EPTAnd if a math teacher talks about politics, that says more about the teacher than it does about your education system.
Republican nominations - Page 533
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
And if a math teacher talks about politics, that says more about the teacher than it does about your education system. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8643 Posts
On March 07 2012 18:50 nam nam wrote: How does that equate to brainwashing? Bias is everywhere. And if a math teacher talks about politics, that says more about the teacher than it does about your education system. I could not agree more. Apart from the fact that you are not supposed to take everything for granted even a very smart person tells you - that includes persons inside AND outside the academic world. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10811 Posts
On March 07 2012 18:55 Doublemint wrote: I could not agree more. Apart from the fact that you are not supposed to take everything for granted even a very smart person tells you - that includes persons inside AND outside the academic world. ... Nowadays we rather have the problem, that people believe they are oh so smart instead of listening to the actually smart people... That includes TONS of people outside of the academic world but also some inside  ... | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21961 Posts
On March 07 2012 19:54 Velr wrote: ... Nowadays we rather have the problem, that people believe they are oh so smart instead of listening to the actually smart people... That includes TONS of people outside of the academic world but also some inside ...take everything for granted Its not about listening to smart people. Its about wanting evidence to back it up. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10811 Posts
The problem is that in most fields "evidence" is to hard to understand for just about everyone that has not some serious education in this field. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 07 2012 20:16 Gorsameth wrote: take everything for granted Its not about listening to smart people. Its about wanting evidence to back it up. Well you can't always look up all the evidence all the time. No one has time to do that. It's perfectly fine to hear what a cancer expert has to say about cancer and trust him based on his authority rather than looking up all his studies and such. It seems to be an issue that people feel like everything is opinion-based and in a democracy everyone has an equal opinion. No, experts in their field actually know things about their field and should be trusted much more than John Doe over there. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8643 Posts
On March 07 2012 21:39 DoubleReed wrote: Well you can't always look up all the evidence all the time. No one has time to do that. It's perfectly fine to hear what a cancer expert has to say about cancer and trust him based on his authority rather than looking up all his studies and such. It seems to be an issue that people feel like everything is opinion-based and in a democracy everyone has an equal opinion. No, experts in their field actually know things about their field and should be trusted much more than John Doe over there. Agree. Everyone has an equal vote, but definitely not an equally good reason(ing) for voting this way or another. I mainly mean to say that thinking for ourselves is key - and pretty hard, because it means distinguishing between the vast majority of bullshit and the not so much of bullshit. It´s fine to have strong believes but know that it´s far from perfect - because nobody has found the absolute truth(well maybe if you are quite the believer...but let´s not get into that.) Stuff is complicated - mkay?  | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
They aren't "brainwashing" anyone they just came to more educated opinions because they are.... more educated. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 07 2012 21:52 Doublemint wrote: Agree. Everyone has an equal vote, but definitely not an equally good reason(ing) for voting this way or another. I mainly mean to say that thinking for ourselves is key - and pretty hard, because it means distinguishing between the vast majority of bullshit and the not so much of bullshit. It´s fine to have strong believes but know that it´s far from perfect - because nobody has found the absolute truth(well maybe if you are quite the believer...but let´s not get into that.) Stuff is complicated - mkay? Yea that's another issue. People think that not having absolute truths means that it's totally up for grabs. We do actually know quite a bit about things. The entire idea of absolute certainty is a farce anyway. If our evidence shows that evolution is 99% likely, that doesn't mean that you can just not believe in evolution and be considered a rational human being. Your certainty should attempt to reflect the evidence. That means your worldview is as close to reality as possible. "Your strength as a rationalist is your ability to become more confused by fiction than reality. If you are equally good at explaining any outcome, you have zero knowledge." -Eliezer Yudkowsky | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On March 07 2012 15:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Joe the "Plumber" won his primary... The GOP has officially gone off the cliff. Also: Not only Joe...Kucinich is out too. | ||
|
Traeon
Austria366 Posts
On March 07 2012 23:24 seppolevne wrote: Academia pushes a 'left-wing' ideology only because rational thought and education lead to a left-wing view of things. Educated and well-discussed people realize that helping people is better than not, the government has a role to play in health, protecting the environment is a good thing etc. They aren't "brainwashing" anyone they just came to more educated opinions because they are.... more educated. Left-wing politic opinions (and atheism) are associated with higher IQ also. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
I've heard stories of Norman Finkelstein (very famous political scientist who studies the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) getting into shouting matches with students over disagreements of opinion. That is completely absurd and out of line, and makes for a very poor classroom. The best professors should be playing devil's advocate anyways, so it should be difficult to ascertain their true position. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On March 08 2012 00:33 Jibba wrote: I've heard stories of Norman Finkelstein (very famous political scientist who studies the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) getting into shouting matches with students over disagreements of opinion. That is completely absurd and out of line, and makes for a very poor classroom. The best professors should be playing devil's advocate anyways, so it should be difficult to ascertain their true position. Many of my teachers do both debate and play the devil's advocate while others try to be. I'm in political science, so maybe it should be expected, but I've had such experiences with other teachers and I don't think it's "absurd" or "makes for a very poor classroom". Anyway, I don't believe that most universities lean left just because of some teacher's influence. I think it tends to come with culture and knowledge. Most of my friends in uni in subjects from philosophy, math, medicine... - they say their teachers simply don't talk about it. | ||
|
rayNimagi
United States34 Posts
I thought it was a great class, and the students that had policy disagreements with the teacher still liked the teacher. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 08 2012 01:36 rayNimagi wrote: I was in a class where we debated politics last semester. The teacher openly stated her views, and explained clearly why she held them. She even showed some of the students why she thought their opinions were wrong (e.g. marriage is a contract, denying people a contract because of their gender is a violation of the 14th amendment), but they students acknowledged that the teacher had valid opinions. I thought it was a great class, and the students that had policy disagreements with the teacher still liked the teacher. That's how it should be done. Unfortunately, through elementary school, high school, and college (not counting law school because those classes are taught completely differently), I only had one teacher who did that. He was the lone republican at a very liberal high school. Here's the best part, though: he was a history teacher, and the textbook that we used was Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." Yeah, definitely a colorful guy and easily the best teacher that I had. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
She wasn't very much of the devil's advocate sort. I honestly don't think you need to know the professor's leanings though. I've had very liberal professors, including a former Democratic congress woman, who very ably argued the conservative viewpoint, and I only knew their political leaning because of our personal relationships. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
In some things there are certainly truth, like in the sciences, and someone mentioned evolution... but when it comes to opinions, they are dependent on subjective values, or a differing assessment of the best way to achieve the same values. People who don't understand that, and who don't really experience solid arguments in opposition to their ideas, will reach opinions like this: On March 07 2012 23:24 seppolevne wrote: Academia pushes a 'left-wing' ideology only because rational thought and education lead to a left-wing view of things. Educated and well-discussed people realize that helping people is better than not, the government has a role to play in health, protecting the environment is a good thing etc. They aren't "brainwashing" anyone they just came to more educated opinions because they are.... more educated. I would hope people would come out of college capable of strong critical and independent thinking, instead of equating a single political ideology with education and rationality itself. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On March 08 2012 02:52 liberal wrote: I don't personally mind bias at all. I find all political discussion interesting. But the important thing is that I'm aware of politics, and somewhat knowledgeable about it. When I hear an opinion expressed by a teacher, I can immediately recognize "ok this is a liberal/conservative opinion, and here are possible counter arguments." The problem is when people haven't been exposed to political opinions that differ, and so instead of regarding them as opinions based upon different values, they come to regard it as simply truth or something. In some things there are certainly truth, like in the sciences, and someone mentioned evolution... but when it comes to opinions, they are dependent on subjective values, or a differing assessment of the best way to achieve the same values. People who don't understand that, and who don't really experience solid arguments in opposition to their ideas, will reach opinions like this: I would hope people would come out of college capable of strong critical and independent thinking, instead of equating a single political ideology with education and rationality itself. How can you call a "left-wing view" a 'single political ideology'. It's half of the spectrum. And wouldn't the other half be its opposite? Or can you have right- and left-wing views of the same thing at the same time? | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On March 08 2012 03:46 seppolevne wrote: How can you call a "left-wing view" a 'single political ideology'. It's half of the spectrum. And wouldn't the other half be its opposite? Or can you have right- and left-wing views of the same thing at the same time? When I said a "single political ideology," I was referring to your ideology as an individual. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On March 08 2012 03:46 seppolevne wrote: How can you call a "left-wing view" a 'single political ideology'. It's half of the spectrum. And wouldn't the other half be its opposite? Or can you have right- and left-wing views of the same thing at the same time? liberal seems to see politics as black or white, while "arguments" are grey-tone. It is how the american form of politic works. Rational thought should dictate people to stay away from extremes of either side in almost any "argument", but in reallity you have two choices: One package called "Democrat" and one called "Republican". The more extreme these packages are, the more they move away from rationality and seeks to encourage a specific segment of voters. As soon as it is election-day you no longer have a choice of what package is to be put up to the block. Maybe the best way to find a good candidate is not to let the extremists run rampant. This means opening the voting for a party-candidate to at least the independents. That way rationality might be a platform worth running from. At the same time, a relaxation of the laws making rights to vote as hard as it is today could make more moderate people actually vote. | ||
| ||
