StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Does college education have a bias? I would assume that many a college curriculum in certain classes, and the professors who teach those courses, have some slant.

For example. In philosophy class, our course material covered Ethics. The book, which was said to be very good by professors and dean seemed to push certain ideas over others, and sometimes, from what I have read here..the ideas are different. How are you supposed to come to a logical conclusion about something you learn in college when it seems as if they are pushing a certan concept.

The book was stressing teh existence of Plato's theory of forms for epistomology (it also heavily supported Empiricism, but thats good)

The book heavily stressed Objective Ethics, or what it called Objectivism. BUt this objectivism was not teh same thing as what Ayn Rand supports? What the hell is going on and why do they have the same name?

The book said Subjective Ethics was crap, the curriculm and professor agreed. It gave a slew of reasons why it is crap. But i see something totally different here..how do you know what one is right.

You pay for an education, and you really can't argue with people who have way more degrees than you...after all, that is why I am learning from them I guess. Very confusing.

Philosophy is a bias. It really only exists as a curriculum in this century because of the bias of colleges towards mucking over nonsensical discussions like whether tornados are evil, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and other unsubstantiated flim-flam. Not too useful of a system unless you're 13 or live in the middle ages, I'd say.

As for slant on teaching, you're going to always find people pushing their own opinions and notions. First week in the real world, I take it?

nimetski wrote:The book was stressing teh existence of Plato's theory of forms for epistomology (it also heavily supported Empiricism, but thats good)

Death to Plato!!!! .... Oh, too late. Anyways, Plato and Aristotle sucked, and weren't really empiricists whatever some people may claim.

The book heavily stressed Objective Ethics, or what it called Objectivism. But this objectivism was not teh same thing as what Ayn Rand supports? What the hell is going on and why do they have the same name?

Ayn Rand propounded one particular form of Objectivism. Certainly not the only one.

The book said Subjective Ethics was crap, the curriculm and professor agreed. It gave a slew of reasons why it is crap. But i see something totally different here..how do you know what one is right.

Do you believe its OK for an arab man to behead his wife if he suspects her of being unfaithful, even if the culture he lives in says its ok? If yes, your an objectivist - if no you're a subjectivist. Personally I don't really think ethical statements are truch-apt, so whatever.

You pay for an education, and you really can't argue with people who have way more degrees than you...after all, that is why I am learning from them I guess. Very confusing.

Thats why I've taught myselft philosophy, rather than learning it in a classroom. There's no replacement for arguing with humans being, of course, but best to start out arguing with books and thinking carefully.

Just get yourself a technical degree and forget about all the philosphical nonsense.

Wicked Pilot wrote:Just get yourself a technical degree and forget about all the philosphical nonsense.

Unless you would like to flip burgers for me, or serve me my lunch and dinner....


Face it the only cool philosophy major was Patrick Swayze's Dalton in "Roadhouse" one of the finest films ever released.

It was explained in my intro to philosophy class that "I must learn to crawl before I can walk". Basically, for intro classes, my teacher said we weren't there to criticize or discuss the merits/faults of each ethical code. Rather, to understand the reasoning behind them, to develop certain tools and understanding on how philosophy worked. He said that in later classes you were given more freedom. Of course, it was just a complementary course for me, so I don't know what the following courses offered.

Of course college education has a bias. Every professor, every textbook writer, every curriculum planning committee that has ever met has had a bias thanks to their unique experiences and goals with the material.

It should be noted, however, that philosophy classes are without a doubt some of the worst in that regards. Philosophy exists outside the respected curriculum that its instructors and patrons are allowed to shovel virtually any material into the class. The worst debates I ever had were invariably with philosophy majors who were taking time off from their studies to "educate" their underlings with their rabid pseudo-philosophizing.

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:...how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

That's "how many angels can dance on the point of a needle," you moron. And that exact argument was a ~17th Century joke on the medieval theological debates of such like Thomas Aquinas.

Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 2834
Location: Iowa (All I see is corn!)

Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 3:37 am Post subject:
Philosophy is a bias. It really only exists as a curriculum in this century because of the bias of colleges towards mucking over nonsensical discussions like whether tornados are evil, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and other unsubstantiated flim-flam. Not too useful of a system unless you're 13 or live in the middle ages, I'd say.

As for slant on teaching, you're going to always find people pushing their own opinions and notions. First week in the real world, I take it?
____________

No. I have been here a while. It just go to me for some reason. I don't know what is true or false due to the biases. Worst part is...I pay for it.

Do you believe its OK for an arab man to behead his wife if he suspects her of being unfaithful, even if the culture he lives in says its ok? If yes, your an objectivist - if no you're a subjectivist. Personally I don't really think ethical statements are truch-apt, so whatever.

Now this confuses me. ANd it is scary, because we learned that subjectivism was something totally different from what you say. According to their definition, subjective Ethics meant bascially ..right or wrong is subjective to the person/society (in degrees). Objectivism was supposed to be some magical standard of goodness from somewhere. It is just weird.

Unless you would like to flip burgers for me, or serve me my lunch and dinner....


Face it the only cool philosophy major was Patrick Swayze's Dalton in "Roadhouse" one of the finest films ever released.

Oh. I am not a philosophy major at all. My friend is. I just have to take 2 classes. The stupid introduction course, which was intresting..but really made no sense unless you listened to the Empiricism section. The other class I have to take is Ethics...and I am worried, since I think it is subjective, and the class fucks you over by forcing Objetivism down you, but it seems almost impossible for Ethics to be Objective.

It should be noted, however, that philosophy classes are without a doubt some of the worst in that regards. Philosophy exists outside the respected curriculum that its instructors and patrons are allowed to shovel virtually any material into the class. The worst debates I ever had were invariably with philosophy majors who were taking time off from their studies to "educate" their underlings with their rabid pseudo-philosophizing.

Just disappointing that they willfully teach something that is so nonsensical. We weren't allowed to talk over the theories either. We just studied them to look at them. I marked all over my book in the Ethics section, but it really didn't matter since we never got a chance to discuss it. My class, however, was better than others, for we did get into lots of discussions. But it usually degenerated into "your wrong and I'm right."

THe professor was good, however. She just said the one she liked, not what she thought was right. I think she liked Plato. I liked the Sophists caues I thought they were good politicans.

I never got into debates with Philosophy Majors, so I couldn't say. I just usually talk bout history, but even that is a bias. I can't do science and Math..it gives me a headache, so I am probably gonna be an anthropologist, Hist. teacher, or Archaeologist.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:...how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

That's "how many angels can dance on the point of a needle," you moron. And that exact argument was a ~17th Century joke on the medieval theological debates of such like Thomas Aquinas.

Uh, you totally sure about that? Both phrases are used and refer to the same debate. So don't be so quick about insulting someone else's intelligence before you even check your own.

'Raine

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:...how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

That's "how many angels can dance on the point of a needle," you moron. And that exact argument was a ~17th Century joke on the medieval theological debates of such like Thomas Aquinas.

That time of the month, Spanky?

Raine: Uts is my brother for one. We don't mind speaking our minds to each other.

Secondly, I am indeed right and he is wrong.

Though "head of a pin" is seen in common use, the correct version of the original argument parody was "point of a needle."

The issue is covered in a Straight Dope article by Cecil Adams:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_132.html

nimetski wrote:I just usually talk bout history, but even that is a bias. I can't do science and Math..it gives me a headache, so I am probably gonna be an anthropologist, Hist. teacher, or Archaeologist.

Join the club, mate. I'm studying English.

Anhaga wrote:

nimetski wrote:I just usually talk bout history, but even that is a bias. I can't do science and Math..it gives me a headache, so I am probably gonna be an anthropologist, Hist. teacher, or Archaeologist.

Join the club, mate. I'm studying English.

I was an english major for about 2 years. Then I got fed up with the BS and the wanking over books so dull that assigning them violates the geneva convention. In my english classes. I hadn't learned anything about writing good books, which is what I want to do, only how to write spiritless essays.

I went into Math because I wanted to write science fiction, and the math major was much shorter than physics (since physics was composed of physics AND math classes--remember that I'd already spent 2 years in college), and I was surprised at how upper division math differs from lower division. I came to really enjoy math a lot.

It's more like learning to use logic and real critical thinking. Learning how to write a concise or elegant proof will teach you much about critical thinking and debate. The best part is that you don't really deal with numbers very often, since math is all about ideas and logic.

My point is that you would learn many of the same debating skills used in philosophy, but without the tedious biases and bullshit. You might as well try some math, science, engineering or business classes, because you might find out that you enjoy them. AND they would be useful to you after you graduate.

I am just weirded out when it comes to college professors. You cannot argue with them.

I was in a science course, and the professor was showing us how glaciers form on oceans..but the book says glaciers only form on land. What one do you believe?? The book or the professor?

Someone tried to say something, but they were quickly removed from the class.

Philosophy shouldn't be majored in, but an understanding of it is, I think, important, because philosophy includes a great deal about what can be considered real (something I find a number of people I know lack a good sense of) and how you can determine whats fact (something else I notice a lack of), as well as ethics, which pretty much determines what you think is right and wrong and helps you decide how to act. I think it's important for people to have a cnsistant philosophy, because without it they'll go about blindly doing things that make no sense at all. A philosophy class also imbues knowledge that would sway people away from articles of blind faith and destructive religion, and towards promotion of science and scientific methodology, BECAUSE of the discussion about reality (metaphysics) and how we determine whats real (epistemology).

kojikun wrote:[snip]

That's how things SHOULD work in philosophy classes, but where I went to school they seemed to consist entirely of critiquing famous philosophers, who invariably ignored weaknesses in their argument and passed them off as "cultural conditioning." I have news for philosophers: if you're going to argue that real people can't understand your philosophy because they've been culturally acclimatized against it, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that this cultural conditioning exists and is so substantial that no unbiased opinion of your philosophy is possible.

The essays invariably seemed to consist of more of the same, and sometimes they asked people to pseudo-philosophize, as well.

The other thing about kojikun's explanation is that AT MOST it should take two or three classes to figure out a consistent philosophy that defines one's life. Beyond that it's wasted effort going into an almost completely useless topic.

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:
I was an english major for about 2 years. Then I got fed up with the BS and the wanking over books so dull that assigning them violates the geneva convention. In my english classes. I hadn't learned anything about writing good books, which is what I want to do, only how to write spiritless essays.

I went into Math because I wanted to write science fiction, and the math major was much shorter than physics (since physics was composed of physics AND math classes--remember that I'd already spent 2 years in college), and I was surprised at how upper division math differs from lower division. I came to really enjoy math a lot.

I enjoy the courses that my Uni offers on the english course- maybe you just didn't have a decent selection?

I just happen to like English and havne't done any maths since 'O' levels (age 16 or so). Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I wouldn't take a philosophy course either primarily because I don't see the point.

nimetski wrote:I just usually talk bout history, but even that is a bias. I can't do science and Math..it gives me a headache, so I am probably gonna be an anthropologist, Hist. teacher, or Archaeologist.

Anthropology and archaeology are wierd like that. I've studied courses that fal under both categories, and they were both scientific in disicipline, although I was taking a scientific degree.
Archaeology rocks. Not as much as mesozoic palaeontology, but anything that involves reconstructing from remains is damn cool.

It's always important to study philosophy because that way you can tell philosophers to shut the fuck up.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:...how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

That's "how many angels can dance on the point of a needle," you moron. And that exact argument was a ~17th Century joke on the medieval theological debates of such like Thomas Aquinas.

That's how it used to be, but now we say "head of a pin." Language involves. When a mistake becomes common enough it becomes the right way of saying things. It's like how we use "nosferatu" to mean "vampire" even though it really doesn't, or we say "an orange" instead of "a norange."

a norange."

what's a norange?

Like all things in life, education falls prey to the fact that there is RARELY ever a simple objective answer we can all agree upon where X most definitely equals Y. Outside of maybe the maths and sciences where even then they can be quite subjective.. yup..

It all depends on what the professor thinks is important. What your textbook author and editors think. What your journal authors think. And most importantly, what YOU think.

So classes like philosophy, while people might trash it.. it at least gives you another way to look at things which will help you in your other classes to at least keep your mind flexible.

nimetski wrote:

a norange."

what's a norange?

Lol!

A norange is an orange in middle english, or just older english. Just like a nuncle.

Trytostaydead wrote:Like all things in life, education falls prey to the fact that there is RARELY ever a simple objective answer we can all agree upon where X most definitely equals Y. Outside of maybe the maths and sciences where even then they can be quite subjective.. yup..

Maybe if you're homeshooled.
"Prove that there are infinitely many primes? Jesus says so!"

A solid proof is in no way subjective. It can have style or elegance, but it can not be interpreted differently if done correctly.

The only subjectivity I know of in math is if you believe that the Parallel Postulate is true in the real world, but as academic math has nothing to do with the real world, it rarely comes up.