The Politics of Science
Sam
politics, or are they just part of a huge
industrial-political-military-scientific complex, that employs
millions, consumes billions, pollutes the earth and holds the world at
ransom in fabricated scenarios of MAD (mutually acknowledged
destruction) and non-existent WMD (Weapons of Mass Desctruction)?
Is this an epistemological issue, or just an ethical issue? Are
scientists inclined to close their eyes for questions like this? Isn't
science prone to make you do that? If so, isn't there something about
science that should be discussed epistemologically? And who should
fascilitate such discussions? Philosophers? Isn't the tendency for
scientists to look down upon philosophers part of the problem?
Deborah
philosophy should be a vital part and much attentuion should be given
to ethical questions.
BTW, what kind of alternative do you see, apart from disarming
unilaterally?
Sam
already said, it's an evolutionary process and we'll have to work on it
all the time. It's a gradual process of ongoing improvements, rather
than a single instant solution. I've already said much about this under
"is property theft?" at:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/anarchism/browse_thread/thread/b39f0e43816f4c08
Emily
that way. Too bad it isn't so. :( It angers me that politics runs the
world: why do we spend more money building weapons over trying to cure
a disease? That's really all I have to say about science and politics.
Sam
separated. Government determines what kind of funding goes where and
will fund projects that are in line with what the politicians want.
Funding isn't the only thing, there's more. Professional qualifications
are recongized only if they are granted by certain institutions, so to
enter certain professions, you have to speak a certain political
language. It's hard to escape all this, given the compulsory nature of
the education system as it's designed and enforced by government to
indoctrinate children from a young impressionable age with certain
ideas about politics, education, research and science.
Emily
by certain governments, namely the US. I think science in general
should be way up there on the list, along with general education etc,
instead of national defense and all of that crap. (I rarely follow the
news, so you'll have to excuse my lack of specification...I just know
that Bush spent some ridiculous amount of money on his little war, and
I don't understand it - there are so many more important things out
there that money could be well spent on.)
Joseki
we have gotten beyond Lysenkoism and the idea that there was a proper
communist form for biology or the Nazi's idea that there was "Jewish"
physics.
However, areas of research are strongly influenced by political and
finicial motives. Retro-viruses were a minor area until the HIV/AIDS
crisis. Prions were a curious concept rejected by many until BSE (Mad
Cow) became a health issue. Phages still do not get the research that
they need because there doesn't seem to be a way a drug company could
make millions from them.
While creationists (or Intelligence Design believers) would have us
believe otherwise, evolutionary biology and botany seem relatively free
of political constraint. There is the occasional fear that a
disagreement is read as being a criticism of evolution as a whole - but
that is more an issue for those outside of biology or botany.
Certainly global climate studies have become political. To the extent
that there is now a fog of distrust to any study that tries to have
conclusions as to the influence of man-made factors on the climate. I
personal see much of this as being due to people that don't want to
stop hogging energy so they refuse to see a downside, but that is again
my polictical bias.
Big Physics (high energy physics, space physics, most astronomy) is
very political on the personal side. Almost all the funding is from
governments and universities. Grantsmanship is a critical factor as to
whether your oversized tinkertoy is built or not.
James
government controls public funds. by writing that this reality is a
"problem" you seem to strongly imply that you believe government should
not control public funds. in other words, you seem to imply that
government control of public funds is somehow inappropriate (i.e., a
"problem"). we may not always like or agree with the way the
government spends our money, but just because the government is
imperfect in the execution of its duties does not mean that the duties
themselves are invalid. moreover, if the idea that government
determines where, when and to whom public dollars are allocated is a
"problem," then what is the solution? who should control the
expenditure of public funds if not the government?
~james
Sam
government?
Good questions, James! Without government, would there be "public"
funds? Without government, would there be scientists? Let's go and find
out, at the least, let's think about it! We may well have to abandon or
redefine concepts like "public" and "scientist" in the process. Let's
contemplate if we can, and if so how to take government out of the
picture from a sound philosophical perspective.
Which philosophy is currently most dominant in society? It's the idea
that government should be in control! That's the currently dominant
philosophy.
Now let's start and articulate better philosophy.
The Undersigned
in anarchy?
Interesting question, because how would we know which people were
scientists or involved in scientific research and who not?
Perhaps we're all scientists? Or we're all not? How would you call
someone who isn't a scientist? An unscientific person?
Jonathan
occurs from the integration of law and order in scientific research.
The fact is that the universe is in a increasing state of chaos, and in
order to adapt to it, science must also be. Goverment control is a
necessary evil for structured society, not science.
-Jonathan
Deborah
>state of chaos, and in order to adapt to it, science
>must also be.
That still means that Sam has a point, doesn't it? If science was about
chaos, isn't the only remaining "hard" knowledge the fact that
government influences things?
But doesn't science imply knowing something. How can we gain knowledge
of something if there was chaos?
James
>state of chaos, and in order to adapt to it, science
>must also be.
Jonathan,
This is not the "fact." I'm curious as to why you believe it is.
Thanks,
James
Sam
much of it veiled in secrecy in military projects. Combine the call for
independence by academics with the secrecy of the military and with the
bureaucracy that comes with government funding, and how accountible is
the result? Who will be able to even check if something goes wrong?
Voters who are told that their safety depends on voting for Bush? Or
should we perhaps put our trust in the UN?
Comon people, let's not eulogize the role that scientists are playing
in the political-military-industrial-scientific conglomerate. If
epistemology is to have any serious meaning, it will have to raise
questions about this!
James
Jade Dragon
to in my opinion, is the fact that most people fear what they don't
understand. Granted, the government as it exists, allows too much to go
on in the field of research without the public's knowledge, but there
are things in some instances that most people are better off knowing
about. I can only speak for myself when I say that the covert nature of
a lot of the government's research especially in the aspects of the
millitary, could cause a lot of damage to the public's view of the
safety of living in the US. On the other side of the coin, it's hard to
figure out what's safe or not, when you don't have all of the
information available to make an informed decision. The thing that
aggravates me the most about the whole thing is the lack of
accountability from the government to its people. We as concerned
citizens have a right to know what our hard-earned tax dollars are
paying, as well as a right to decide what that money is paying for.
Deborah
than a matter of financial accountibility. We should be able to draw
the line somewhere. What kind of weapons are research labs working on?
How big are the dangers and the risks that some kind of biological
virus will escape and infect the general population?
Another point is the position of people who work on such research. Are
they fully aware of the risks, the ethical aspects and their own
responsibilities? Are any rights of people violated in the process,
either because irresponsible risks are taken or because the products
coming out of the lab are likely to be used in ways that violate
people's rights?
Sam
Industrialists use "trade secrets", "comercially sensitive" and
"privacy" classifications to hide what they're doing. It is no secret
that this military-industrial complex cloaks much of their activities
in secrecy, but what is less known is that it is only one part of a
larger picture that makes things even more threatening.
Scientists use their magic word "independence" to similarly avoid
scrutiny. Ask courts to do something about it and they'll similarly
claim "independence" from political "interference".
Scientists and judges are to a large extent educated, paid and
controlled by government. So, who will stand up against anything that
goes wrong? Who will even try and find out if something may go wrong?
Politicians? Conservative politicians will argue that this combination
of secrecy and independence is the way it should be! The political
establishment is part of the problem. Many non-conformists, such as
libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, are fundamentally against what
they call "political intervention" and by default they advocate a
laissez-faire attitude towards this situation.
So, who will speak out? Many environmentalists and pacifists do raise
their voice, but they typically advocate policies of disarming
unilaterally. The problem with many activists is that they either have
obvious alternative agendas, or they simply fail to articulate their
policies in a way that makes sense.
So, a large part of society is actively busy trying to hide what is
designed to destroy people. Most other people are passively compliant.
Some may have some concerns about the many nuclear missiles pointed at
us, the biological and chemical weapons, etc, but they fail to go to
the core of the problem.
And that's where one would expect epistemologists to help out. Sadly,
they don't! Many will support a continuation of the current funding of
science, because they themselves are funded in the same way. Indeed,
the epistemologists, the ones who we would expect to ring the bell,
they themselves are part of this complex! They are typically publicly
funded, receiving direct grants from governments and salaries from
universities that are controlled by government. They rarely have to
account for their contemplations, after all, who watches the watchers?
In this case, the watchers are part of the problem!
Deborah
James
Yes, a very good question I think! While there does typically tend to
be more certainty in the diagnosis of an illness than there is in the
prescription of a cure, but thus far I've not even seen a succinct
and/or lucid diagnosis (explanation of the problem). No offense meant
Sam. Perhaps a good first step would be for you (Sam) to a clearly
define the problem and also clearly state your proposed solution to the
problem. We could then debate (1.) the validity of the premise (that
is, the stated problem) and (2.) assuming we agree on the definition of
the problem, the efficacy of the proposed solution. Does everyone (or
anyone even) agree??
Sam
political-neutrality, objectivity, independence, etc, is compromised by
the fact that they are employed in large numbers at scientific research
labs that are part of an industrial-military complex, holding the world
at ransom. Epistemologists typically turn a blind eye to this, which
makes them part of the problem.
To improve this situation, I support proposals that reduce the
government's involvement in education, preferably down to zero. This
has been part of some political parties for a long time, specifically
the Libertarian Party.
Now what about the military? I support the idea to split up the
military into numerous pieces, in such a way that they compete with
each other in all areas. This idea has been supported by individual
posters at libertarian forums, but it hasn't been proposed yet by any
political party - as far as I know.
zinnic
Some nutshell! Complex inter- and intra-dependencies in government and
societies makes it inevitable that all individuals and groups in modern
civilization are compromized to some extent. Indeed, appropriate
compromise is the essence of democracy and real freedom.
Your advocacy of zero involvement of government in public education
and, presumably, in research and development is a laissez-faire fantasy
that is totally impractical. There is not one successful society in
which government does not support education and research.
Even more impractical is your suggestion that the military be split
into numerous competing factions. Without central government control?
Three questions (1) Do you suppose that a fragmented military would be
effective in protecting our national and international interests? (2)
Do you suppose that different military factions within the country
would not be used by different political factions to furthur their own
agendas? (3)How do you propose that the "numerous pieces" of the
military "compete with each other in all areas"?
My impression of the Libertarians' politics is is that they want the
rest of the world to conform to a pattern of law and order that enables
them to do their 'own thing'. (I'm alright Jack, make the world go
away, the Devil take the hindmost).
This attitude (possessed by us all to a greater or lesser extent) makes
the problems of the world and society much more complex than your
simple "problem in a nutshell" (involvement of Scientists in an
"industrial-military complex).
Sam Carana
> government and societies makes it inevitable that all
> individuals and groups in modern civilization are
> compromized to some extent. Indeed, appropriate
> compromise is the essence of democracy and real freedom.
my principles. I sure hope more people are like me!
> Your advocacy of zero involvement of government in public
> education and, presumably, in research and development is
> a laissez-faire fantasy that is totally impractical. There is not
> one successful society in which government does not
> support education and research.
this. This proves that it's by no means a novel or frivolous idea.
It's sound policy backed up by research and founded in deeply-held
values that are shared by many people. If you have no real argument
against it, why then insult the political opinion of all these people
by calling it "fantasy" and "impractical". Why don't you make a decent
study of the issue instead - you'd see that the claims of the
educational establishment are in fact impractical and based on
fantasy!
> Even more impractical is your suggestion that the military be
> split into numerous competing factions. Without central
> government control?
> Three questions (1) Do you suppose that a fragmented
> military would be effective in protecting our national and
> international interests?
Should GM, Ford and other car manufacturers be forced into a merger,
otherwise they would not be effective? Of course not! Competition
enhances effectiveness, stimulates innovation and brings down costs.
> (2) Do you suppose that different military factions within the
> country would not be used by different political factions to
> furthur their own agendas?
security services. A commercial service that aligns itself too closely
with a political groups will be tainted by this and thus puts itself
at an economic disadvantage. Some security services will target
specific customer groups, but these will be niche markets. The largest
security groups will aim to offer services to the public at large.
> (3) How do you propose that the "numerous pieces" of the
combined with strong anti-trust policy to avoid cartels and to rule
out mergers between providers of similar services.
> My impression of the Libertarians' politics is is that they
> want the rest of the world to conform to a pattern of law and
> order that enables them to do their 'own thing'. (I'm alright
> Jack, make the world go away, the Devil take the hindmost).
> This attitude (possessed by us all to a greater or lesser
> extent) makes the problems of the world and society much
> more complex than your simple "problem in a nutshell"
> (involvement of Scientists in an "industrial-military complex).
shares my view on the issue of the military. But your dismissal of
libertarian ideas seems a bad example of the "compromise" and respect
for democratic values that you earlier hinted at. It seems to me that
you're just expressing some personal view that lacks argument.
Nevertheless, if there is an argument somewhere in there, feel free to
elaborate on that.
zinnic
essential problem in the politics of science is the employment of a
significant proportion of scientists by the military -industrial
complex, is overly simplistic. Your stand on principle is certainly
admirable, but the question of principle is far too complex for me to
claim that I would not compromise one principle in order to maintain a
more fundamental principle. I sure hope there are more people like me!
When I express my opinion on the personal or political views of
others, no insult is intended because, like other reasonable
individuals, I do not accept that disagreement is synonymous with
insult. There is far too much of that in social intercourse and is the
real "problem" in the current practice of politics. I hope that,
likewise, you meant no insult to those with " deeply held values"
when you expressed your view that "the claims of the educational
establishment are in fact impractical and based on fantasy"
would be improved by ZERO involvement of Government and I would be
interested in your evidence that it is a "sound policy backed up by
research". I am somewhat sympathetic with the LP view that less
Government involvement may engender some advantage to limited groups
(eg those favoring home education) but I believe that a total lack of
Federal support and regulation would be a major disaster for less able
and less advantaged citizens. Education of the 'masses ' is a sine
qua non for the stability and prosperity of society.
I do not follow your attempt to vindicate splitting the military into
numerous competing groups by using the analogy of the benefits of
competition in the automobile industry. The hidden hand of supply and
demand works in the more efficient production of automobiles but I am
at a loss as to how the same mechanism would operate on competing
'military pieces" to enhance local or global security. By what
price or product do we, as individuals, judge "security service"
when selecting one police force over another? How do we, as a nation,
select a competing "military piece" that will best protect our
national interests and provide our global defense?
It is my personal view that, with changing circumstances, our social
and political system must evolve in a direction that will enhance the
lifestyle of all. This (again IMO) will best be accomplished by fine
tuning our current system and not by the introduction of 'hopeful
monsters' such as zero government regulation of education or
"enhancement" of national security by fragmentation of the military
into competing "military pieces". Despite the possibility that
you will claim that this post also "lacks argument", I thank you
for inviting me to elaborate!
Regards-Zinnic
Sam Carana
> essential problem in the politics of science is the employment > of a significant proportion of scientists by the military-industrial
> complex, is overly simplistic.
on the other hand it is part of a military-industrial complex with a
very specific political agenda. If science itself is not willing or
able to address this problem, then it's even more up a epistemologists
to address this. That's not a simplication of the problem, the problem
has both complex and simple aspects, But a good first step would be to
simply acknowledge the problem, so that we can look at possible ways
to deal with it. It seems like you refuse to take the first step,
because you have already formed a political view of things, not
realizing that you in the process embody the problem. Science has many
political aspects, and refusing to acknowledge this doesn't help.
> I am somewhat sympathetic with the LP view that less
> Government involvement may engender some advantage to
> limited groups (eg those favoring home education) but I believe
> that a total lack of Federal support and regulation would be a
> major disaster for less able and less advantaged citizens.
coercion, compulsion and monoism that teaches the wrong values.
Educationally and morally, it's wrong! From a narrow, specific
political view, some may be (mistakenly, IMO) perceived to benefit,
but take a bit wider perspective and it's a logistical nighmare that
is full of economically waste and ineffectiveness! Vouchers would be
a vast improvement, they benefit poorer families who couldn't
otherwise afford the education they want for their children. For
evidence and further arguments, ave a look at:
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/schoolchoice/
But even better would be to remove government from education
altogether. There is no evidence that government is a better teacher,
in fact, families vote with their feet when given a choice, including
cases of students with special needs!
> Education of the 'masses ' is a sine
> qua non for the stability and prosperity of society.
and better, AND there would be greater prosperity for all. Money that
is now wasted by government on inferior education could be spent much
more prudently, resulting in a stronger economy with more
opportunities for young people to learn and work.
> I do not follow your attempt to vindicate splitting the military into
> numerous competing groups by using the analogy of the
> benefits of competition in the automobile industry. The hidden
> hand of supply and demand works in the more efficient
> production of automobiles but I am at a loss as to how the
> same mechanism would operate on competing 'military pieces"
> to enhance local or global security. By what price or product do
> we, as individuals, judge "security service" when selecting one
> police force over another?
it's hard to assess how the money is to be spent. With more
competition in security services, we can better compare who is doing a
better job in providing similar services.
> How do we, as a nation, select a competing "military piece"
> that will best protect our national interests and provide our
> global defense?
spoon-fed to children, we shouldn't create one, single military
apparatus. People should more directly choose the services they want.
The more choice you take out of people's hands the more your policy
becomes - in one word - dictatorial. If that policy is applied to
education, then dictatorial values will inevitably be taught by such
education.
> It is my personal view that, with changing circumstances, our
> social and political system must evolve in a direction that will
> enhance the lifestyle of all. This (again IMO) will best be
> accomplished by fine tuning our current system and not by the
> introduction of 'hopeful monsters' such as zero government
> regulation of education or "enhancement" of national security by
> fragmentation of the military into competing "military pieces".
> Despite the possibility that you will claim that this post also
> "lacks argument", I thank you for inviting me to elaborate!
> Regards-Zinnic
argument, at least, what you seem to say doesn't make sense. If
government education was superior, then why do so many families vote
with their feet if they have a chance? Can I perhaps invite you again
to try and articulate argument?
zinnic
> Science rather hypocritically claims neutrality and independence,
when
> on the other hand it is part of a military-industrial complex with a
> very specific political agenda. If science itself is not willing or
> able to address this problem, then it's even more up a
epistemologists
> to address this. That's not a simplication of the problem, the
problem
> has both complex and simple aspects, But a good first step would be
to
> simply acknowledge the problem, so that we can look at possible ways
> to deal with it. It seems like you refuse to take the first step,
> because you have already formed a political view of things, not
> realizing that you in the process embody the problem. Science has
many
> political aspects, and refusing to acknowledge this doesn't help.
Why do you reify science? Just as epistemology has epistemologists so
then science has scientists! Is it your claim that there are no
epistemologists employed by the military-industrial complex? (Oh! So
sorry! I forgot that that it is your practice to ignore questions).
Your anti-science hobby horse is showing!
I denied that employment of scientists by the military-industrial
complex was the major problem in the politics of science NOT that
there are no problems. The use of science to further the agendas of
political parties is to be deplored, but for you to hide your
political agenda under the banner of epistemology is philosophical
prostitution!
> Government's involvement with education represents a level of
> coercion, compulsion and monoism that teaches the wrong values.
> Educationally and morally, it's wrong!
Assertions! Neither arguments nor evidence. Would you care to
elaborate on your politics?
>From a narrow, specific political view, some may be (mistakenly, IMO)
perceived to benefit,
> but take a bit wider perspective and it's a logistical nighmare that
> is full of economically waste and ineffectiveness! Vouchers would be
> a vast improvement, they benefit poorer families who couldn't
> otherwise afford the education they want for their children. For
> evidence and further arguments, ave a look at:
> http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/schoolchoice/
> But even better would be to remove government from education
> altogether. There is no evidence that government is a better teacher,
> in fact, families vote with their feet when given a choice, including
> cases of students with special needs!
IMO to "remove government from education altogether' is a 'hopeful
monster' which will evolve into a 'hopeless monster' just as in
biological evolution and in other examples of extreme politics.
> Without government involvement in education, children would learn
more
> and better, AND there would be greater prosperity for all. Money that
> is now wasted by government on inferior education could be spent much
> more prudently, resulting in a stronger economy with more
> opportunities for young people to learn and work.
I am sympathetic to the pilot studies in progress for Vouchers and
Charter school. That's what I mean by small steps and fine tuning. So
let us,with appropriate government regulation, address the problems of
waste and ineffectiveness. I am for competition if it leads to
improvement of general education, and I am prepared to fund the
necessary short term expense by paying additional taxes. Despite what
is claimed by its advocates, the introduction of charter schools and
vouchers is going to cost more, at least in the short term, whether it
is derived from the public school allocations or from private income
taxes.
Snip (Zinnic)
It is painfully apparent that you are not adverse to expressing your
own political view! I leave it to others to judge whether or not your
assertions represent articulate arguments for your position. As to my
not making sense, you are the one making extreme propositions such as
"even better would be to remove government from education
altogether" and "we should'nt create one single military
apparatus. People should more directly choose the one they want".
I await your explanation as to the method and criteria by which the
people will choose a "military apparatus' for National defence. Winner
of a mock war between competing agencies? Replacement of an "apparatus"
that fails to defend our Nation?
However, we seemed to have digressed (regressed?) into educational and
military politics. I would much prefer that you elaborate on your claim
that "science" is hypocritical and how "it" should address "its"
problems before you epistemologists are forced to institute your
"values" on "it".
Regards.
Sam Carana
> the people will choose a "military apparatus' for National
> defence. Winner of a mock war between competing agencies?
security services for a number of years, individuals should each be
able to directly select the services they want from what is offered by
security services. There should not be one single force "defending the
nation", just like there should be no single force policing the hood!
Better security will result when there are numerous security services,
offering a great variety of services directly to individuals, groups,
business, organizations, etc.
Extreme proposals? This and removing government from education
altogether may not be achieved overnight, but that doesn't make it
less valid as a policy direction. Vouchers could be seen as a step in
the right direction, but any such reform should be implemented as part
of a package that includes many more things. Such a package should
address tax, education, police and military forces, and many more. I'm
the last say that there were no political aspects. Of course there
are! What made you think I was "hiding" that? I'm not like the many
scientists who deny that their position had political implications!
Who is accusing who of hypocrisy? And what's your position? That the
status quo is always OK and that "fine tuning" is all that was needed?
Are you saying that conformism was inherently better than proposing
more radical change and looking further ahead?
James
while your answer was a bit too verbose for my taste, i liked it. your
most salient (and important) point was that education "of the 'masses'
is [the] sine qua non for the stability and prosperity of society."
nice job.
~james
Jade Dragon
as a whole, what guidelines should that society accept for things being
taught? also who should be allowed to decide what is taught, and how...
etc. I feel that in order for the enhancemen of society through
education to be sucessful, the 'government' as we know it, should have
as little a part to play in setting up those guidelines as possible. In
recent tears, it nseems that with the policies in place now instead of
our children becoming smarter, many gifted children, and teens are
falling through the cracks of the current educational system because
most educational systems cater to the lowest comon denominator when it
comes to how lessons are taught to students. Vouchers for private
schools, I feel are a step in the right direction because it allows
parents, even if its only in a small way, to start to make public
school systems more accountable to the students and their parents by
helping them to realize that 'lowest comon denominator' teaching
methods are not in everyone's best interests.
zinnic
Why do you conflate a military apparatus for national defence with "
numerous security services" from which individuals etc can select the
service they prefer? Even Libertarians concede that national defence is
a legitimate role for the Federal government. I am at a loss as to how
this role could be opened to competition and selection.
My point was and remains that there is nothing metaphysical
(epistemological)about the views you express. They represent standard
libertarian politics advocating the maximization of individual rights
and minimization of the power of the state to balance social, medical,
educational (etc) disadvantages by provision of welfare programs. My
position is not that "the status quo is always OK" but that government
services should evolve with the changing needs of Society. Obviously
there is a large divergence in our views as to what constitutes a
'need' in our modern and complex society.
Science is a methodology that has an outstanding record of providing
empirical knowledge and will continue to do so, even in a "perfectly
Libertarian" society. How this knowledge is used is politics.
Scientists may be involved in politics but how does this make them, as
a class, more "hypocritical" than other political professionals?
MoreSense
People have lost sight of the fact that parents are the ones who
should decide the kind of education their children should get.
Removing government from education altogether sounds good to me, but
it should indeed be done as part of a wider reform package, rather
than as an isolated policy.
MoreSense
First, you say that Sam's view wasn't libertarian policy, then you say
that Sam's view was standard libertarian politics.
Also, zinnic, you seem to deny that science was political. But wasn't
that precisely the subject of this discussion? Simply denying this
doesn't constitute an argument and effectively places you outside this
discussion. Ironically, isn't that exactly what Sam alleges that
scientists do?
Sam
appropriately referred to as dictatorship. In fact, the two go hand in
hand.
The problem is that many people do not realize this and naively send
their kids to schools that teach this kind of nonsense.
The solution is exposure. We should not stand by and allow dictatorial
views run the education system and effectively steal control from
parents over their children.
Epistemologists, who do focus more on the moral aspects, should be the
first to expose the dictatorial aspects of the education system.
jrichard
I've been reading over these posts and I think you have a great point,
but that you are overstating it. If science is analgous to a political
system it is one with a patrician class, a group of noble individuals
who collectively police their borders and assign controls to exclude
the interlopers who threaten their power.
Yes, there are power politics in science. There are power politics in
every aspect of American life: our churches, our schools, our
recreational organizations and even within our humanitarian nonprofits.
And I find your concerns about parents and children to be worrisome
(and I have expressed this is other forums with you). Parents can
shield their children from society, but to do so they often inhibit
their children's ability to particpate in and influence society. IMHO,
it is far better to educate your children to resist the hegemony of our
society by teaching them to respond to the world in a critical fashion.
Let them discover the parts of the world they can use and which ones to
reject.
Most parents do not seem to want to deal with these questions. I admire
your convictions in this arena and if more parents were prepared to
talk to their children about what they learn and help them merge family
culture with social culture, I think we would all be better off.
Sadly, many parents simply do not create space in their lives for this
interaction, choosing to turn their children over to youth ministers,
teachers and public programming.
I think the answer lies with the individual parent and their efforts
with their child. Education should begin in our schools and churches,
but not stop there. Parents should use those experience to START the
quest for knowledge, not lay the entire burden at the feet of the state.
MoreSense
> world they can use and which ones to reject.
parents to resist the hegemony of public school, be critical regarding
their choice of school, let them discover what types of schools there
are, etc.
jrichard
Hegemony is a cultural force, not merely a public force. Hegemony is
most powerful in private circles (as the struggle to desegregate the
south demonstrated). Privatizing schools will not free them from the
cultural views of society.
And it certainly wouldn't free them from the stanndardized test scores
needed to enter the university setting.
Let me tell you that I have students from both walks of life (private
schooled and public schooled). The re is not appreciable difference
between the two in terms of critical thinking, though the private
schoolers do tend to be less diverse and take a little more for granted
when it comes to considering the needs and desires of people not like
them.
I have stated why I don't agree with your positions and why vouchers
will ultimately lead to fewer choices and lower quality education in
most of the available choices.
I am talking my talk and walking my walk. Just because you refuse to
talk rationally with people who disagree with you doesn't mean that
those people are going to follow your blind lead. Don't judge my
opinions by your assumptions and logic when I have expressed several
reservations with both on this issue.
MoreSense
educational quality. I could accept your view, if you only admitted
that it is just a political view. I may hold the opposite view, but at
least I am honest about it being a political view. You, on the other
hand, seek to portray your view as if it was politically neutral, as
if it was supported by evidence and by logical argument, whereas it is
politically biased, it is unsubstatiated and what you present as
argument turns out to be "either nonsense or libel", as Sam said so
eloquently elsewhere. Accusing me of being dogmatic is quite a
hypocrisy! Moreover, it is fundamentally dishonest, even worse when
you seek to enforce such a view on people when they are at a more
impressionable age.
Setting compulsory national standards for literacy and numeracy is
part of a specific political agenda that seeks to force all students
into a specific political frame of mind. That may well be the
preferred approach of a military school, but it constitutes political
indoctrination and that is inappropriate in an education system that
is supposed to be politically neutral and it is unacceptable for
students with other ambitions. Standards creates people who do not
think critically, who have been forced to believe that conformity was
superior to creativity. Standards are part of a learning approach that
seeks to strip emotions and feelings from what it portrays as "facts".
Such a method deliberately makes it hard for students to express
emotions and feelings. Being spontaneous and having an open mind may
be talents that some are more born with than others, but some learning
methods are better in stimulating students to develop their individual
talents. To say it bluntly, standards produce insensitive robots and
social nerds who wrongly believed that only "elective" and thus
"inferior" subjects like music, fashion, dance and design had creative
and artistic aspects, as if subjects like Science and English were
academically superior. The sad result of this is that some students
more score high marks for literacy standards, yet they are unable to
write something beautiful, because they simply have no idea what
beauty is.
Deborah
jrichard
I would accept your acceptance of my view, if you ever bothered to
answer the questions I put to you or address my arguments on their
merits. Rather than do this, you make sweeping authoritative statements
based on no reaction to what I've said. Which is what dogma is, a
belief held independent of rationale.
And NOW you say that your view is political? After post after post of
you claiming your view was superior to mine because mine was JUST
political? Unbelievable.
So all those times you claimed I had "no argument," you were holding
yourself to the same standard? YOU had no argument and were claiming
superiority over me?
I never said my views are politically neutral. If you read back through
my posts, you will find several places where I stated that I have
political views that shape how I appraoch the argument, but that I had
arguments and evidence to support my conclusions (not my politics).
And pardon me for not agreeing that the "either nonsense or libel" was
either eloquent or true. Sam has yet to come close to even proving the
falseness of my claim, much less show damage to the other party,
willful disregard on my part or malicious motives. Not that I expect
you to back up any claims you make (you haven't done so in most
discussions I've participated in).
And once again, all of the confomity that you decry is cultural, not a
symptom of the public school system. Do you think that private schools
are producing more diverse students? My experience is that the students
coming out of private schools are at least as driven by left-brained
pursuits (the skills they can use to make money with) than their public
school counterparts.
Insensitive robots come out of both public and private school and while
i agree with you on the hegemony in our society weaking havoc on future
generations, you have yet to provide me with one solid reason why these
forces come only (or even primarily) from public schools or their
standards.
I completely agree with you about the shift in focus towards the "hard
sciences" and fields like business and management science robbing our
children of their freedom to be creative. But this problem is
market-driven at its heart, the market will not bring salvation here.
zinnic
Sam wrote:
> The conclusion is that science has a political equivalent that is
more
> appropriately referred to as dictatorship. In fact, the two go hand
in
> hand.
> The problem is that many people do not realize this and naively send
> their kids to schools that teach this kind of nonsense.
Do not realize What? Schools teach scientific nonsense? I do not follow
your prodigious leap from the politics of science to schools teaching
"nonsense".
> The solution is exposure. We should not stand by and allow
dictatorial
> views run the education system and effectively steal control from
> parents over their children.
Agreed! If one feels strongly about this, then private, parochial or
home schooling is appropriate. Parents have the right to improve or
ruin the education of their own children. They do not have the right to
arbitrarily choose not to pay taxes in support of a basic educational
system for all children.
> Epistemologists, who do focus more on the moral aspects, should be
the
> first to expose the dictatorial aspects of the education system.
Facist and communist educational systems were dictatorial. Alternative
schools in these regimes were treated as subversive by the state.
Surely you are overstating the situation in the US?
As to epistemologists and moral aspects, I can only assume that you
believe it is impossible for an "epistemologist" to support the present
school system and be passionately against the introduction of a voucher
system. IMO you are exposing your lack of objectivity by conflating
politics and philosophy.
Since you are unable to support your contention that scientists are
more hypocritical than are other professionals and your replies simply
address your hatred of the current school system, I guess we are
talking past each other. No future in that.
Regards.
zinnic
Deborah
Explain how compulsory requirements for minimal standards in English,
math, science and sociology constitute a political agenda. Should not
all students' ambitions be to function effectively in modern society,
even if it is to change the direction of that society? How do these
minimum standards prevent critical thinking, force belief that
conformity is superior to creativity and make it hard for students to
express emotions and feelings? Surely literacy enables expression?
I suspect that you apply standards to beauty and art. Or do you
believe that all oral, audio and visual expressions have an equal
claim to artistic significance? Many individuals who reject standards
claim creativity but when their lack of success proves otherwise, they
become dependent on the community for support. For example, there are
many wharehouses full of 'art' purchased by the Dutch government
from 'artist' who now survive on government welfare because they
have no other qualifications by which to support themselves.
"To put it bluntly", you are unrealistic if you believe that basic
public education should optimize the development of each and every
student's specific talents. Public education should encourage
individual talents but it's major responsibility is to provide
each student with an education that enables the development and
utilization of those talents in society.
Truly creative individuals are not trammeled by standards in the
education system. They are driven. They are not " spontaneous and
outgoing". They are the 'nerds' you hold in contempt. They are
the "artists' that know a different beauty to your concept of
beauty. Almost all advances in technology and culture are initiated by
these exceptional pioneers. They are not produced by an educational
system. The role of education is to produce productive and caring
individuals that support the development of a just and cultured
society in which such innovators prosper.
Regards..Zinnic
MoreSense
> you claiming your view was superior to mine because mine was
> JUST political? Unbelievable.
view is. I agree that parents should choose what kind of education
they want their children to have. You may say that you disagree, but
that isn't an argument.
> I never said my views are politically neutral. If you read back through
> my posts, you will find several places where I stated that I have
> political views that shape how I appraoch the argument, but that I
> had arguments and evidence to support my conclusions (not my
> politics).
standards in education. Surely, that is a political view, not an
argument. Then, you contradict yourself when you say that public
school was facilitating critical thinking, because to me that doesn't
rhyme with standards.
> And pardon me for not agreeing that the "either nonsense or libel"
> was either eloquent or true. Sam has yet to come close to even
> proving the falseness of my claim, much less show damage to the
> other party, willful disregard on my part or malicious motives. Not
> that I expect you to back up any claims you make (you haven't
> done so in most discussions I've participated in).
You're not seriously suggesting that you had an argument there, do
you? Should government perhaps take over Wal-Mart because it could
provide better service? Should government dictate what we are to eat
on a daily basis? If you did believe that - but I hope you're wiser
than that - than that was just another political view, but still no
argument.
> And once again, all of the confomity that you decry is cultural, not a
> symptom of the public school system. Do you think that private
> schools are producing more diverse students? My experience is
> that the students coming out of private schools are at least as
> driven by left-brained pursuits (the skills they can use to make
> money with) than their public school counterparts.
but I actually believe students should be able to use all of their
brains. The problem is that setting standards and public school
inherently favor certain activities.
> Insensitive robots come out of both public and private school and
> while i agree with you on the hegemony in our society weaking
> havoc on future generations, you have yet to provide me with one
> solid reason why these forces come only (or even primarily) from
> public schools or their standards.
are even worse, but I believe that is the result of the inadequcies of
the current system and that's why I advocate vouchers in order to get
more choice.
> I completely agree with you about the shift in focus towards
> the "hard sciences" and fields like business and management
> science robbing our children of their freedom to be creative. But this
> problem is market-driven at its heart, the market will not bring
> salvation here.
MoreSense
> Deborah,
> English, math, science and sociology constitute a political
> agenda.
to which this is the case, that is the very topic of this discussion.
Sam started it and Sam seems to be rather radical, but there certainly
are political aspects in the education system, with vouchers
constituting one of the hottest issues for debate.
> Should not all students' ambitions be to function effectively in
> modern society, even if it is to change the direction of that
> society? How do these minimum standards prevent critical
> thinking, force belief that conformity is superior to creativity and
> make it hard for students to express emotions and feelings? Surely
> literacy enables expression?
is not so much the problem, but - sadly - what often happens is that
the way literacy is taught is detrimental to the development of
creativity and critical thinking.
> I suspect that you apply standards to beauty and art. Or do you
> believe that all oral, audio and visual expressions have an equal
> claim to artistic significance? Many individuals who reject standards
> claim creativity but when their lack of success proves otherwise,
> they become dependent on the community for support. For
> example, there are many wharehouses full of 'art' purchased by the
> Dutch government from 'artist' who now survive on government
> welfare because they have no other qualifications by which to
> support themselves.
to make a huge profit on the one or two items that turn out to be very
valuable, even though that may be decades later. I don't think it's a
bad investment, especially if you take into account what the
alternatives could be, such as unemployment benefits that could amount
to similar payments as what the artists receive now.
But that is not your point, I understand that, it just means you
didn't illustrate your point very well. Your question whether people
should be paid for delivering something that can hardly be assessed by
a common standard. Indeed, the Dutch government will accept any
painting. But I'm not suggesting that children should be given just
any type of education. I'm suggesting that children should get the
education their parents want them to have. Standards are set by
government and are part of a specific political agenda. But government
should not dictate what art is and parents have and should have the
prior choice what kind of education they want their children to have.
Vouchers are a positive step in that direction.
> "To put it bluntly", you are unrealistic if you believe that basic
> public education should optimize the development of each and every
> student's specific talents.
education. Parents should decide what type of education their children
should get, not government.
> Public education should encourage individual talents but it's major
> responsibility is to provide each student with an education that
> enables the development and utilization of those talents in society.
them better.
> Truly creative individuals are not trammeled by standards in the
> education system. They are driven. They are not " spontaneous and
> outgoing".
number of students are packed into a single classroom and bullied into
so-called orderly behavior that destroys such a sponeneous and
outgoing character.
> They are the 'nerds' you hold in contempt.
from an obsession with academic subjects to the detriment of social
development. I do not hold nerds in contempt, I pity them and wish to
give them a better education than what you seem to have in mind for
them.
> They are the "artists' that know a different beauty to your concept of
> beauty.
"Revenge of the Nerds" series.
> Almost all advances in technology and culture are initiated
> by these exceptional pioneers. They are not produced by an
> educational system. The role of education is to produce productive
> and caring individuals that support the development of a just and
> cultured society in which such innovators prosper.
want for their children?
Deborah
jrichard
Thanks for dodging the dogma discussion entirely. I wish if you were
going to trim my words, you could at least provide me the courtesy of a
"<snip>"
> And NOW you say that your view is political? After post after post of
> you claiming your view was superior to mine because mine was
> JUST political? Unbelievable.
<The point is that your view isn't supported by argument, whereas my
view is.>
Deborah, at this point I have written more than a dozen posts
explaining my positions and backing it up with arguments, examples,
theory and evidence. You are exhausting, and furthermore you continue
to hold my positions and arguments to a different standards than your
own, which is hardly fair or reasonable.
And what about my words, "So all those times you claimed I had "no
argument," you were holding
yourself to the same standard? YOU had no argument and were claiming
superiority over me? "
Do these questions not deserve answers?
< I agree that parents should choose what kind of education
they want their children to have. You may say that you disagree, but
that isn't an argument. >
And I continue to say that parents who do not make enough money to
afford more expensive schools have no choices. What exactly is it about
this concept that you don't understand?
You can't buy a Lexus if you don't make enough money to afford one. A
Lexus is not a choice for a poor person. Choice only comes to those who
can afford different options. If a public school fails, most of the
families whose students went there will not have choices when a charter
school or private firm replaces it.
And if the standards in that private school slide, the families still
have no choice unless they are willing to spend more money on
education. But if they could do that, chances are they would already be
doing that.
> I never said my views are politically neutral. If you read back
through
> my posts, you will find several places where I stated that I have
> political views that shape how I appraoch the argument, but that I
> had arguments and evidence to support my conclusions (not my
> politics).
<Argument? What argument? First, you advocate that politicians set
standards in education. >
Actually, standards in education were advocated by men long before I
arrived on this earth. Don't misrepresent my position. However we
arrived at this moment is not the issue. What matters is what we do
now. Privatizing education will decrease the standards of schooling for
the lower classes which will most likely decrease the quality of
education for most American children. For some, it will be an
improvement, but the majority will likely wind up with less ability.
So, I am against the complete privatization of education.
<Surely, that is a political view, not an
argument. >
I have made dozens of arguments that lead to my views. I'm not sure you
have been able to distinguish between the two, but your bizarre claims
that your views are valid (despite the holes I punched in your
assumptions and arguments), while mine are not (when you don't even
address my arguments, but sweep them away), are really annoying.
<Then, you contradict yourself when you say that public
school was facilitating critical thinking, because to me that doesn't
rhyme with standards. >
Actually in several places I have stated exactly the opposite. My
argument has been that neither public schools nor private schools have
been very good at encouraging students to think critically.
> And pardon me for not agreeing that the "either nonsense or libel"
> was either eloquent or true. Sam has yet to come close to even
> proving the falseness of my claim, much less show damage to the
> other party, willful disregard on my part or malicious motives. Not
> that I expect you to back up any claims you make (you haven't
> done so in most discussions I've participated in).
<Comon, you made derogatory remarks about Wal-Mart, just admit it.
You're not seriously suggesting that you had an argument there, do
you? >
I said that Wal-mart has pursued a low-cost strategy, which leads it to
offer a lower quality of goods and services than department stores. I
said this because the private schools we see today are the department
stores and the charter schools of tomorrow will be pursuing strategies
similar to Wal-mart's.
You are the one adding the derogatory judgements. I was building a
metaphor based on a free-market example to show what happens to the
firms who cater to the low-end masses. They have market pressures put
on them that could diminish education as we know it.
<Should government perhaps take over Wal-Mart because it could
provide better service?>
No, and I've never said that.
< Should government dictate what we are to eat
on a daily basis? >
No, and I've never said that.
<If you did believe that - but I hope you're wiser
than that - than that was just another political view, but still no
argument. >
Deborah/Moresense, I'm beginning to form the view that you are
incapable of comprehending a simple logical argument. Whether that
inability is due to pride, ignorance or dishonesty is unknown to me but
the fact that you keep snipping my words and not answering my questions
to you makes me feel like it's not ignorance.
> And once again, all of the confomity that you decry is cultural, not
a
> symptom of the public school system. Do you think that private
> schools are producing more diverse students? My experience is
> that the students coming out of private schools are at least as
> driven by left-brained pursuits (the skills they can use to make
> money with) than their public school counterparts.
<Yes, it does sometimes look like a left verus right hemisphere issue,
but I actually believe students should be able to use all of their
brains. The problem is that setting standards and public school
inherently favor certain activities. >
Which seem to produce no different results from the privately educated
students I receive. So, it doesn't seem like the standards are the
problem. It seems like the job market is the problem. Schools and
students pursue skills they can make money at over skills that do not
produce economic value? I agree that this is a travesty. But I don't
think privatizing the system will offer any solutions.
> Insensitive robots come out of both public and private school and
> while i agree with you on the hegemony in our society weaking
> havoc on future generations, you have yet to provide me with one
> solid reason why these forces come only (or even primarily) from
> public schools or their standards.
<Sure, some private schools do the same, many currently are probably
are even worse, but I believe that is the result of the inadequcies of
the current system and that's why I advocate vouchers in order to get
more choice. >
So let me see if I follow your logic. Public schools offer unfair
competition to private schools, forcing them to compete at an
artificially high level at tremendous tuitions in order to compete. And
you think that privatizing those public schools, bringing them in
direct competition with the elite schools for the same dollars
(levelling the playing field) is going to raise the performance of the
elite private schools?
It would seem that levelling the playing field would make it less
likely for private schools to improve, following your assertions. If
the next best option disappeared, why improve? Differentiation would be
much easier if elite schools didn't have to compete with the standards
of public schools.
> I completely agree with you about the shift in focus towards
> the "hard sciences" and fields like business and management
> science robbing our children of their freedom to be creative. But
this
> problem is market-driven at its heart, the market will not bring
> salvation here.
<Should children get the education their parents want them to have, or
not?>
That's not really a fair question. Because I think you and I both want
to say "YES!" when the answer from either the government or the market
is going to be "TOO BAD!"
Rich parents will and poor parents will not. Privatizing the system
will not change this. The only thing to change will be who is
accountable for the performance rates of low-end schools. Right now,
it's the government. After privatization, it will be a private
corporation.
Sam Carana
> Sam wrote:
> > The conclusion is that science has a political equivalent that is
> more
> > appropriately referred to as dictatorship. In fact, the two go hand
> in
> > hand.
> The CONCLUSION? Whose?
that point, while there was no argument against it.
> > The problem is that many people do not realize this and naively
> > send their kids to schools that teach this kind of nonsense.
>
> Do not realize What? Schools teach scientific nonsense? I do not
> follow your prodigious leap from the politics of science to schools
> teaching "nonsense".
impression. Schools do not teach scientific nonsense, schools teach
nonsense (period). They do so under the pretence of teaching some
secret "knowledge" to students who supposedly didn't possess this
"knowledge"!
> > The solution is exposure. We should not stand by and allow
> > dictatorial views run the education system and effectively steal
> > control from parents over their children.
>
> Agreed! If one feels strongly about this, then private, parochial or
> home schooling is appropriate. Parents have the right to improve or
> ruin the education of their own children. They do not have the right
> to arbitrarily choose not to pay taxes in support of a basic
> educational system for all children.
discussion on what was the best way to go in this regard. Parents do
have the right to participate in democratic elections and thus can
decide the looks of the education system, don't they? The problem is
that as long as the education system is politically biased, people are
not making informed political choices. If the education system
preaches dictatorship, then this influences elections which in turn
keeps the education system as dictatorial as it is. That's what should
be changed!
> > Epistemologists, who do focus more on the moral aspects,
> > should be the first to expose the dictatorial aspects of the
> > education system.
>
> Facist and communist educational systems were dictatorial.
> Alternative schools in these regimes were treated as subversive by
> the state. Surely you are overstating the situation in the US?
many countries. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying to improve
things!
> As to epistemologists and moral aspects, I can only assume that
> you believe it is impossible for an "epistemologist" to support the
> present school system and be passionately against the
> introduction of a voucher system.
improve the current system. However, much depends on how vouchers are
intriduced. I've always said that reform should be implemented as a
package of measures. We should aim to abolish monopolies across the
board, not just in education, but also in the military forces, etc.
> IMO you are exposing your lack of objectivity by conflating politics
> and philosophy. Since you are unable to support your contention
> that scientists are more hypocritical than are other professionals
> and your replies simply address your hatred of the current school
> system, I guess we are talking past each other. No future in that.
directly or indirectly, does raise questions that should be addressed
by epistemologists. Other professionals will be open about their
professions, what it is all about, where the money goes, etc, but ask
questions about science and where do you go? Universities will hide
behind "independence", the military and commercial labs will hide
behind official secrets, and politicians will hide things within the
bureacracy of government. In your case, zinnic, you seem to be unable
to even understand the questions. So, that's why I pose such questions
in this epistemology group, which is entirely appropriate. Do you
simply fail to understand the issue, or is there something more
sinister behind your objections against this discussion?
Sam
jrichard
<The fact that so many scientists are on the government payroll, either
directly or indirectly, does raise questions that should be addressed
by epistemologists. Other professionals will be open about their
professions, what it is all about, where the money goes, etc, but ask
questions about science and where do you go? Universities will hide
behind "independence", the military and commercial labs will hide
behind official secrets, and politicians will hide things within the
bureacracy of government. In your case, zinnic, you seem to be unable
to even understand the questions. So, that's why I pose such questions
in this epistemology group, which is entirely appropriate. Do you
simply fail to understand the issue, or is there something more
sinister behind your objections against this discussion? >
Sam, charges of sinisterness aside, I am curious about one of the
distinctions you made in this last paragraph.
What professionals are more open about professions than those who
conduct science? Private firms? Trade secret law and copyright make
them far less accountable than grants suppported by public funds (which
require public accountings of all funds used).
But you seem to think of science itself as an industry, as if public
and private research is equally shielded from public scrutiny.
What's the alternative? Or rather, who is it that we're modelling as
more open? Certainly not corporate America?
I'm just trying to understand an aspect of these arguments that many of
us have seemed to stumble over.
jrichard
go ahead and report it to make sure it wasn't missed.
-----------------
Thanks for dodging the dogma discussion entirely. I wish if you were
going to trim my words, you could at least provide me the courtesy of a
"<snip>"
> And NOW you say that your view is political? After post after post of
> you claiming your view was superior to mine because mine was
> JUST political? Unbelievable
.
<The point is that your view isn't supported by argument, whereas my
view is
.>
Deborah, at this point I have written more than a dozen posts
explaining my positions and backing it up with arguments, examples,
theory and evidence. You are exhausting, and furthermore you continue
to hold my positions and arguments to a different standards than your
own, which is hardly fair or reasonable.
And what about my words, "
So all those times you claimed I had "no
argument," you were holding
yourself to the same standard? YOU had no argument and were claiming
superiority over me
? "
Do these questions not deserve answers?
<
I agree that parents should choose what kind of education
they want their children to have. You may say that you disagree, but
that isn't an argument
. >
And I continue to say that parents who do not make enough money to
afford more expensive schools have no choices. What exactly is it about
this concept that you don't understand?
You can't buy a Lexus if you don't make enough money to afford one. A
Lexus is not a choice for a poor person. Choice only comes to those who
can afford different options. If a public school fails, most of the
families whose students went there will not have choices when a charter
school or private firm replaces it.
And if the standards in that private school slide, the families still
have no choice unless they are willing to spend more money on
education. But if they could do that, chances are they would already be
doing that.
> I never said my views are politically neutral. If you read back
through
> my posts, you will find several places where I stated that I have
> political views that shape how I appraoch the argument, but that I
> had arguments and evidence to support my conclusions (not my
> politics
).
<Argument? What argument? First, you advocate that politicians set
standards in education
. >
Actually, standards in education were advocated by men long before I
arrived on this earth. Don't misrepresent my position. However we
arrived at this moment is not the issue. What matters is what we do
now. Privatizing education will decrease the standards of schooling for
the lower classes which will most likely decrease the quality of
education for most American children. For some, it will be an
improvement, but the majority will likely wind up with less ability.
So, I am against the complete privatization of education.
<Surely, that is a political view, not an
argument. >
I have made dozens of arguments that lead to my views. I'm not sure you
have been able to distinguish between the two, but your bizarre claims
that your views are valid (despite the holes I punched in your
assumptions and arguments), while mine are not (when you don't even
address my arguments, but sweep them away), are really annoying.
<
Then, you contradict yourself when you say that public
school was facilitating critical thinking, because to me that doesn't
rhyme with standards
. >
Actually in several places I have stated exactly the opposite. My
argument has been that neither public schools nor private schools have
been very good at encouraging students to think critically.
> And pardon me for not agreeing that the "either nonsense or libel"
> was either eloquent or true. Sam has yet to come close to even
> proving the falseness of my claim, much less show damage to the
> other party, willful disregard on my part or malicious motives. Not
> that I expect you to back up any claims you make (you haven't
> done so in most discussions I've participated in
).
<Comon, you made derogatory remarks about Wal-Mart, just admit it.
You're not seriously suggesting that you had an argument there, do
you
? >
I said that Wal-mart has pursued a low-cost strategy, which leads it to
offer a lower quality of goods and services than department stores. I
said this because the private schools we see today are the department
stores and the charter schools of tomorrow will be pursuing strategies
similar to Wal-mart's.
You are the one adding the derogatory judgements. I was building a
metaphor based on a free-market example to show what happens to the
firms who cater to the low-end masses. They have market pressures put
on them that could diminish education as we know it.
<
Should government perhaps take over Wal-Mart because it could
provide better service
?>
No, and I've never said that.
< Should government dictate what we are to eat
on a daily basis? >
No, and I've never said that.
<
If you did believe that - but I hope you're wiser
than that - than that was just another political view, but still no
argument
. >
Deborah/Moresense, I'm beginning to form the view that you are
incapable of comprehending a simple logical argument. Whether that
inability is due to pride, ignorance or dishonesty is unknown to me but
the fact that you keep snipping my words and not answering my questions
to you makes me feel like it's not ignorance.
> And once again, all of the confomity that you decry is cultural, not
a
> symptom of the public school system. Do you think that private
> schools are producing more diverse students? My experience is
> that the students coming out of private schools are at least as
> driven by left-brained pursuits (the skills they can use to make
> money with) than their public school counterparts
.
<Yes, it does sometimes look like a left verus right hemisphere issue,
but I actually believe students should be able to use all of their
brains. The problem is that setting standards and public school
inherently favor certain activities
. >
Which seem to produce no different results from the privately educated
students I receive. So, it doesn't seem like the standards are the
problem. It seems like the job market is the problem. Schools and
students pursue skills they can make money at over skills that do not
produce economic value? I agree that this is a travesty. But I don't
think privatizing the system will offer any solutions.
> Insensitive robots come out of both public and private school and
> while i agree with you on the hegemony in our society weaking
> havoc on future generations, you have yet to provide me with one
> solid reason why these forces come only (or even primarily) from
> public schools or their standards
.
<Sure, some private schools do the same, many currently are probably
are even worse, but I believe that is the result of the inadequcies
of
the current system and that's why I advocate vouchers in order to get
more choice
. >
So let me see if I follow your logic. Public schools offer unfair
competition to private schools, forcing them to compete at an
artificially high level at tremendous tuitions in order to compete. And
you think that privatizing those public schools, bringing them in
direct competition with the elite schools for the same dollars
(levelling the playing field) is going to raise the performance of the
elite private schools?
It would seem that levelling the playing field would make it less
likely for private schools to improve, following your assertions. If
the next best option disappeared, why improve? Differentiation would be
much easier if elite schools didn't have to compete with the standards
of public schools.
> I completely agree with you about the shift in focus towards
> the "hard sciences" and fields like business and management
> science robbing our children of their freedom to be creative. But
this
> problem is market-driven at its heart, the market will not bring
> salvation here
.
<Should children get the education their parents want them to have, or
not
?>
Sam
University calls for independence in deciding how to conduct research,
the military and homesecurity classify their research as top secret for
reasons of national security, while business may want to keep trade
secrets for commercial reasons. Combine the three where they overlap
and there are vast amounts of government money disappearing from the
public eye. And this is paricularly the case of science labs. Another
worrying aspect of this is that it concerns weapons that may be of a
nuclear, biological or chemical kind wiyth devastating impact. Surely
that is something to worry about.
zinnic
educate me as to the role of politics of science in the (alleged)
teaching of nonsense in our schools. Maybe I would better understand if
you provide an example of the "secret knowledge" that you claim
is actually taught. Help me here!
Are you serious in your claim that 'government controlled'
education in the US is actually 'brainwashing' students so that, as
future voters, they will sustain this educational cycle? Presumably,
the changes you envisage would inform students as to the more correct
political views that you favor? Sounds "sinister" to me!
I suspect that all modifications of our education system are suggested
in order "to improve things". I know of none that are
deliberately directed towards its deterioration. I stated previously
that the voucher system deserves a controlled pilot study. As to
whether it can work without a serious decrease in the overall quality
of public schools has not been established, despite your assertions
that it can only lead to improvement.
Hasty implementation could be as disastrous to general education as
was the precipitous introduction in elementary schools of New Math and
non-phonetic reading ( the hopeless monsters I referred to in an
earlier post).
A free and compulsory (dictatorial?) public education provides
enormous benefit to every society in which it is adopted. Without it,
many parents would not, or could not, make the personal or financial
sacrifices that would ensure their children became literate. Imperfect
as it is, public education should be directed primarily towards
developing the basic skills of future citizens. Like it or not,
arts, culture, and sports should be secondary considerations
(student/parent electives?) in the economics of free public
education.
Jrichard's post (Mar 15 ) eloquently addresses the bias you exhibit
against scientists in your last paragraph. Let me add that I have seen
no questions in your posts. You make unsubstantiated assertions and
then ignore questions as to their validity. The last sentence in your
post, however, IS revealing. Do you suspect the existence of a '
conspiracy' dedicated to silencing you as the true prophet? Gee!
Dictators AND conspirators? Hmmmm.... No future in discussing anything
with them is there?
jrichard
public eye? Let corporations invest millions and then pray that they
will share that knowledge out of the goodness of their hearts?
Universities do ask for independence in how they conduct research, but
to receive public funding you still have to present a grant proposal
and issue regular public reports. And when you are done, you are
required to provide a public accounting of your results in some form.
It seems to me that the university is the ONLY institution that gives
you the transparency you're looking for.
MoreSense
scientists can hardly be expected to be critical towards themselves.
Some are, but they will get blown away by others, who use Occam's
Razor to silence minority views. That's why I believe this is one of
the issues that should be picked up more firmly by epistemology.
That raises the question of funding of epistemology. If universities
want to make decisions in-house, be it using rigid peer review, then
there must be some mechanism to ensure that things go right. If the
military insist on classifying some projects as secret, then they must
ensure there is a mechanism to prevent things going wrong. If
commercial labs want to keep trade secrets, then they must ensure this
occurs without endangering society at large. If scientists want
indemnity regarding their work, they must take out some insurance in
case something does go wrong. I believe that epistemology can provide
good contributions in this regard, such as pointing at areas at risk,
but the question is whether even epistemologists can remain unbiased
in their need to obtain funding. Whose responsibility is it to ensure
that things go right? Is it a responsibility of government, of
universities, of scientists, of the military or of commercial labs to
fund anyone who can look into such questions without bias? Given the
huge amounts of money that goes round among these groups, there should
be no problem in finding enough funding - the question is whether such
funding would violate their independence and lack of bias.
Whatever one thinks of the question who can best look into such
questions, the scary reality is that there doesn't seem to be much
funding available, nor many people who do look into such matters. How
many epistemologists can you name who are looking into such issues? As
far as I know, there are only a few free-lance journalists and writers
who even ask such fundamental questions and they get no funding at
all, nor do they earn much money or esteem with their publications. I
think these are valid points that need to be addressed. I hope that
Sam is wrong with the concerns raised, but the less such issues are
addressed, the more concerned I get.
jrichard
which is why so many fields are full of rancor. Resources are scarce,
and everyone knows everyone else who are all scrambling for the same
pot.
The way you guys have been talking about epistemologists is a bit
bizarre to me. There are hundreds of scholars all over the country
studying and researching questions of epistemology. They are the
philosophers who fill out the ranks of the humanities at universities.
While not all philosophy departments devote space only to epistemology,
many do, and most courses in philosophy begin with a particular
subject's range of epistemologies.
This will likely plunge up back into the "humanities vs. science"
debates we were having on the other board, but this is exactly the type
of knowledge that a balanced university system is supposed to
incorporate. In an ideal environment, the multidiciplinary nature of
research would allow epistemology to inform the philosophies of the
other programs and vice versa.
This function that you guys seem to be calling for already exists and
has for some time. It just doesn;t get a lot of attention, since the
outputs are not immediately marketable or useful for our commercial
interest groups.
MoreSense
philosophers question the wisdom of universities to operate in the way
they do? Will philosophers be critical towards the hand that feeds
them? Given the huge amounts of money involved in the joint activities
of the universities, the military, the government bureaucracy and the
commercial research labs that employ so many scientists, I do think
that there should be a marketable story in there, if only a story that
questions the silence about these issues. I would name this the number
one epistemological issue! The fact that there doesn't appear to be
much discussion on this issue only raises further questions.
jrichard
philosophers question the wisdom of universities to operate in the way
they do? >
Yes, and they are the ones leading the charge against the "intellectual
entrepreneurship" movement that is marrying the university culture to
privatized interests.
They are the ones debating over the shifting role of university culture
and the limits of freedom of academic speech.
Philosophers publish in dozens of specialized journals every month, but
like most academic pursuits, the readership of these issues is rather
isolated to those who are involved in the debates and discussions.
Popular culture does not like to examine deeper issues, so those who
ask those questions rarely are noticed.
<Will philosophers be critical towards the hand that feeds
them?>
Some are and some aren't. And they have different philosophical reasons
for their individual positions.
< Given the huge amounts of money involved in the joint activities
of the universities, the military, the government bureaucracy and the
commercial research labs that employ so many scientists, I do think
that there should be a marketable story in there, if only a story that
questions the silence about these issues. I would name this the number
one epistemological issue! The fact that there doesn't appear to be
much discussion on this issue only raises further questions. >
Well, there are a lot of philosophers focusing on specific areas of
this question. Bioethics is a huge area right now. Technology and
society questions get a lot of space.
One thing to remember is that in philosophy, like most fields of study,
scholars tend to hunker down on the small slices of theory and critique
that they can claim expertise in. There are those who organize these
attempts into larger macro-theories, which is where we get systems of
thought like chaos theory and complexity theory.
And yes, there are many philosophers who challenge the majority views
on science (which is but one branch of philosophy, after all) and our
western notion of society in general (including our philosophies of
history, social contract, epistemology, human nature, etc.).
But as I said, these journal articles are out there, but are not
popular because most people do not want to sit and think about deeper
issues. No market, no wide-spread attention. Call it one of the
pitfalls of the marketplace of ideas.
But anyone can subscribe to journals dealing with deeper and complex
issues. Most don't want to, which is why these discussions are so quiet.
Deborah
> charge against the "intellectual
> entrepreneurship" movement that is
> marrying the university culture to
> privatized interests.
That would be even more worrying. Are you suggesting that there are no
philosophers questioning the privileges of the ivory tower itself?
> But as I said, these journal articles are out
> there, but are not popular because most
> people do not want to sit and think about
> deeper issues. No market, no wide-spread
> attention. Call it one of the pitfalls of the
> marketplace of ideas.
A true marketplace will offer a variety of ideas. Dominance of one
single idea usually points at an absence of market forces. Isn't this
absence caused by the fact that the university doesn't seem to
encourage criticism of its own privilege?
jrichard
> charge against the "intellectual
> entrepreneurship" movement that is
> marrying the university culture to
> privatized interests.
<That would be even more worrying. Are you suggesting that there are no
philosophers questioning the privileges of the ivory tower itself? >
No, which is why I answered your question "Can
philosophers question the wisdom of universities to operate in the
way
they do?" with the word "Yes."
Maybe I didn't make this clear, but there are factions and sub-factions
and sub-sub-factions of philosophers who take just about as many
stances on the philosophy of thought as there are philosophers to hold
stances.
Philosophers do not like to be hearded or grouped together too closely.
It's against their philosophy ... ;-)
> But as I said, these journal articles are out
> there, but are not popular because most
> people do not want to sit and think about
> deeper issues. No market, no wide-spread
> attention. Call it one of the pitfalls of the
> marketplace of ideas.
<A true marketplace will offer a variety of ideas. Dominance of one
single idea usually points at an absence of market forces. Isn't this
absence caused by the fact that the university doesn't seem to
encourage criticism of its own privilege? >
I don't think you've been around a university lately if you think that.
Or paying attention to the media when they report stories about
tensions in the concept of academic freedom. Members of the academy
fall out all over the spectrum about what should be privileged and what
shouldn't.
Sam
also posted here earlier. I would like to see such things discussed
here at the group as well. We may not agree on everything, but at least
we do agree on the need to discuss things and bring issues open for
open and public debate. Too many people seem to write with the sole
intention of flaunting themselves as apologists of the establishment,
so it's refreshing to read something else. As I wrote earlier,
scientists' claim of political-neutrality, objectivity, independence,
etc, is compromised by the fact that they are employed in large numbers
at scientific research labs that are part of an industrial-military
complex, holding the world at ransom. Epistemologists typically turn a
blind eye to this, which makes them part of the problem.
Epistemologists do tend to lock themselves up in the ivory tower,
neglecting their duty to society to point out issues like this that do
deserve more attention.
As I also wrote earlier, I support proposals that reduce the
government's involvement in education, preferably down to zero. This
has been part of some political parties for a long time, specifically
the Libertarian Party.
I have also said that the military should be split up into numerous
pieces, in such a way that they compete with each other in all areas.
Security services should not be monopolized by bureaucrats. People
should not be denied the security services they want, especially where
people are prepared to pay for it and where companies with good
reputations and intentions are willing to offer such services.
In an earlier message, Zinnic seemed to believe that this was
Libertarian politics. I only wish that there were any politicians
supporting this, but sadly I have yet to find the first one! The idea
has been supported by rare individuals who happened to post messages at
libertarian forums, but unfortunately it hasn't been proposed yet by
any political party - as far as I know, but if you have heard
differently, please let me know.
jrichard
I think the discussions are great.
I do, however, think that there is so much going on in university
culture that is difficult to access by those who are outside of it and
don't understand how it works or where to look for these discussions.
There are thousands of academic articles published every year in the
various academic disciplines. Most people understandably do not
subscribe to any of these publications, nor do they keep abreast of the
debates annd discussions going on within the university culture.
By all means, keep discussing. Just understand that at times in your
critques of university culture, I have seen signs that you are
inexperienced and less than knowledgable about what is and is not
available within the boundaries of that culture.
Deborah
Would funding by means of voechers be an improvement. Finally, in the
intro you mention "non-existent Weapons of Mass Desctruction". Are you
suggesting that the threat is a scheme?