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
<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.
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.
.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.
> 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
...
YES- we need to learn to communicate by means of telepathy.
...
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
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
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.
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.
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
< "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.
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
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
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).
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.
Out of every scientist ever, more scientists are employed at schools, rather than for the military.
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).
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.
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).
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.
Dave
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
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.
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.
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!.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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 ...
> >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 ...
> >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.
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.
> >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 ...
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 ..."
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.
But there's the question of quality control. Illogical ranting, porn,
cliff notes instead of books ... this is your proposed education?
< As I said, school doesn't deliver good engineers, because school cannot give the necessary practical experience. >
And homeschooling does?
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.
> 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?
> > 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 ...
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 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.
And education is bad, but you want to make it worse. What's wrong with you?
Government buys contracts FROM the marketplace. And you're just suggesting more of the same.
> 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.
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!
<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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
..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.
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
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.
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 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.
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!
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
> 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.
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!
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.
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!
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
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
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
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.
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.
Sam
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?
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?
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"
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".
I would bet money that Sam is a "Libertarian".
Well, noone exactly fits the common labels. People call me a "liberal"
but I certainly don't agree with all liberal positions.
Dave
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.
Sardonic Witt wrote:
> Sam is very difficult to talk to.
I agree.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
> 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.
> > 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.
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?