In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 30 2015 05:51 notesfromunderground wrote: I teach my students not to trust me because they shouldn't trust anybody. If you think that makes me "not an educator," then you must also think that Socrates was "not an educator."
On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:] What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say.
if you are a teacher and your class is NOT like this, then you are a bad teacher and dishonest to boot.
As someone who was a teacher for a little while, you are full of shit. Of course, I though high school, so I didn't have the benefit you had of everyone doing the hard work for me.
Whether it's primary or secondary or undergraduate, it's definitely bullshit. He should be getting students to think critically and do research, not explicitly tell everyone that experts are full of shit and that we shouldn't care about facts and data. Especially when he's hypocritically making these statements as an authority figure.
Got bad news for you, middlschoolers can't think critically, they brains are not developed enough. Need to wait till like 14-16 to even start. And its an acquired skills, so it takes them to teach them to even use it. So your plan is pretty bad.
I disagree. Their brains aren't fully developed, but they're definitely capable of investigative tasks and problem solving and critical thinking, at least from a math perspective.
You and I both know that its not something you can teach all the time to students. Its a skill and there are points in their development where they are more receptive to learning it. Just like long term planning and complex numbers. Each child is different, but there are subjects they need to be a specific age to be taught them.
Developing problem solving strategies and critically thinking about problems isn't content, per se, though. It can be independent of content, and it can help students move from one topic to the next. And while not every lesson will necessarily be a great enforcer of these things every day for every student, I feel uncomfortable with your generalization that "middle schoolers can't think critically". My middle schoolers can (from research and teaching and tutoring). Heck, I'm frequently surprised at how much my elementary schoolers can put together. There are surely different benchmarks for different ages, of course, so maybe this is just semantics.
On October 30 2015 05:51 notesfromunderground wrote: I teach my students not to trust me because they shouldn't trust anybody. If you think that makes me "not an educator," then you must also think that Socrates was "not an educator."
On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:] What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say.
if you are a teacher and your class is NOT like this, then you are a bad teacher and dishonest to boot.
As someone who was a teacher for a little while, you are full of shit. Of course, I though high school, so I didn't have the benefit you had of everyone doing the hard work for me.
Whether it's primary or secondary or undergraduate, it's definitely bullshit. He should be getting students to think critically and do research, not explicitly tell everyone that experts are full of shit and that we shouldn't care about facts and data. Especially when he's hypocritically making these statements as an authority figure.
Got bad news for you, middlschoolers can't think critically, they brains are not developed enough. Need to wait till like 14-16 to even start. And its an acquired skills, so it takes them to teach them to even use it. So your plan is pretty bad.
I disagree. Their brains aren't fully developed, but they're definitely capable of investigative tasks and problem solving and critical thinking, at least from a math perspective.
there's actually a lot of debate about when and if to start teaching philosophy and types of critical thinking to people in both the academic and philisophical communities.
I'm not well-versed in philosophy, but I've seen some encouraging results in math and science education at earlier ages, especially with a big push away from direct instruction/ lecturing and more towards discussion/ collaborative learning environments/ learning through doing math and science instead of just being told what to know. Certainly, at the very young ages, they'll need structure though.
Yer it really depends. Telling elementary school students that two odd numbers will always add up to be even is useful, and happens to be true. Showing them the mathematical proof for why that is the case would be pretty pointless. Sometimes 'because I said so' is the best reason . Assuming what you've told them is actually true :o.
In the United States, philosophy typically makes its formal entry into the curriculum at the college level. A growing number of high schools offer some introduction to philosophy, often in special literature courses for college bound students. In Europe and many other countries, it is much more common to find philosophy in the high school curriculum. However, philosophy prior to high school seems relatively uncommon around the world. This may suggest that serious philosophical thinking is not for pre-adolescents. Two reasons might be offered for accepting this view. First, philosophical thinking requires a level of cognitive development that, one may believe, is beyond the reach of pre-adolescents. Second, the school curriculum is already crowded; and introducing a subject like philosophy will not only distract students from what they need to learn, it may encourage them to become skeptics rather than learners. However, both of these reasons can be challenged. They will be addressed in turn.
On October 30 2015 06:24 Kickstart wrote: Yer it really depends. Telling elementary school students that two odd numbers will always add up to be even is useful, and happens to be true. Showing them the mathematical proof for why that is the case would be pretty pointless. Sometimes 'because I said so' is the best reason . Assuming what you've told them is actually true :o.
In math, I consistently hope that "Because I said so" really means "You're going to learn it sometime down the road" lol. But yes, of course the content should be relevant to students' prerequisite knowledge and level of mastery
On October 30 2015 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote: How long until conservatives just turn their back on math as well as science.
"The problem clearly isn't my economic plan it's obvious that the rules of math are wrong."
Well Rubio clearly has judging from his flub about how rich people getting 27% more money with his tax plan and middle class people getting 15% more money is a higher percentage increase for the middle class people.
On October 30 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote: Tyson does the Carl Sagan thing of making science mystical. Moreover, he's a fan of scientism and completly dimisses, for instance, the use and purpose of philosophy. He's cringeworthy because he's more of a celebrity than a scientist, and consistently speaks on things he is wholly ignorant about.
Such as?
Well I have to agree on that one with Introvert.
The moment you start bringing your personal belief system into governance, then that’s the end of pluralistic democracy. We have words for governance like that and they’re called dictatorships. You have a belief system, you have a philosophy, and that philosophy has some adherence and others have their own philosophies.
He pretty regularly elevates science to a worldview and neglects that it's just a methodology. He also seems unaware of the fact that we had in fact very scientific dictatorships on this planet not too long ago and he apparently believes you can have political beliefs without having personal beliefs.
In context, wasn't he just explaining the importance of basing politics off facts instead of personal beliefs? That promotion of science literacy seems to be in his wheelhouse, no? Later in that paragraph I think he ties it together well with "Now, getting back to your point, we have people in Congress whose job is to pass laws. If they pass laws based on things that are not objectively true, that’s the beginning of the end of an informed democracy." Perhaps a bit hyperbolic, I guess? But he's pushing the point about how important it is to be educated.
But either way, obviously you shouldn't accept everything he says (or anyone says) about every topic, especially if they're not an expert in that specific field. That doesn't mean we should dismiss him (or any other researcher or expert) entirely, especially regarding their actual expertise. We can always fact-check without calling people like him an idiot or a clown.
Well the majority of our laws addresses things outside of science. That's the thing that people like Tyson don't seem to get, there's nothing normative about science. The concept of an individual equipped with categorical rights didn't come out of science, it came out of political thought and philosophy (Science as a worldview can actually produce pretty anti-humanist stuff such as eugenics). Objectively true stuff in the sense of empirically measurable doesn't address almost anything we debate as societies.
And there really is something cultish about people like Krauss, Tyson, Sam Harris and so on. They're out of their intellectual depth a lot of the time.
On October 30 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote: Tyson does the Carl Sagan thing of making science mystical. Moreover, he's a fan of scientism and completly dimisses, for instance, the use and purpose of philosophy. He's cringeworthy because he's more of a celebrity than a scientist, and consistently speaks on things he is wholly ignorant about.
Such as?
Well I have to agree on that one with Introvert.
The moment you start bringing your personal belief system into governance, then that’s the end of pluralistic democracy. We have words for governance like that and they’re called dictatorships. You have a belief system, you have a philosophy, and that philosophy has some adherence and others have their own philosophies.
He pretty regularly elevates science to a worldview and neglects that it's just a methodology. He also seems unaware of the fact that we had in fact very scientific dictatorships on this planet not too long ago and he apparently believes you can have political beliefs without having personal beliefs.
In context, wasn't he just explaining the importance of basing politics off facts instead of personal beliefs? That promotion of science literacy seems to be in his wheelhouse, no? Later in that paragraph I think he ties it together well with "Now, getting back to your point, we have people in Congress whose job is to pass laws. If they pass laws based on things that are not objectively true, that’s the beginning of the end of an informed democracy." Perhaps a bit hyperbolic, I guess? But he's pushing the point about how important it is to be educated.
But either way, obviously you shouldn't accept everything he says (or anyone says) about every topic, especially if they're not an expert in that specific field. That doesn't mean we should dismiss him (or any other researcher or expert) entirely, especially regarding their actual expertise. We can always fact-check without calling people like him an idiot or a clown.
Well the majority of our laws addresses things outside of science. That's the thing that people like Tyson don't seem to get, there's nothing normative about science. The concept of an individual with categorical rights didn't come out of science, it came out of political thought and philosophy (Science as a worldview can actually produce pretty anti-humanist stuff such as eugenics). Objectively true stuff in the sense of empirically measurable doesn't address almost anything we debate as societies.
And there really is something cultish about people like Krauss, Tyson, Sam Harris and so on. They're out of their intellectual depth a lot of the time.
I think It depends on what he's addressing. because obviously rights can't be figured out logically. but if he's talking about policy implementations where people think x is going to increase the number of jobs or people arguing that the death penalty lowers crime rates, that can be shown to a certain extent to be true or false. Or if your basing something on clearly false information
On October 30 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote: Tyson does the Carl Sagan thing of making science mystical. Moreover, he's a fan of scientism and completly dimisses, for instance, the use and purpose of philosophy. He's cringeworthy because he's more of a celebrity than a scientist, and consistently speaks on things he is wholly ignorant about.
Such as?
Well I have to agree on that one with Introvert.
The moment you start bringing your personal belief system into governance, then that’s the end of pluralistic democracy. We have words for governance like that and they’re called dictatorships. You have a belief system, you have a philosophy, and that philosophy has some adherence and others have their own philosophies.
He pretty regularly elevates science to a worldview and neglects that it's just a methodology. He also seems unaware of the fact that we had in fact very scientific dictatorships on this planet not too long ago and he apparently believes you can have political beliefs without having personal beliefs.
In context, wasn't he just explaining the importance of basing politics off facts instead of personal beliefs? That promotion of science literacy seems to be in his wheelhouse, no? Later in that paragraph I think he ties it together well with "Now, getting back to your point, we have people in Congress whose job is to pass laws. If they pass laws based on things that are not objectively true, that’s the beginning of the end of an informed democracy." Perhaps a bit hyperbolic, I guess? But he's pushing the point about how important it is to be educated.
But either way, obviously you shouldn't accept everything he says (or anyone says) about every topic, especially if they're not an expert in that specific field. That doesn't mean we should dismiss him (or any other researcher or expert) entirely, especially regarding their actual expertise. We can always fact-check without calling people like him an idiot or a clown.
Well the majority of our laws addresses things outside of science. That's the thing that people like Tyson don't seem to get, there's nothing normative about science. The concept of an individual equipped with categorical rights didn't come out of science, it came out of political thought and philosophy (Science as a worldview can actually produce pretty anti-humanist stuff such as eugenics). Objectively true stuff in the sense of empirically measurable doesn't address almost anything we debate as societies.
And there really is something cultish about people like Krauss, Tyson, Sam Harris and so on. They're out of their intellectual depth a lot of the time.
Once again, Tyson isn't talking about all laws. He is referencing climate change deniers or people who believe that outlawing abortion will be super awesome and what the America people want.
Though I am with you when it comes to the cult of STEM field worship, but Tyson him doesn't advocate that.
On October 30 2015 05:54 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: as for boats leaking, yeah its not necessarily a problem if you can pump it out, but on a boat with 8 people and hundreds of animals, you probably don't have a lot of time to pump water. There's a lot of scientific problems with the arc story. fun talk.
See, now you've given me a whole new pointless, quixotic research project. Damn you!!! I'm going to start muttering about cubits in my sleep I'm sure of it.
On October 30 2015 05:54 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 05:53 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 05:51 notesfromunderground wrote: I teach my students not to trust me because they shouldn't trust anybody. If you think that makes me "not an educator," then you must also think that Socrates was "not an educator."
If you are responding to my question I said no such thing about you not being an educator nor did I imply it. I just asked what subject you teach :/
nope, not you. we cool
Cool cool. I'm with you to a degree. Questioning things is in my mind the basis of 'learning'. Knowing WHY something is the way it is and going through that process of discovery is much more interesting and rewarding than just being told that something is the way that it is. That said, there are still experts on topics that are 'authorities' on things in their fields :/.
EDIT: Being the cynic I am, I just tend to think that the real reason people are so intent on saying science isn't an authority on anything is so that they can try to discredit things like global warming/evolution/etc etc etc. Such people are annoying~
To you and only you I will reveal the secret. I am being somewhat hyperbolic, in order to drive home a point. But I am completely serious!
On October 30 2015 05:51 notesfromunderground wrote: I teach my students not to trust me because they shouldn't trust anybody. If you think that makes me "not an educator," then you must also think that Socrates was "not an educator."
On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:] What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say.
if you are a teacher and your class is NOT like this, then you are a bad teacher and dishonest to boot.
Yeah no. Nice try though. It's not "trust no one/ no facts/ no reason/ no experts/ nothing at all". That is not the same as healthy skepticism, because you're not evaluating anyone's claims or any data- you're dismissing anything without even reading through it.
Your perspective is very much like a Young Earth Creationist's, in the sense that they claim that their bullshit is "just skepticism" or that we should "teach the controversy" and that we shouldn't "listen to experts or facts"... all the while they already have their own absurd agenda to push.
Don't try to strawman your own absurd position into a promotion of critical thinking and problem solving for students, because that is not what you were just peddling. Immediate rejection of everything for no reason is just as bad as immediate acceptance of everything. Students need to do research and work to understand things, whether you like it or not.
We disagree I think you are far too trusting. As I've gotten older, I've realized that almost everything is a lie. It's important to start by assuming that this is the case, and admit things as being "not-lies" on a case by case basis.
You also believe too much in the ability of "data" to represent the world. You are too trusting.
On October 30 2015 05:51 notesfromunderground wrote: I teach my students not to trust me because they shouldn't trust anybody. If you think that makes me "not an educator," then you must also think that Socrates was "not an educator."
On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:] What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say.
if you are a teacher and your class is NOT like this, then you are a bad teacher and dishonest to boot.
As someone who was a teacher for a little while, you are full of shit. Of course, I though high school, so I didn't have the benefit you had of everyone doing the hard work for me.
What do you mean by that? My students are completely unprepared by their high school educations for anything resembling college level work. Speaking as a walking, talking $500,000 investment in "educational capital."
On October 30 2015 05:51 notesfromunderground wrote: I teach my students not to trust me because they shouldn't trust anybody. If you think that makes me "not an educator," then you must also think that Socrates was "not an educator."
On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:] What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say.
if you are a teacher and your class is NOT like this, then you are a bad teacher and dishonest to boot.
As someone who was a teacher for a little while, you are full of shit. Of course, I though high school, so I didn't have the benefit you had of everyone doing the hard work for me.
Whether it's primary or secondary or undergraduate, it's definitely bullshit. He should be getting students to think critically and do research, not explicitly tell everyone that experts are full of shit and that we shouldn't care about facts and data. Especially when he's hypocritically making these statements as an authority figure.
I want them to question the facticity of facts and the dataness of data. It's a necessary corrective to the naive positivism which YOU are peddling Why do you think that "facts" and "data" are the correct way to think about the world? Where did this idea come from? Is it, to you, a self-evident truth? A religious dogma?
There's nothing hypocritical about what I do. I'm completely honest. I don't trust MY teachers, why would I tell my students that they should trust me? That would be the true hypocrisy.
On October 30 2015 05:47 Kickstart wrote: notesfromunderground has to be a philosophy teacher or something ^^! i keed i keed
No but really what do you teach?
There is literally no way he teaches anything. He's pretty much the opposite of an educator.
How could he be an educator? That would imply he was some sort of authority or expert in something, and he explicitly said that those kinds of people are to not be trusted. What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say.
My philosophy teacher said his job wasn't teach us who's right but to teach the class what different people's beliefs are and to let us make up our own minds.
But if you were really learning, you wouldn't have trusted him at all and checked to make sure that making up your own mind was the right decision.
See, now you are beginning to understand the nature of this paradox :D
On October 30 2015 05:47 Kickstart wrote: notesfromunderground has to be a philosophy teacher or something ^^! i keed i keed
No but really what do you teach?
There is literally no way he teaches anything. He's pretty much the opposite of an educator.
How could he be an educator? That would imply he was some sort of authority or expert in something, and he explicitly said that those kinds of people are to not be trusted. What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say.
My philosophy teacher said his job wasn't teach us who's right but to teach the class what different people's beliefs are and to let us make up our own minds.
I agree with that perspective, of course, for philosophy. Assessing those things are important. I'm not sure why notesfromunderground isn't a fan of actually assessing such things, and instead insisting they're immediately wrong.
I think this is an example of that thing you kids call "strawmanning," (a stupid phrase).
On October 30 2015 06:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: notesfromunderground what do you teach? And at what level/ grade?
Last year I taught the basic composition sequence at large state university. But I didn't teach the official curriculum because it was designed by fascists. We just talked about whatever I wanted to talk about. This year I'm on fellowship.
On October 30 2015 05:51 notesfromunderground wrote: I teach my students not to trust me because they shouldn't trust anybody. If you think that makes me "not an educator," then you must also think that Socrates was "not an educator."
On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:] What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say.
if you are a teacher and your class is NOT like this, then you are a bad teacher and dishonest to boot.
As someone who was a teacher for a little while, you are full of shit. Of course, I though high school, so I didn't have the benefit you had of everyone doing the hard work for me.
Whether it's primary or secondary or undergraduate, it's definitely bullshit. He should be getting students to think critically and do research, not explicitly tell everyone that experts are full of shit and that we shouldn't care about facts and data. Especially when he's hypocritically making these statements as an authority figure.
Got bad news for you, middlschoolers can't think critically, they brains are not developed enough. Need to wait till like 14-16 to even start. And its an acquired skills, so it takes them to teach them to even use it. So your plan is pretty bad.
I disagree. Their brains aren't fully developed, but they're definitely capable of investigative tasks and problem solving and critical thinking, at least from a math perspective.
there's actually a lot of debate about when and if to start teaching philosophy and types of critical thinking to people in both the academic and philisophical communities.
I was explicitly prohibited from teaching critical thinking in my composition classes. I did it anway. as I said, the curriculum was designed by fascists.
On October 30 2015 06:13 Simberto wrote: Some trust is required in education, simply because we have long since reached the point where it is impossible for one person to be a universal scientist. You simply can not know how everything works in detail, because there is way too much everything to accumulate all of that knowledge in one lifetime. And that is with using the works of others before you.
A good example here would be high school chemistry. You can teach people about bindings between atoms depending on where in the period table they are, ionisation energies and all that stuff. But you can not explain at a high school level why atoms specifically like to have "full shells", why a full shell has the amount of electrons in it that it does, and so on. Because to answer that question, you need either major amounts of Quantum Mechanics, or just test it all on your own. Both of which have no point in a high school chemistry class. Thus students have to simply accept some basic ideas without testing them or understanding them based on authority.
On the other hand, a lack of acceptance of authority is rarely a problem in school. Students are usually all too happy to simply accept "because the teacher said so" as an answer to any question, so teaching them scepticism and how the scientific method actually works, how knowledge comes to be is an incredibly important part of teaching students. It just shouldn't be the only thing you teach them, because then they end up with a lot of scepticism and no actual knowledge at the end of school.
A good class isn't "this is how stuff is because i tell you so", or "Just figure shit out on your own" it is based on "This is how stuff is, and let me show/explain to you why it is like that, answering all arising questions satisfactory and genuinely"
I guess this would be a good point for me to chime in (I have a B.A. in philosophy).
Overly radical skepticism is basically a black hole that, if followed to its conclusion, would see society having a very difficult time functioning precisely because of what you said; we can't all know everything. Any meaningful conversation between two people can't be based off of fact-checking and personally verifying every possible thing that is said by either party; conversation, and therefore the sharing of information and decision-making/the execution of decisions would be practically impossible.
As others have said, Notes is spouting a lot questionable rhetoric. He's hypocritically trying to use his authority as a grad student teaching (presumably) undergrads in a field that isn't actually philosophy to make "expert" comments on the topic of educational philosophy and social epistemology. The idea that you have to be 100% skeptical of everyone and can't ever trust what an expert says is utterly ridiculous. The fact that Notes would say "Never trust me" to his students makes me question his level of authority of the topic of teaching in general. It's this type of pseudo-intellectual crap that leads to the anti-intellectual cultural problems we have today; anti-vaxxers, climate change denialists, etc. People want to peddle their own personal agenda and use this anti-establishment (in this case, skeptical of "science") rhetoric to justify it.
Healthy skepticism is, as almost everyone here has pointed out, great. There are countless examples of this throughout education and history.
Let's remember that science is not a religion. It is not a unified body, organization, theory, or anything of that nature. Science is a methodology. "Science" is used colloquially to the idea that we actually base decisions and beliefs on empirical evidence instead of "just cuz". Being "anti-science" or anything of that nature is patently absurd. It's like saying you think numbers are bad. It's ridiculous and it completely undermines any kind of discussion in a society when you say you are against reality. The people that interpret science are biased, so you can hate on a particular scientist or scientific organization, but again, remember, scientists fucking hate each other; it's as cut-throat of an industry as any other. The idea that all scientists in the world are secretly organizing to try to push (i.e.) climate change (or anything else) on us is preposterous. As already mentioned, scientists will take the first plausible opportunity to prove other scientists wrong.
As for the role/value of philosophy, well, it's the birth of science. Scientists were originally philosophers. Western analytical philosophy is basically science without the numbers. We have to study things like formal logic extensively, and there's a reason that people with math-heavy backgrounds always do the best in these classes. Everything that people hold so dear about science (the objectivity, the critical analysis of arguments, etc.) is upheld in this tradition. Of course, I'm not talking about weird shit like Existentialism, but every field has its exceptions.
On October 30 2015 06:59 Stratos_speAr wrote: The fact that Notes would say "Never trust me" to his students makes me question his level of authority of the topic of teaching in general.
So... you've done exactly what I asked you to do? Question my authority? I think I win.
On October 30 2015 06:59 Stratos_speAr wrote: isn't actually philosophy.
define philosophy. Go!
If you want me to be more authoritative I can assign y'all some reading...
(I have to say, I'm really pleased at the ruckus this is causing. Y'all are doing great, keep up the good work)
On October 30 2015 06:59 Stratos_speAr wrote: Overly radical skepticism is basically a black hole that, if followed to its conclusion, would see society having a very difficult time functioning precisely because of what you said; we can't all know everything. Any meaningful conversation between two people can't be based off of fact-checking and personally verifying every possible thing that is said by either party; conversation, and therefore the sharing of information and decision-making/the execution of decisions would be practically impossible.
Yes, exactly! See, this is why we must ultimately, at the level of practice, believe in the existence of Big Other, despite our knowledge of Big Other's non-existence.
Universally proclaiming every notion taught as inaccurate until self-certified is really just extreme narcissism. You mentioned a religion of science; what you're arguing is akin to a religion of education, not in the sense of ascribing to a certain educational framework, but rather viewing yourself as the pinnacle of educated thought and the final arbiter on what is true and what is false.
As a self-proclaimed cynic and dedicated pessimist, I truly do understand your sentiment, and agree one should reinforce every notion taught with supplementary evidence, as well as maintain a healthy skepticism toward bias and established thinking, but it seems like you're just in the business of rewriting facts or trolling with hyperbole.
I fully understand the temptation to derail a thread like this with your own intellectual digression, I've even done it myself, but truth be told this thread is already about 10 miles down shit creek and you've just stolen its last paddle.
A religion of education? I'm okay with that. I'm not opposed to religion, just the heresy of scientism
I don't know how telling people not to trust me is akin to "viewing myself as the pinnacle of educated thought."
See, what you guys are not realizing in your haste to fail to listen carefully to what I am saying, is that one consequence of radical skepticism is that one must be forced to be skeptical about skepticism itself. Is it actually possible to achieve a position of true skepticism? (This was, essentially, Hegel's reply to Kant)
On October 30 2015 07:09 always_winter wrote: Universally proclaiming every notion taught as inaccurate until self-certified is really just extreme narcissism. You mentioned a religion of science; what you're arguing is akin to a religion of education, not in the sense of ascribing to a certain educational framework, but rather viewing yourself as the pinnacle of educated thought and the final arbiter on what is true and what is false.
As a self-proclaimed cynic and dedicated pessimist, I truly do understand your sentiment, and agree one should reinforce every notion taught with supplementary evidence, as well as maintain a healthy skepticism toward bias and established thinking, but it seems like you're just in the business of rewriting facts or trolling with hyperbole.
I fully understand the temptation to derail a thread like this with your own intellectual digression, I've even done it myself, but truth be told this thread is already about 10 miles down shit creek and you've just stolen its last paddle.
Reading this conversation is far more fun than reading a bunch self-congratulating liberals repeat the same tired (and largely incorrect) cliches about the republican candidates.
On October 30 2015 07:09 always_winter wrote: Universally proclaiming every notion taught as inaccurate until self-certified is really just extreme narcissism. You mentioned a religion of science; what you're arguing is akin to a religion of education, not in the sense of ascribing to a certain educational framework, but rather viewing yourself as the pinnacle of educated thought and the final arbiter on what is true and what is false.
As a self-proclaimed cynic and dedicated pessimist, I truly do understand your sentiment, and agree one should reinforce every notion taught with supplementary evidence, as well as maintain a healthy skepticism toward bias and established thinking, but it seems like you're just in the business of rewriting facts or trolling with hyperbole.
I fully understand the temptation to derail a thread like this with your own intellectual digression, I've even done it myself, but truth be told this thread is already about 10 miles down shit creek and you've just stolen its last paddle.
Reading this conversation is far more fun than reading a bunch self-congratulating liberals repeat the same tired (and largely incorrect) cliches about the republican candidates.
On topic, did you have a chance to watch the debate? Do you think any of the candidates had a particularly strong and impressive showing? And do you think anyone is going to pull ahead of Trump in the polls any time soon? I'm wondering who might realistically take the primary over him.
EPT
