> > I agree we need to take a very critical look at the education system.
>
> I don't think you're critical at all, I think you're just a mouthpiece for
> the existing system.

There is an expression "Getting out of the system implies that you were
in the system to begin with" I believe in the system but nevertheless I
believe that there is a lot to improve. So in the end I am a supporter
of the system overall but I do have qualms about it.

> In my opinion the society as a whole as benefited a lot from this type of
> > education. Since the beginning of this educational system, together with the
> > advance of telecommunications, we have seen an explosive (almost virulent to
> > some people) development in almost all areas.
>
> Yes, and you can thank the very free enterprise for that.

You are right to that but free enterprise is not the only one
responsible.

[Andrés]

Could you please explain the term Libertarian as opposed to Liberal
Thanks
Andrés

[goozlefotz]

Sardonic Witt wrote:
> Sam is very difficult to talk to.

I agree.

[goozlefotz]

The Libertarian Party is a political party in the same way as the
Democratic Party or the Republican Party. They field candidates for
various elected posts and conduct election campaigns. Try looking it
up on Google or some other source. They believe that the best
government is no government, or at least minimal government. In that
sense, liberal and libertarian are pretty much opposites.

[Andrés]

Wouldn´t that be very close to anarchy?

[Sam Carana]

On 6/24/05, Andrés <andres....@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree that all the class gets the same tests but they also get the
same activities. Evaluation of achievement takes place during exams and activities. Yes the basic curriculum is the same. but there are always options you can choose from. Not in primary school where every school works with the same curriculum.

 

And there's something fundamentally wrong with that curriculum. For starters, the compulsory way things are spoonfed to children is in conflict with the values children should learn.

I don't think your picture of the school is the same as mine. As far
as I know, physical punishment is forbidden in your country as well as in mine. There is an expression here "la escuela no es una máquina de hacer chorizos" it means that school isn't just a factory where we produce identical products following a predefined METHOD, mind you I refer to the teaching strategies not the contents.

 

It's the mental torture that is even more cruel than the physical punishement implied in forcing kids to be indoctrinated with the very values the family opposes.

I never referred to your comments as nonsense. I believe someone else said to you that the net isn't such a wonderful thing. I can if you want send you several websites where the information displayed is either misleading or downright wrong. How could a young learner or an untrained parent discern whether the definition of Diffusion is right or wrong?

 

Well, in the case of public school, some things are clearly wrong. Even if parents do make clear they don't want their children to be indoctrinated at public school with values they oppose, the teacher will continue. That is wrong. On the Internet, we have the choice to go to another site, but kids are forced to attend public school even if the family does object against its teachings. Does it take much training to conclude that this is wrong?

I believe again that my poor command of English might have given you the wrong impression. I didn't mean that as Einstein wasn't at the university he had free time to work on his theories. I said that he used his free time after working at the patent office to develop his theories. None of which would have seen the light if hadn't received all the theoretical mathematical work of (I believe) Minkowski (hope this is the correct spelling). Which had been done at a university as a totally speculative work.

 

Well, schools don't teach much about Minkowski anyway, to find out more I would have to search the Net. With access to the Net, Einstein would have achieved even more. Had Einstein accepted the teachings of his school, we would - oh, horror - still live in a Newtonian Universe today!

>  Imagine how much more he would have accomplished if he had not been held
> back by schools so much and instead would have been able to access the net
> and engage in meaningful discussions!

Interesting. But as you might infer from some of my previous statements how can a person take part in a discussion of the person doesn't have a clear and full understanding of the topic? say if the person wants to discuss quantum physics and doesn't understand what an operator means. Or if another person wants to discuss epistemology and doesn't understand that two persons working under two different paradigms cant communicate.

 

For children to have more meaningful discussions, they need to develop independent thinking and their creative talents. Many schoolteachers discourage creative and independent thinking. They indoctrinate children with the wrong values, which means the children are held back. The idea that children first needed to learn all kinds of "basic" stuff, before they were allowed to think for themselves, that is one of those very values that I oppose. Yet, even if families do clarify their values, public school will still continue to indoctrinate their children with the exact opposite. People who fail to understand that this is wrong, are not suitable to teach!

>  Yes, that's a big problem with scientists, isn't it?

I hope that wasn't an attempt on sarcasm. No it isn't a problem
it's something great for the communication between different persons they can get a better understanding of a certain phenomena

 

Yet, science doesn't come with a conscience, does it?

> > > Firstly, the moral issues are important.
> >
> > I emphasize what I said. I did not include the religious/ moral issues on
> > purpose. I did not say that there were not important. I just tried to narrow
> > the scope of this discussion a little for simplicity.
>
>  I didn't refer to religious values. I referred to the epistemological
> questions.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

As I said, the epistemological question is whether science comes with a conscience. Ignoring that question doesn't simplify things.

>  Firstly, it's not a question of giving parents a chance to control their
> children's education. Parents have the right to decide what education their
> children get. Secondly, experience shows that school is inferior, both in
> regard to academic aspects, but even more in regard to social aspects.

I disagree with your statement that school is inferior to home
schooling especially at the 12+ age group. The reason for this is that the amount of specialization needed to explain the topics is higher.

 

Getting more detailed information is the easy part. The Internet, as said, is a useful resource. Where necessary, homeschooling can be complemented by tutoring and apprenticeships. But what makes school especially inferior is its place in the education system which is based on the wrong values.

>  Parents have the first right to decide what education their children get.

You insist on emphasizing a point that you have already made clear. I agree to the letter of what you said but not to the spirit.

 

Well, perhaps you need a change in spirit. Indoctrinating children with values that the respective family opposes should not be presented as education. It's indoctrination!

>  Vouchers would be a good step in the right direction, but in many cases,
> homeschooling will easily be the best alternative and voucher systems tend
> to ignore that.

Could you please explain the voucher system to me?

 

With vouchers, government funding doesn't go directly to the school. Instead, families receive vouchers and choose where they want to spend them.

>  The real problem is that private schools, in their need for revenue, tend
> > to see the families as clients. This leads to a distortion of the
> > educational ideals I would consider moral.
>
>  That must be because you are a socialist. But not all parents are
> socialists.

I thank you for the compliment but sadly though it is not true.

 

Whatever, the point is that indoctrination of children with the very values the family opposes should not be part of educational ideals.

> > I agree we need to take a very critical look at the education system.
>
>  I don't think you're critical at all, I think you're just a mouthpiece for
> the existing system.

There is an expression "Getting out of the system implies that you were in the system to begin with" I believe in the system but nevertheless I believe that there is a lot to improve. So in the end I am a supporter of the system overall but I do have qualms about it.

 

Well, if you do agree that some things should change, why not start with the moral values behind education.

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> And there's something fundamentally wrong with that curriculum. For
> starters, the compulsory way things are spoonfed to children is in conflict
> with the values children should learn.
>

> Sam

There is that word "should" again. That is a value judgment, and needs
to be defended. Why? What values should children learn?

[Sam Carana]

Are you saying that children should be taught not to have any moral values?

 

Sam

[jt]

i am saying that this forum should be renamed
the public school debate forum

[Sam Carana]

Sure, we can start a new topic called public school. But as I explained earlier, public school is only one part of an education system that is largely shaped by government. Government determines to a large extent what "knowledge" is taught by the education system, who can take up an occupation as scientist, physicist, teacher, etc., and what values are imposed on society in the process. 
 

Some will recognize the above as an important issue in epistemology, other will not. As far as I see it, it is a big issue - the compulsive nature of the law and the way government controls the education system speak for themselves. If you believe otherwise, you're welcome to elaborate on that view, because if you can justify that view, you're on to something big as well, epistemologically spoken.

 

Finally, you're welcome to add other issues that are important in epistemology, other than those that I brought up.

 

Sam