Education distorting science and logic

[Hillary]

In my argument, I attempted to attack the author's example of gravity. I constructed an argument that would allow me to present why his example of scientific truth was wrong, and then proceeded to basically demonstrate the conclusions he made from that were erroneous at best.

Because the book also attacks logic itself in the same way it attacks science "it's all a ghost", I refrained from actually going and pointing out the specific fallacies and focused mainly on the scientific inaccuracies, and why the very idea he's trying to relate (nothing's provable so every idea is valid) isn't valid. If he responds, I'll likely post it.

Please do, if you can. It'll be interesting to see whether the professor is challenging you to see through false ideas and logic or whether he deserves to have his mortar board shredded.

For my money, you did exactly the right thing.

[Darth Wong]

Just don't fall into the trap of dismissing those arguments without carefully explaining what's wrong with them. Pirsig challenges what he believes to be "our own belief systems", but he is in fact attacking a misrepresentation of how science works, so if science is the "belief system" in question, he is "challenging" it via a strawman fallacy.

In my argument, I attempted to attack the author's example of gravity. I constructed an argument that would allow me to present why his example of scientific truth was wrong, and then proceeded to basically demonstrate the conclusions he made from that were erroneous at best.

Because the book also attacks logic itself in the same way it attacks science "it's all a ghost", I refrained from actually going and pointing out the specific fallacies and focused mainly on the scientific inaccuracies, and why the very idea he's trying to relate (nothing's provable so every idea is valid) isn't valid. If he responds, I'll likely post it.

The idea of truth or falsehood being a black/white dichotomy is central to many anti-scientific diatribes, so it's good to focus on it. Especially since black/white thinking is frowned upon by most liberal-arts people, at whom this sort of screed is normally directed. If they can be brought to understand that science is about degrees of accuracy rather than a simplistic true/false dichotomy, you win.

[Ender]

My Engineering Design (!!) prof suggested that we read Pirsig's book. I foolishly did so, cover to cover, in a few hours. I suppose I was hoping it would start to make some sort of sense at some point. Nope.

And even better (or worse?) my prof never raised the subject of the book again. I still don't know what I was supposed to get from it. Maybe I'll ask him about it the next time I see him.

My dad read it when he was in college and again after his 50th birthday. I started it as well but ran into the same problem you had. He explained it as making more sense when you were older and had the experiences to look back on and such. I guess I just have to take his word on it.

[Psycho Smiley]

Well, I talked to said prof today. He wanted us to take away the whole "form v/s function" part in the first two chapters, and apparently didn't even realize the postmodernist bullshit was in there. Either he needs to read the WHOLE book this time, or the book only makes sense if you have a selective memory.

[CaptJodan]

::beats head on desk repeatedly:: God.....God.....God damn it.

I haven't gotten a response back from my professor yet on my E-mail. Either he is waiting until all responses are in before he'll comment, or something else is going on.

Since I can't give you that, here's an example of what others are writing about this section of the book. We are also required to respond to two of our classmates, so I am posting the response one of the dumbasses made to show just how evil this shit can be to our education system.

All of the things that we believe to be true are no more real than the ghosts that our present culture sees to be human inventions. Things that we believe, such as concepts of science and mathematics, have been indoctrinated into our current belief system so strongly through education that we cannot see beyond the possibility of their nonexistence. The words that have come to define our world have always been available, but had just not yet been properly applied to human concepts and laws.
Laws of nature did not exist before they were conceived of by people; they exist completely within the human mind.
The mind is the problem of all this conception, because we cannot escape the reasoning of our own mind. The mind controls everything we think and do. While scientists claim that ghosts exist only in the minds of humans, the same can be said for the laws of science. There is no external, objective rulebook floating around the cosmos
waiting for the right moment to fall into the lap of humanity, we are simply left to come up with rules of our own. The difference between the current conception and that of the past is that in the past they recognized the ghosts for what they were and now we incorporate into our laws the idea that they are not the invention of humans. Everything,
right down to the common sense that we base all of our lives on, is the product of humanity’s collective imagination. (252 words)

And the response....

This was a very deep response and it interests me very much. You are absolutely correct as you say , "Everything, right down to the common sense that we base all of our lives on, is the product of humanity’s collective imagination." Pirsig brings this to our attention
as he compares the common law of gravity to the idea of ghosts. Who's to say that the laws of science in which we live by are correct and real? Instead, we simply accept them for what they are because we have been told to. Why then when we get a chill down our spines or witness a miracle are we quick to find the logical answer rather than believe it is due to a ghost? Believing in anything at all is therefore questionable and so we can easily compare it to the concepts of ghosts. What is real and what is not?

You can, of course, see the fundie dripping off this second post.

[Jim Raynor]

Those books sound like pure philosophical wank. I would actually consider taking this to someone beyond the professor. It has jack shit to do with technical writing, and is blatantly anti-science as well.

[Darth Wong]

You can, of course, see the fundie dripping off this second post.

Or the smart-ass. A lot of people love that kind of "nothing is real" philosophy because it makes them feel superior to everyone else, like they've figured out that everyone else has been hoodwinked. But it's a thoroughly useless worldview that requires no discipline, no skill, no intelligence to attain or employ because it doesn't accomplish anything. It is impossible to test whether someone is employing this philosophy correctly or incorrectly because that would require that the philosophy actually be capable of doing something. Its sole purpose is to give its users a fake, easily-attained feeling of intellectual superiority, based on its central black/white fallacy.

[Hillary]

Who's to say that the laws of God which we live by are correct and real? Instead, we simply accept them for what they are because we have been told to. Why then when we get a logical answer are we quick to burn the heretic rather than believe it is due to the Bible being wrong?

It works better this way round, I think.

[Winston Blake]

Who's to say that the laws of science in which we live by are correct and real? Instead, we simply accept them for what they are because we have been told to. Why then when we get a chill down our spines or witness a miracle are we quick to find the logical answer rather than believe it is due to a ghost? Believing in anything at all is therefore questionable and so we can easily compare it to the concepts of ghosts. What is real and what is not?

If this man really is unaware of any way of establishing facts other than being told what to think, then I honestly feel sorry for him. It looks like he's decided how to understand reality by choosing between solipsism and dogma, and now that he holds his 'truth' of solipsism, the only valid way he sees for others to understand reality is for them to hold his truth too. I.e. there are two choices, and since dogma is bad then solipsism is the way. A pity that the first assumption is dogmatic in itself.

I strongly think that the scientific method and logical fallacies should be taught as part of compulsory high school curricula. If this guy had been exposed to science as finding the best approximations of reality, he wouldn't have that black/white fallacy in the first place. As it is now, he can't change his ideas as a result of being exposed to new ones - that would be blindly accepting someone else's dogma, wouldn't it? It must be very comfortable for him to completely understand reality.

[CaptJodan]

Or the smart-ass.

What does it for me is the line:

Why then when we get a chill down our spines or witness a miracle are we quick to find the logical answer rather than believe it is due to a ghosts?"

The all important ability to sense something greater with a chill or even including the word miracle tells me this is someone who believes in God and tends to want to reject logic that would explain it.

These are NOT people who are thinking...or at the very least they are suppressing their thoughts to get an A (the latter I am hoping for). Some either are really good at BSing their way through this, or they actually believe it, because they are writing it as if these concepts make any kind of sense.

I agree wholeheartedly that it's an intellectually lazy way of trying to sound important when you really have nothing to contribute. But that's precisely why I'm worked up over it. You see all the little ducks fall in line as the professor sprouts such moronic concepts and you wonder how the hell this class is allowed to be taught when it seemingly has nothing at all to do with your subject matter.

This is, BTW, one of the upper level courses, not some pissant course like Brit Lit I and II that you have to also take. You know you're not going to be writing tech manuals in Old or Middle English, or writing sonnets on how to install your new microwave, but you can still accept the academic validity of it.

If this man really is unaware of any way of establishing facts other than being told what to think, then I honestly feel sorry for him. It looks like he's decided how to understand reality by choosing between solipsism and dogma, and now that he holds his 'truth' of solipsism, the only valid way he sees for others to understand reality is for them to hold his truth too. I.e. there are two choices, and since dogma is bad then solipsism is the way. A pity that the first assumption is dogmatic in itself.

I actually think you're giving her (I didn't designate that, but it doesn't really matter anyway) far too much credit. You're actually assuming she thought about it at all instead of accepting it based merely on the fact that it came from a book and (somehow) sounded good.

That's why I think the person behind these words is also religious in nature...possibly strongly so. It reinforces their position so well. It goes right down with ID and other concepts that maintain that every theory is valid. Reading not so heard between her lines shows her to be someone who believes in not questioning miracles. And ghosts is just another word for angels in her example.

Anyway, usually by Sunday you get your grade on whatever you post, along with very short comments. We'll see.

[Spoonist]

Just a small note. Your fellow would be technical writers might not be as far into la-la-land as you think. It might just be case of giving the proffessor what he wants.
I was/am very confrontational with people who train me and also when Itrain other. This has several times led me to discussions with friends friends/colleagues who agree with all my points but would never confront the trainer about it, instead they write the la-la-land stuff they think will get them good grades and usually this works.

So just because they write those things doesn't necessarily say that they believe them.

[Darth Wong]

I suspect that these "technical writing" courses are being taught by people with a weak science background. The fact that they've got "technical" in the name doesn't mean they can't be taught by scientific ignoramuses.

[Darth Servo]

I suspect that these "technical writing" courses are being taught by people with a weak science background. The fact that they've got "technical" in the name doesn't mean they can't be taught by scientific ignoramuses.

Indeed, usually having the word "technical" in the class name is usually a GUARANTEE that its being taught by said ignoramuses.

[Kuroneko]

My hypothesis is that "technical writing" is an abuse of grammar. Somehow an adverb dropped the "-ly" and turned into an adjective by mistake.

[Darth Wong]

Quick point about the idea that logic itself rests upon nothing more than our faith in it: if this were true, then there should be no intrinsic superiority of logic-based predictive models over illogical predictive models. Therefore, a completely arbitrary predictive model such as rolling dice should be just as accurate as, say, Newtonian kinematics. This hypothesis can be tested.

[Drooling Iguana]

Quick point about the idea that logic itself rests upon nothing more than our faith in it: if this were true, then there should be no intrinsic superiority of logic-based predictive models over illogical predictive models. Therefore, a completely arbitrary predictive model such as rolling dice should be just as accurate as, say, Newtonian kinematics. This hypothesis can be tested.

However, you arrived at that conclusion using logical processes, which only works if you believe in logic!

[Kuroneko]

Just to restate that analysis in more direct terms, if logic is learned from experience, as any empiricist worldview would have it, then logic itself is just another predictive model, albeit one that operates on a somewhat higher level than what is usually found in science. That puts logic as a kind of theory on making models in itself, specifically one on making models. It is therefore subject to testing as any other, in this case in terms of the performance of its offspring.

As for it only working if one accepts logic, it's only in the sense that one should have some method of tying the predictive performance of theories to their rankings. All other aspects of logic can be tested at least in principle, since this approach would treat logic as a kind of theory in itself.

[CaptJodan]

Apologies for the long time in coming. Our grade only showed up today (incidentally when I have to write another assignment on the next section of the book).

This is what I wrote. Note, this is the "offical" thing I wrote, not the E-mail to him basically making this post moot. It's nowhere near my best work, as I was just barely clinging to finding something I could write about. In essence, it's complete and utter bullshittery.

The discussion revolving around whether or not the laws of
gravity, and by extension, science and religious beliefs seem to be
attempting to explain what Pirsig feels about the words and ideas we
use and hold true to in daily life. He seems to be attempting to
show that those ideas we cling to seem to be non-tangible
substances made up by our own minds. These concepts and
realities are not born from nature, but rather our perception of
nature. He seems to maintain that gravity, for example, is no more
or less “true” than what people sometimes claim to be ghosts. He
seems to equate these ideas with the ghosts of past people who put
words into ideas, like gravity. These concepts are taught, of course,
through education, but for Pirsig seem to have no more or less
value than someone who has a strong feeling of ghosts.

Within the lives of our present culture, we are constantly
bombarded by new words as technology advances. Pirsig must be
equating the terms of gravity with this concept. As new inventions
themselves are given names, so to do they come into existence for
us. Plato, Jefferson, Lincoln and the rest of those he mentions
all “invented” certain concepts that we follow to this day. Pirsig
maintains that these concepts were brought to form as the words
were “found” that were already there for these concepts. In this
way, he is suggesting that we invent our own reality, and that our
words help to shape the kind of world we live in.

My grade is thus....

Good leadership here and a great response. 6/6

Sadly, I've learned nothing. The mail I sent that shows this entire post to be comlpete BS just to do the work goes unanswered and this gets a full response which I felt was dreadfully weak. I shouldn't complain, but damn it this just seems like such a waste.

Anyway, moving on.

I suspect that these "technical writing" courses are being taught by people with a weak science background. The fact that they've got "technical" in the name doesn't mean they can't be taught by scientific ignoramuses.

It's an English major. :: You're not going to have too many highly scientific minds in the major. You could say that this kind of major is for those of us who want to work in a technical field and hope to learn something by doing so, but have (for whatever reason) little to no skill or ability in math. Well that's my reason, anyway. I realize it's likely considered a lesser profession on this board, but it's what I can do and it plays to my strengths.

You're probably right, but I'm hoping things improve. I only have a couple classes in the major so far, both taught by this guy. Maybe I'll get lucky next semester and get someone a bit less ignorant.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

It's an English major. :: You're not going to have too many highly scientific minds in the major. You could say that this kind of major is for those of us who want to work in a technical field and hope to learn something by doing so, but have (for whatever reason) little to no skill or ability in math. Well that's my reason, anyway. I realize it's likely considered a lesser profession on this board, but it's what I can do and it plays to my strengths.

It's not that you need to know in detail the subject matter of science or math. But if you're gonna to teach a "technical" writing class, you damn well better know how such conclusions are made regarding math and science. If your instructer doesn't at least have this background information, he/she may inadvertantly paint science as what Darth Wong had mentioned earlier, a true/false dichotomy.

[CaptJodan]

It's not that you need to know in detail the subject matter of science or math. But if you're gonna to teach a "technical" writing class, you damn well better know how such conclusions are made regarding math and science. If your instructer doesn't at least have this background information, he/she may inadvertantly paint science as what Darth Wong had mentioned earlier, a true/false dichotomy.

Ahh, thanks for explaining that, then. Personally at this point I feel I know more about how such conclusions are made than he does or wants us to.

[Kettch]

CaptJodan, some thing I've been curious about, just coming into this thread, can you paste what the course description for this call is in the Schedule of Classes?

Also how does the professor describe the class in the Sylabus?

[CaptJodan]

CaptJodan, some thing I've been curious about, just coming into this thread, can you paste what the course description for this call is in the Schedule of Classes?

Also how does the professor describe the class in the Sylabus?

Here's the class description. A damndable lie if I ever saw one...

Course Description:
An analysis of the historical development of technical and scientific writing from ancient Greece to the present.

I guess by ancient Greece he must mean the philosophical ramblings in ZAMM. Of course, nowhere in that description does it say "and philosophy from books written just between the 1970s to present".

Actually I should have looked at this earlier, because this ISN'T what we're doing. It's supposed to be a survey class, much like Brit Lit and American Lit. You read a bunch of technical documentation from the past to the present and take lessons from it. Gee, how ironically relevant to my major. At least that's how I read the course description.

The sylabus doesn't really even go into course description or what he intends to do short of how the class is structured, aka the 3 books, postings, papers, the fact that it's online and those guidelines, etc. It doesn't have anything to say about what he's trying to teach, I'm afraid.

[Darth Wong]

To be honest, if I read that course description in university I would have written it off as useless. Science is primarily not a literary body of work; it is a method and an ongoing human project. You may study past scientific theories and how they were disproven, but there's really no point studying past scientific literature. It sounds like a history or English lit course: something that would be taught by artsies. And that's leaving aside the fact that the professor didn't even keep to the course description.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

I suspect that these "technical writing" courses are being taught by people with a weak science background. The fact that they've got "technical" in the name doesn't mean they can't be taught by scientific ignoramuses.

It's an English major

Colour me unsurprised.

Speaking from personal experience, a technical writing course at a technical institute tends to be, well, exactly as the name implies. But from a university, where the course typically falls under the Humanities, it's really just a course on spouting BS in a technical-sounding way. . .

[Kettch]

To be honest, if I read that course description in university I would have written it off as useless. Science is primarily not a literary body of work; it is a method and an ongoing human project. You may study past scientific theories and how they were disproven, but there's really no point studying past scientific literature. It sounds like a history or English lit course: something that would be taught by artsies. And that's leaving aside the fact that the professor didn't even keep to the course description.

Acutally there are some very important things one can learn from studying past scientific literature. The modern text books tend to simplify & linearize very complex developments into a few chapters & into Gaeleo begat Newton who begat Hamilton etc. The principia is a lot more than a colorfully writen & wordier description of Haliday & Resnick's first 12 chapters.

Second reading older scientific literature, gives an excellent window into the scientific method at work, not watered down in a text book or being overwhelemed by ooh new shiney! from recent science news. You can read these books or articles in the contex of how the theory is now established.

I've had professors take that track with Einstein,Fermi, Feinman etc. by giving us primary sources to read & it has been quite rewarding