Homeschooling, Should it be banned?

[ArcturusMengsk]

I dislike both homeschooling and the public system - the first because of its link with religious fundamentalism, and the second because it was developed during a period of factory-based industrialization which is outmoded (in addition to its connection with John Dewey, a thinker of dubious worth). Being a teenager, I naturally gravitate towards unschooling, which I've currently begun using as a supplement to my public indoctri-- that is to say, public education.

The public schools simply do not teach the classics. By no means am I a cultural chauvinist - quite the opposite - but it's rather difficult to get a fundamental grasp of the inner workings of modern Western civilization without having at least a rudimentary knowledge of the great thinkers of the past: I'd have never learned of Parmenides and Heraclitus in the school system had I not made an effort of my own, and they, through Socrates, are the intellectual underpinnings of Western thought. I'm a Junior and I've yet to read anything by Hume or Schopenhauer or Nietzsche; our political philosophy education is centered almost exclusively on Locke and the liberals, whom I despise as simplistic. It's not pretty.

Shitty link fixed

[ArcturusMengsk]

Ah, I apologize for both this double post and the extensive URL in that last post. Sorry!

[Eris]

While there are definitely some valid criticisms of how we go about both home-schooling and public schooling in their present forms, unschooling is one of those "cure is worse than the disease" style solutions.

For starters, there are a number of skills that simply must be learned in order to be a fuctional human being in a modern society. You must have good maths skills and you must be able to write and communicate coherently. Many people can't, but that's to the detriment of society. Many children would opt out of these studies, and consequently must be required to learn them, whether they want to or not. I'd add elementary logic and a few other fields on top of that as well.

There are some elements to unschooling that I like. We should diversify to better teach to people with diverse methods of learning, and one should attempt to find a career that one at least in theory enjoys. This doesn't require such a wildly impractical change as unschooling does, however.

As a side note, if you find the classical liberals despicably simple, you obviously are misinterpreting them. They may be wrong on many points, but their philosophy is remarkably nuanced and sophisticated, doubly so considering the political, social, and religious context in which they worked. I find it ironic that you went on to mention Hume, since he was a fairly significant figure in the development of liberalism. If you honestly can't stand old philosophy, try some John Rawls. He's the intellectual heir of the liberal movement, and quite frankly the greatest and most influential political theorist of the 20th century.

Back on topic, you haven't learned all of this because it's not the fare of basic education. Public education shouldn't be particularly focused on giving people a nuanced grasp of the classics. Some study is okay, especially as electives, but there's enough just making sure everyone can write a well-formed sentence and solve an algebra problem. We're not out to make scholars until secondary education, nor should we be. Make sure that everyone has the basic competencies and society will already be loads better off.

[ArcturusMengsk]

For starters, there are a number of skills that simply must be learned in order to be a fuctional human being in a modern society. You must have good maths skills and you must be able to write and communicate coherently. Many people can't, but that's to the detriment of society. Many children would opt out of these studies, and consequently must be required to learn them, whether they want to or not. I'd add elementary logic and a few other fields on top of that as well.

No doubt of it; hence I support mandatory public education during the grade school years. After that, however, it becomes questionable.

As a side note, if you find the classical liberals despicably simple, you obviously are misinterpreting them. They may be wrong on many points, but their philosophy is remarkably nuanced and sophisticated, doubly so considering the political, social, and religious context in which they worked. I find it ironic that you went on to mention Hume, since he was a fairly significant figure in the development of liberalism. If you honestly can't stand old philosophy, try some John Rawls. He's the intellectual heir of the liberal movement, and quite frankly the greatest and most influential political theorist of the 20th century.

No doubt they're nuanced. They're also wrong on virtually every level, beginning with Locke's dualist conception of sentience from whence he derives his theory of rights (stemming from his empiricism) to the falsified concept of 'human nature'. But that's for another thread.

[kinnison]

The answer I would like (not a poll option! ) is "it depends".

If homeschooling is wanted by parents (possibly bullied into it themselves by some fundie minister) to instil young-Earth creationist and Bible literalist bullshit into their kids, then it should be banned.

But aren't there still some states in the USA where this sort of crap is required by some of the local school boards? In a case where the parents want to homeschool to avoid that sort of poisonous crap being fed their kids, what then?

The same applies, with somewhat lesser force, to the central dogma of education theory as currently being used - that all lifestyles and cultures are as good as each other. They aren't.

Faith schools are a similar issue; schools all across the West, not just America, are free to instil their particular sort of mind-virus into kids - ranging from the sort of nonsense mentioned above to the barbaric garbage fed by Islamic faith schools.

My opinion? Ministers and clerics of any religion ought to be banned from any sort of public office or anything to do with the education of children.

[Darth Wong]

The public schools simply do not teach the classics. By no means am I a cultural chauvinist - quite the opposite - but it's rather difficult to get a fundamental grasp of the inner workings of modern Western civilization without having at least a rudimentary knowledge of the great thinkers of the past:

Bullshit. That's like saying you can't possibly understand physics unless you study the early Greek philosophers' treatises on the subject. An idea, once formulated and described, exists independently of its author. You don't need to know who created the idea or where it came from in order to understand it.

I'd have never learned of Parmenides and Heraclitus in the school system had I not made an effort of my own, and they, through Socrates, are the intellectual underpinnings of Western thought.

Ooooh, you're fully equipped to drop fancy ancient names at cocktail parties now!

I'm a Junior and I've yet to read anything by Hume or Schopenhauer or Nietzsche; our political philosophy education is centered almost exclusively on Locke and the liberals, whom I despise as simplistic. It's not pretty.

See above. The idea that you cannot understand an idea without being able to recite the history of the first people who thought of it is pure nonsense. An idea is a concept; it does not require knowledge of the author's life or writings in order to understand. The concept of utilitarianism, for example, could be taught with no knowledge whatsoever of the life of John Stuart Mill.

Public schools have their faults, but not teaching about Greek philosophers is the least of them.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Bullshit. That's like saying you can't possibly understand physics unless you study the early Greek philosophers' treatises on the subject.

Which is almost exactly correct. Can you understand the basic mechanistic content of atomic theory without knowing about a man named Democritus? Yes. You'll even be able to put it to use in a mechanistic fashion. But it will have no cultural or personal relevance, which is the very purpose of the sciences. The Greek physis had a much broader spectrum of subjects and implications than our physics, and almost no endeavour was undertaken "in the name of science".

I've perused the boards from some time now and have noticed that you tend to dismiss the humanities as quasi-intellectual fields of study. And that's fine. Public schools are very well suited to turning out scientists and engineers - but a large percentage of the widening gap between the sciences and socio-cultural life is precisely that they provide no context in which the sciences can operate.
.

Ooooh, you're fully equipped to drop fancy ancient names at cocktail parties now!

More or less. Nobody gains knowledge for its own sake, however much they'd like to pretend otherwise.

We'll simply agree to disagree. I don't hold the hard sciences in particularly high esteem, and you feel the same about the humanities.

[Darth Wong]

Bullshit. That's like saying you can't possibly understand physics unless you study the early Greek philosophers' treatises on the subject.

Which is almost exactly correct.

Wrong. You're just talking out your ass now. Advanced university courses in physics never touch on the Greek philosophers, because they are totally irrelevant. Why? Because a CONCEPT exists ON ITS OWN. It need not have any connection to its author. Its validity is determined by its own merits, not its "context".

Can you understand the basic mechanistic content of atomic theory without knowing about a man named Democritus? Yes. You'll even be able to put it to use in a mechanistic fashion. But it will have no cultural or personal relevance, which is the very purpose of the sciences.

Wrong again, moron. The purpose of the sciences is to understand and describe the universe. Not to create "cultural or personal relevance". To say that science is somehow diminished by reducing it to a mechanistic concept is pure idiocy because science is mechanistic.

The Greek physis had a much broader spectrum of subjects and implications than our physics, and almost no endeavour was undertaken "in the name of science".

And look at how far it took them: almost nowhere. In fact, the Greek scientific method was a joke; it was nothing more than a priori reasoning without a shred of empirical method.

I've perused the boards from some time now and have noticed that you tend to dismiss the humanities as quasi-intellectual fields of study. And that's fine. Public schools are very well suited to turning out scientists and engineers - but a large percentage of the widening gap between the sciences and socio-cultural life is precisely that they provide no context in which the sciences can operate.

On the contrary, most of the absurd political machinations which we see in public life today are the direct result of a failure to adopt the strict intellectual rigour of science in favour of mushy "social context" and subjectivism.

Ooooh, you're fully equipped to drop fancy ancient names at cocktail parties now!

More or less. Nobody gains knowledge for its own sake, however much they'd like to pretend otherwise.

Yet another statement you've simply pulled out of your ass.

We'll simply agree to disagree. I don't hold the hard sciences in particularly high esteem, and you feel the same about the humanities.

The difference is that I can show how the hard sciences have immeasurably improved the human condition. Thousands of years of philosophy and humanities didn't do anywhere near as much for human society as running water and electricity.

You're just a high-school kid with delusions of intellectualism.

[NomAnor15]

I'm going to weigh in here, because I feel quite strongly on the subject. I've been homeschooled since 5th grade, and I am now a senior in high school (sort of). I'm still homeschooling part time, and going to a tech college part time. At said tech college, I am taking two classes, and have previously taken one (a total of ten credit hours). I was #1 in my previous class, and am consistently near (or at) the top in the ones I am taking now. My "socialization" is sufficient for me to function quite normally in nearly any given situation, i.e., very few people are aware that I have learned about socializing differently from anyone else.

Now, could I have achieved the same results at the public school near me? Almost certainly not. I went there for 2 years (3rd and 4th grade), and I was an outcast. Besides which, we learned almost nothing in class that I hadn't learned already at home. In fact, that was one of the reasons I was shunned by people; because I was doing better than them in school. The other main reasons were my refusal to participate in organized sports (outside of gym class, such as the football team), and intolerance of Jews. I know some peoples' response to that will be "See? It is about religion.", but that is not the case. I am as far from dogmatic as it is possible to be, but that is a different discussion entirely.

The point of all this is that I am strongly in favor of homeschooling. I realize that in the majority of cases it may be harmful, but that is the fault of the parents, not the state. In some cases (such as mine) it can be so beneficial that you cannot simply take away the option. I realize, of course, that my writing this will have little or no effect on other people's opinions, but I hope that some of you can see my side of the matter.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Wrong. You're just talking out your ass now. Advanced university courses in physics never touch on the Greek philosophers, because they are totally irrelevant. Why? Because a CONCEPT exists ON ITS OWN. It need not have any connection to its author. Its validity is determined by its own merits, not its "context".

And that's perfectly acceptable. And it still does not prevent the fact that modern physics lacks any social relevance precisely because of its apparent need for a sort of hyper-objectivity, a total detachment from any context wherein it might prove itself more immediately useful.

And, before you say it, I'm quite aware that the very computer I'm using relies on modern scientific principles - and in this I'm fully supportive of it. It's when science lacks an immediate use, either personally or socially, that it becomes superfluous.

Wrong again, moron. The purpose of the sciences is to understand and describe the universe. Not to create "cultural or personal relevance". To say that science is somehow diminished by reducing it to a mechanistic concept is pure idiocy because science is mechanistic.

Does understanding or describing the universe have a use? No. Understanding particular aspects of the universe is very useful: one needs to know about metabolism, for instance, to ensure a healthy lifestyle. Understanding superstring theory is far less useful. Even the incessant debates between evolutionists and creationists lacks any real meaning; nothing useful will come of it, and it's been so far removed from the field of public discourse by both parties that very few Christians (or atheists, for that matter) particularly care about it anymore.

And look at how far it took them: almost nowhere. In fact, the Greek scientific method was a joke; it was nothing more than a priori reasoning without a shred of empirical method.

I'm not talking about the Greek's rather odd tendency to extrapolate universals from particulars. I'm referring to the reasons why they undertook their intellectual tasks, which in my judgment is superior precisely because it does not aspire to objectivity or abstraction away from the socio-cultural level.

On the contrary, most of the absurd political machinations which we see in public life today are the direct result of a failure to adopt the strict intellectual rigour of science in favour of mushy "social context" and subjectivism.

Hardly. I need simply point to the various failures of 'scientific socialism' - it's a perfectly apt application of the scientific method (one of the first political ideologies centered around an empirical analysis of economics, in fact), and is just as flawed.

Yet another statement you've simply pulled out of your ass.

Would you have chosen your particular career field if you knew you'd gain little to nothing from it?

The difference is that I can show how the hard sciences have immeasurably improved the human condition. Thousands of years of philosophy and humanities didn't do anywhere near as much for human society as running water and electricity.

I don't deny these, and they're direct applications of basic scientific principles. I have a much harder time swallowing the usefulness of much of modern astronomy, for instance, which does not directly pertain to the life of an individual.

You're just a high-school kid with delusions of intellectualism.

Have I claimed otherwise?

[Darth Wong]

I actually agree that you can't outright ban homeschooling, for the simple reason that the public system is not necessarily adequate for every parent, every child, and every situation. There are parents out there who do a good job of homeschooling their kids; off-hand, I could name two acquaintances who are homeschooling quite effectively right now.

The problem I have is with the rabid fundie "keep my kids away from those heathen influences" homeschoolers. That kind of homeschooling leads to a fragmented culture.

[Starglider]

but a large percentage of the widening gap between the sciences and socio-cultural life is precisely that they provide no context in which the sciences can operate.

Not another humanist relativist anti-empirical twit. Has it occured to you that the failing might be on the part of the rest of society, not scientists and engineers? Even if you accept that scientists and engineers have to make a special effort to account for other people's stupidity, what they need are a few practical courses in media studies/public relations, not pointless academic crap that has no relevance to the average person /or/ the physical basis of the universe.

And, before you say it, I'm quite aware that the very computer I'm using relies on modern scientific principles - and in this I'm fully supportive of it. It's when science lacks an immediate use, either personally or socially, that it becomes superfluous.

Illustrating your total failure to understand how science and technology development works. You can't have applied research without basic research first. So no, you do not in fact deserve to be able to own a computer or for that matter enjoy any of the other benefits of a technological society.

Does understanding or describing the universe have a use?

You are in fact making the exact same mistake as creationists (and it would not surprise me if you are one) when you envision science as lots of seperate pieces you can pick and choose between. All science is interrelated on some level, because it all describes the same universe, and it is near-impossible to predict what the benefits of a breakthrough in one field will be in other areas of science and technology.

which in my judgment is superior precisely because it does not aspire to objectivity or abstraction away from the socio-cultural level.

Aside from the fact that your social relevance argument as applied to the ancient Greeks is meaningless crap in the first place, you are completely ignoring the fact that the methods you consider 'superior' do not work.

In fact please stop talking about science at all. Go advocate some flavour of religion instead, it is expressly designed for 'social relevance' and 'psychological utility' over any kind of accuracy. You'll have much better luck getting a grant to study a religious group than a grant to study scientists. Run along now.

I need simply point to the various failures of 'scientific socialism'

Sociology is not a science. Psychology is just barely beginning to become a proper science, sociology doesn't even have the trappings yet. Therefore your example is worthless, other than as an example of how the many humanities types desperately try to steal terminology and respect from hard sciences to try and give their misguided enterprises some legitimacy.

[Darth Wong]

And that's perfectly acceptable. And it still does not prevent the fact that modern physics lacks any social relevance precisely because of its apparent need for a sort of hyper-objectivity, a total detachment from any context wherein it might prove itself more immediately useful.

Give me just ONE example of any technology which would have been invented more easily if its inventors understood the "context" of science instead of just its operating principles.

Does understanding or describing the universe have a use? No.

That's a rather ironic argument from a Greece-wanker. Do you think every Greek philosopher did what he did because he thought it would necessarily be of immediate use to anyone? Despite your claim to the contrary, people can and do study the universe just because they want to understand it. Your failure to recognize this is not my problem.

Understanding particular aspects of the universe is very useful: one needs to know about metabolism, for instance, to ensure a healthy lifestyle. Understanding superstring theory is far less useful. Even the incessant debates between evolutionists and creationists lacks any real meaning; nothing useful will come of it, and it's been so far removed from the field of public discourse by both parties that very few Christians (or atheists, for that matter) particularly care about it anymore.

Nonsense. The AIDS virus is a perfectly good example of why the evolution vs creation debate matters. Religious morons cling to the idea that God created it in order to punish mankind because they reject the idea that it could have simply arisen as a result of natural evolution, with no moral message implied.

I'm not talking about the Greek's rather odd tendency to extrapolate universals from particulars. I'm referring to the reasons why they undertook their intellectual tasks, which in my judgment is superior precisely because it does not aspire to objectivity or abstraction away from the socio-cultural level.

That is why they FAILED. Aristotle was WRONG. Galileo showed that. The Greek method FAILED. The modern empirical method has succeeded. For someone who tries to wank history, you're doing a poor job of demonstrating your grasp of it.

On the contrary, most of the absurd political machinations which we see in public life today are the direct result of a failure to adopt the strict intellectual rigour of science in favour of mushy "social context" and subjectivism.

Hardly. I need simply point to the various failures of 'scientific socialism' - it's a perfectly apt application of the scientific method (one of the first political ideologies centered around an empirical analysis of economics, in fact), and is just as flawed.

Wrong. It is a social movement, led by people who primarily studied the humanities in the 19th century, which attempted to gain credibility by co-opting the word "science" to its own ends. There was nothing scientific about it at all. Your problem is that you don't even know what science is, or how to differentiate pseudoscience from actual science.

Yet another statement you've simply pulled out of your ass.

Would you have chosen your particular career field if you knew you'd gain little to nothing from it?

I chose my career knowing that I could have probably made more money doing something else, like law. How do you explain that, moron?

The difference is that I can show how the hard sciences have immeasurably improved the human condition. Thousands of years of philosophy and humanities didn't do anywhere near as much for human society as running water and electricity.

I don't deny these, and they're direct applications of basic scientific principles. I have a much harder time swallowing the usefulness of much of modern astronomy, for instance, which does not directly pertain to the life of an individual.

Let me get this straight: your entire argument against the supremacy of science is that the more esoteric parts of it are less useful than the established parts of it ... and you say this in defense of Greek philosophy, which is almost totally useless in its entirety?

Name one practical everyday application for an education in Greek philosophy.

You're just a high-school kid with delusions of intellectualism.

Have I claimed otherwise?

Yes you have, by presuming to dictate what drives all scientists in their pursuits. You're talking way above your level of knowledge.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Give me just ONE example of any technology which would have been invented more easily if its inventors understood the "context" of science instead of just its operating principles.

You don't understand the approach I'm taking.

I'm a pragmatist of the Rortian persuasion I do not 'oppose' science, and I certainly respect the scientific method insofar as it applies to scientific practice. However, I feel that science needs always to have a useful end in sight. If it does not result in an advantage on the lived level, there's not much of a point in doing it - bellowing "Knowledge for the sake of knowledge!" is almost Romantic.

That's a rather ironic argument from a Greece-wanker. Do you think every Greek philosopher did what he did because he thought it would necessarily be of immediate use to anyone? Despite your claim to the contrary, people can and do study the universe just because they want to understand it. Your failure to recognize this is not my problem.

The Greeks were, above all, concerned with ethics. Platonism originated as an attempt to justify ethics on a metaphysical level; one had the Form of the Good, for instance, which was something to be looked up to and emulated, since one could never actually be Good (merely 'good'). I'm not "wanking" Greek philosophy; I'm quite admittedly wanking the reasons why the Greeks undertook it at all. Again, abstract speculation is precisely that.

Nonsense. The AIDS virus is a perfectly good example of why the evolution vs creation debate matters. Religious morons cling to the idea that God created it in order to punish mankind because they reject the idea that it could have simply arisen as a result of natural evolution, with no moral message implied.

The fringe Fundamentalists you describe are as far removed from the level of everyday discourse as the theoretical physicists. Nothing practically useful comes of it, and something harmful most certainly could, hence their alienation from the mainstream of society. I'm a rather hardline atheist, and there's very little difference between myself and several of my agnostic and theistic friends on a personal level.

That is why they FAILED. Aristotle was WRONG. Galileo showed that. The Greek method FAILED. The modern empirical method has succeeded. For someone who tries to wank history, you're doing a poor job of demonstrating your grasp of it.

I'm not suggesting we return to Platonism; on the contrary, I'm not a particular fan of it. I'm suggesting that the Greek scientific ethos - learn what is useful - be emulated; not their method.

Wrong. It is a social movement, led by people who primarily studied the humanities in the 19th century, which attempted to gain credibility by co-opting the word "science" to its own ends. There was nothing scientific about it at all. Your problem is that you don't even know what science is, or how to differentiate pseudoscience from actual science.

Wrong. Sociology is every much a science as physics or chemistry, even by your own standard ("coming to know the universe around us"). It analyses, postulates theories, and draws conclusions from observed evidence. Marxism is an empirical strain of sociology which, while proven erroneous, is no less scientific in methodology according to the paradigm by which it operates.

I chose my career knowing that I could have probably made more money doing something else, like law. How do you explain that, moron?

As a mistake.

Let me get this straight: your entire argument against the supremacy of science is that the more esoteric parts of it are less useful than the established parts of it ... and you say this in defense of Greek philosophy, which is almost totally useless in its entirety?

I'm not defending any aspect of Greek philosophy; I'm defending their reasons for undertaking it in the first.

Name one practical everyday application for an education in Greek philosophy.

See above.

*snip*

[Darth Wong]

I'm a pragmatist of the Rortian persuasion I do not 'oppose' science, and I certainly respect the scientific method insofar as it applies to scientific practice. However, I feel that science needs always to have a useful end in sight.

History proves you wrong. At the time they first began researching nuclear physics, no one could see a practical application of it.

The Greeks were, above all, concerned with ethics. Platonism originated as an attempt to justify ethics on a metaphysical level; one had the Form of the Good, for instance, which was something to be looked up to and emulated, since one could never actually be Good (merely 'good'). I'm not "wanking" Greek philosophy; I'm quite admittedly wanking the reasons why the Greeks undertook it at all. Again, abstract speculation is precisely that.

And the usefulness of this is ...?

The fringe Fundamentalists you describe are as far removed from the level of everyday discourse as the theoretical physicists.

Wrong. Nearly 50% of Americans believe in Biblical creationism. In every district where a gay marriage ban went on the polls in the last election, nearly 80% of the voters voted for it. It's not a fringe, and it's a predictable outcome of a society that does not understand the importance of a philosophical approach that dispenses with subjective nonsense.

Nothing practically useful comes of it, and something harmful most certainly could, hence their alienation from the mainstream of society. I'm a rather hardline atheist, and there's very little difference between myself and several of my agnostic and theistic friends on a personal level.

That is why they FAILED. Aristotle was WRONG. Galileo showed that. The Greek method FAILED. The modern empirical method has succeeded. For someone who tries to wank history, you're doing a poor job of demonstrating your grasp of it.

I'm not suggesting we return to Platonism; on the contrary, I'm not a particular fan of it. I'm suggesting that the Greek scientific ethos - learn what is useful - be emulated; not their method.

What part of "they failed" do you not understand, exactly? The modern scientific ethos has demonstrated its superiority to the ancient Greek method.

Wrong. It is a social movement, led by people who primarily studied the humanities in the 19th century, which attempted to gain credibility by co-opting the word "science" to its own ends. There was nothing scientific about it at all. Your problem is that you don't even know what science is, or how to differentiate pseudoscience from actual science.

Wrong. Sociology is every much a science as physics or chemistry, even by your own standard ("coming to know the universe around us"). It analyses, postulates theories, and draws conclusions from observed evidence. Marxism is an empirical strain of sociology which, while proven erroneous, is no less scientific in methodology according to the paradigm by which it operates.

Wrong. The fact that something wants to be a science does not mean it has actually achieved this status, and science is differentiated from pseudoscience by its methods, not its goals. Marxism NEVER employed scientific methods; if it did, then Marx would have looked for objective verification of his hypotheses, which he never did. In fact, you've got it completely ass-backwards: the failure of Marxism was characterized by Marx failing to employ the "ultra-objectivity" that you deride. And in fact, Marx himself had no background in science, having studied things like philosophy, law, politics, and history: precisely the things you think we should emphasize more.

I chose my career knowing that I could have probably made more money doing something else, like law. How do you explain that, moron?

As a mistake.

That's a pretty glib response to being proven wrong, asshole. The fact is that you are making statements about the motivations of adults, and you are woefully unqualified to do so.

Let me get this straight: your entire argument against the supremacy of science is that the more esoteric parts of it are less useful than the established parts of it ... and you say this in defense of Greek philosophy, which is almost totally useless in its entirety?

I'm not defending any aspect of Greek philosophy; I'm defending their reasons for undertaking it in the first.

Wrong. You are defending your asinine belief that public education needs to put more emphasis on it. Do you remember that assertion, which you made earlier in this thread and which I objected to?

Name one practical everyday application for an education in Greek philosophy.

See above.

Liar.

[ArcturusMengsk]

History proves you wrong. At the time they first began researching nuclear physics, no one could see a practical application of it.

John Dalton - who was the very first to give physics a scientific basis, as opposed to an alchemistic one - still hoped to discover a way to permutate elements, according to the biography of him by Sam Weisner. That this practical application couldn't possibly work is quite beside the point: Dalton's advances were still made in the hopes of having a goal to work towards.

And the usefulness of this is ...?

As a model.

Wrong. Nearly 50% of Americans believe in Biblical creationism. In every district where a gay marriage ban went on the polls in the last election, nearly 80% of the voters voted for it. It's not a fringe, and it's a predictable outcome of a society that does not understand the importance of a philosophical approach that dispenses with subjective nonsense.

You do the American people a great service by presuming any of them vote according to their ontological beliefs as opposed to their consciences.

What part of "they failed" do you not understand, exactly? The modern scientific ethos has demonstrated its superiority to the ancient Greek method.

Again, I'm not arguing methodology (i.e. empiricism vs. rationalism). I'm calling into question the usefulness of the objective paradigm as opposed to one without pretensions of being removed from the affairs of mortal man. The Greek model is precisely that - one alternative towards which we might look for a new understanding of the usefulness of science.

Wrong. The fact that something wants to be a science does not mean it has actually achieved this status, and science is differentiated from pseudoscience by its methods, not its goals. Marxism NEVER employed scientific methods;

The Hegelian dialectic. It's now outdated, of course, and proven to be erroneous, but it's still an accurate application within its paradigm.

if it did, then Marx would have looked for objective verification of his hypotheses, which he never did.

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.

In fact, you've got it completely ass-backwards: the failure of Marxism was characterized by Marx failing to employ the "ultra-objectivity" that you deride.

Again, the dialectic, which basically constituted the scientific method during the period. An erroneous methadology? Yes. But why? Because it aspired to a level of objectivity all out of proportions with human capacity.

*snip*

I haven't time for this anymore - so I'll concede every point to you.

[Darth Wong]

History proves you wrong. At the time they first began researching nuclear physics, no one could see a practical application of it.

John Dalton - who was the very first to give physics a scientific basis, as opposed to an alchemistic one - still hoped to discover a way to permutate elements, according to the biography of him by Sam Weisner. That this practical application couldn't possibly work is quite beside the point: Dalton's advances were still made in the hopes of having a goal to work towards.

And what does that have to do with all of the nuclear physics that was necessary to develop the atom bomb? What did it have to do with Einstein's research, for which no one could see any conceivable practical use?

And the usefulness of this is ...?

As a model.

Show how this model is useful.

You do the American people a great service by presuming any of them vote according to their ontological beliefs as opposed to their consciences.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? For these Americans, their consciences flow directly FROM their ontological beliefs.

Again, I'm not arguing methodology (i.e. empiricism vs. rationalism). I'm calling into question the usefulness of the objective paradigm as opposed to one without pretensions of being removed from the affairs of mortal man.

That usefulness has been proven through its success. Science only works BECAUSE of its empirical paradigm; all prior methods of understanding the universe have failed because of their failure to devalue the human intuitive factor.

The Greek model is precisely that - one alternative towards which we might look for a new understanding of the usefulness of science.

And it is a FAILED model.

[The Hegelian dialectic. It's now outdated, of course, and proven to be erroneous, but it's still an accurate application within its paradigm.

And what does that have to do with the "ultra-objectivism" that you reject? If Marx was more objective, he would have tested his theory rather than stating it as logical deduction. Once more: the fact that something has pretensions of being a science does not mean it actually is.

if it did, then Marx would have looked for objective verification of his hypotheses, which he never did.

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.

Explain how that is an objective verification of Marxist theories.

In fact, you've got it completely ass-backwards: the failure of Marxism was characterized by Marx failing to employ the "ultra-objectivity" that you deride.

Again, the dialectic, which basically constituted the scientific method during the period. An erroneous methadology? Yes. But why? Because it aspired to a level of objectivity all out of proportions with human capacity.

No, the Hegelian dialectic was not the scientific method, nor was it objective. That is just more handwaving on your part.

*snip*

I haven't time for this anymore - so I'll concede every point to you.

You're a cowardly little fuck who won't admit when he's got anything wrong. The crowning glory was you presuming to dictate what motivates every scientist on Earth, obviously without having bothered to ask any yourself. If anything, you've only proven that your ideas on education are obviously wrong, because you've so horribly misinterpreted everything you've tried to discuss.

[K. A. Pital]

The notion that fundamental science requires an immediate practical goal is ridiculous. It's even hard to argue with a person who suggests that.

What immediate practical goal do advances in theoretic mathematics or physics bring? And if they do not, but bring them much further down the line, when initial research has been conducted, why do you suggest returning to a paradigm which does NOT work for fundamental science and NEVER will, it will only work for applied science, and very narrow sectors of it?

[Darth Wong]

The notion that fundamental science requires an immediate practical goal is ridiculous. It's even hard to argue with a person who suggests that.

What immediate practical goal do advances in theoretic mathematics or physics bring? And if they do not, but bring them much further down the line, when initial research has been conducted, why do you suggest returning to a paradigm which does NOT work for fundamental science and NEVER will, it will only work for applied science, and very narrow sectors of it?

That's the problem with arguing against people who reject objectivity. The method you use in order to prove the superiority of objectivity (citing historical precedent of vastly superior performance) means nothing to them because they reject the whole idea of restricting your conclusions to those which follow from material evidence.

[ArcturusMengsk]

And what does that have to do with all of the nuclear physics that was necessary to develop the atom bomb? What did it have to do with Einstein's research, for which no one could see any conceivable practical use?

It shows all the science worth its while stems from an attempt to be useful in some fashion.

Show how this model is useful.

Because it grounds scientific analysis in concrete issues and directs its course towards solving them.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? For these Americans, their consciences flow directly FROM their ontological beliefs.

Hardly. Do you honestly think that any Fundamentalist has a real grasp of why they believe what they believe? Very few of them know what they believe at all. Their moral convictions are there; the foundations for them are lacking. By and large they have no ontological belief.

That usefulness has been proven through its success. Science only works BECAUSE of its empirical paradigm; all prior methods of understanding the universe have failed because of their failure to devalue the human intuitive factor.

And I don't disagree. Once again, I'm not disputing the value of empiricism. I'm trying to call into question its application.

And it is a FAILED model.

And I am not suggesting that we adopt it.

And what does that have to do with the "ultra-objectivism" that you reject? If Marx was more objective, he would have tested his theory rather than stating it as logical deduction. Once more: the fact that something has pretensions of being a science does not mean it actually is.

And again, it was an attempt to apply then-current scientific principles which only in hindsight have been revealed to be flawed. Science is paradigmatic; what constitutes science in one period is shamanism in another.

Explain how that is an objective verification of Marxist theories.

It isn't - but it is an attempt.

No, the Hegelian dialectic was not the scientific method,

At the time, logical deduction had replaced Lockean empiricism as the predominant methodology on the Continent.

nor was it objective.

No, it wasn't.

And I'm certain I've gotten many things wrong. You're quite obviously more intelligent than I am, and I am most probably wrong in this debate.

[K. A. Pital]

I like it when a high school kid says Locke is simplistic and the public education sucks because of that. Then he claims that Locke and the others he studied are wrong on everything without much justification except for his own subjective constructions.

I guess history indeed writes itself, that's just fucking gold. Arrogance combined with contept towards education, what can better describe a possible fundie.

[Darth Wong]

And what does that have to do with all of the nuclear physics that was necessary to develop the atom bomb? What did it have to do with Einstein's research, for which no one could see any conceivable practical use?

It shows all the science worth its while stems from an attempt to be useful in some fashion.

Wrong. Nobody could foresee any use for Einstein's work.

Show how this model is useful.

Because it grounds scientific analysis in concrete issues and directs its course towards solving them.

No, I mean show an EXAMPLE of a useful application of this model. I'm an engineer, and guess what: real-world applications of science do not transcend its emphasis on objectivity. In fact, engineering (which is the real-world application of science) is every bit as empirical and objective as science is.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? For these Americans, their consciences flow directly FROM their ontological beliefs.

Hardly. Do you honestly think that any Fundamentalist has a real grasp of why they believe what they believe? Very few of them know what they believe at all. Their moral convictions are there; the foundations for them are lacking. By and large they have no ontological belief.

Bullshit. Almost all of them will spout some pseudo-reasoning for their beliefs if pressed. The fact that it's not logically sound is no problem for them, just as the lack of logic in YOUR argument does not appear to be a problem for you.

And I don't disagree. Once again, I'm not disputing the value of empiricism. I'm trying to call into question its application.

I'm a licensed professional in the field of applying science, you idiot. The real-world application of science owes NOTHING to Greek philosophy.

And again, it was an attempt to apply then-current scientific principles which only in hindsight have been revealed to be flawed. Science is paradigmatic; what constitutes science in one period is shamanism in another.

Wrong. Even at the time, actual practicing scientists relied on experimental and observational verification. Marx did not.

No, the Hegelian dialectic was not the scientific method,

At the time, logical deduction had replaced Lockean empiricism as the predominant methodology on the Continent.

You're still confusing the popular period philosophies of non-scientists with the behaviour of actual scientists. Darwin worked at that time, and he knew perfectly well that you can't call it a science until you've got empirical evidence and a mechanism.

[Uraniun235]

I think if we're going to ban home-schooling on the grounds that it represents an unacceptably socially-controlled environment, we need to go the whole distance and ban private schooling as well for the same reasons.

You could go even farther, actually, since even public high school demographics are very sharply divided along economic, and by extension racial grounds. It quickly becomes a problem of just getting silly, but there's no immediately clear way that I can see to draw a principled distinction about how much the government should interfere in ensuring children are socialised.

Ever heard of 'bussing'?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

After reading the thread, I am having some understanding what he's even trying to say about Greek philosophy. I don't see the point of going back to and teaching the classics or the primary sources if you have adequate modern texts that instruct on the concepts originally begun by people in the past.

Personally, even if they aren't ancient sources, the average student can get a more comprehensive knowledge of the science subject from reading journals in combination with a secondary source, because it's more up-to-date and in less archaic prose that clutters learning.



Edit: on the subject of the Greeks, let's take Aristotle. One of the problems with his method was it was, like Plato's, too abstract. If he had simply tested some of his ideas with the most rudimentary of experiments, he would have known his idea were immediately wrong, but he didn't. He went through assumptions and lead himself to logical implications of unfounded assumptions. There are SOME texts and ideas by Aristotle that are useful, such as in ethics (perhaps some of the work on animals/plants), but it's hit and miss. A lot of the work would be superflous to "study" because its incorrect or out of date.

The Hellenistic period is far more important to the history of science than anything during the Polis period of Greece primarily because both the Hellenistics and the latter Romans were more involved in practical empiricism. During the Hellenistic period, infant science blossomed, but still...you wouldn't go back to those primary documents to understand current concepts, again because some were wrong and new secondary sources of the concepts begun then are more accurate. Just as you wouldn't study Euclid to understand aspects of modern geometry. Even from a modern perspective with Evolution, you would do better with a good secondary biology text than reading Darwin's original writings.



One problem with Humanities today is that they have been invaded by post-modernists, who have the sole intention of undermining modernism and the entire concept of knowledge in order to make money.

[Darth Wong]

After reading the thread, I am having some understanding what he's even trying to say about Greek philosophy. I don't see the point of going back to and teaching the classics or the primary sources if you have adequate modern texts that instruct on the concepts originally begun by people in the past.

In my experience, the point is simple: it's really easy to memorize names of whichever famous philosopher said something first. This allows stupid people to easily pretend they're intellectuals. It's far more difficult to actually grasp complex theoretical concepts; you usually need a good understanding of advanced mathematics and the ability to process abstract ideas. Just look at the way he mumbled and evaded when I challenged him to actually provide examples of the real-world applicability of his method; once he got past the name-dropping, he literally had nothing left.

In other words, our little high-school friend is a believer in the Jean-Luc Picard version of science: learn just enough about its history to sound like an intellectual, even though you couldn't actually perform the necessary calculations to save your life.