[Squeakland] the non universals

[Bill Kerr]

hi mark,

> Physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson made a very good argument against
entertaining ID in science classes. He said the danger of bringing in the
idea that an intelligent designer created what we see in our world is it
precludes discovery ...


That is a powerful argument, I agree. What I'm saying is that the whole ID
debate could be used to make that point, to elaborate on what science is ...
and that it would be better to have that debate in science class rather than
arbitrarily ban such a discussion. I agree that there ought to be limits,
that ID could not be made a permanent part of science class discussion. Just
that it's better to be flexible than dogmatic about these matters.

A lot of what you are saying makes me think of this focus question:

What do enlightened minorities do? In this case those who understand the
importance of but the overall socially marginalised position of the non
universals?

One such response is the development of etoys and the whole OLPC project.
This illustrates that enlightened minorities can often do quite a lot. One
thing about projects like the OLPC is that they always attract a lot of
support and new people step forward to help out.

Another different type of example is the Sokal hoax against post modernism,
a parody of the political correctness you mention. Sometimes these things
seem all pervasive but a creative / imaginative intervention can turn things
around.

I think there is a rich history and analysis of enlightened minority
positions making inroads into mainstream unenlightened positions. Although,
often it goes the other way, it's an ongoing struggle. It can be frustrating
but I see grounds for optimism. One thing we can do and which you do on your
blog is to study and promote some of this history, eg. your blog about
'great moments in modern computer history'
http://tekkie.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/great-moments-in-modern-computer-history/

cheers,
-- 
Bill Kerr
http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/



On 9/5/07, mmille10 at comcast.net <mmille10 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "Bill Kerr" <billkerr at gmail.com>
> > Mark Miller wrote:
> >
> >> Over the decades there's been a tearing down of authority. Now it's
> expected
> >> it will be distributed rather than narrowly focused, at least in more
> >> "liberal" environments (forgive my use of a political term). It seems
> like
> >> these are exercises in egalitarianism, where that's the primary value,
> >> rather than merit of the subject matter, because after all, who's to
> say one
> >> subject is more important than the other? By what authority do you
> claim one
> >> subject is worth less than another? In an environment where the "gods"
> have
> >> been torn down, seen as flawed and not worth listening to because their
> >> motives are suspect, everybody is a "god"
> >
> > I think that's an accurate description of what has been happening in
> formal
> > education in Australia and probably the "west". In the name of
> > egalitarianism in government schools in Australia the curriculum is
> being
> > watered down. One effect of this has been a migration of some of the
> best
> > students from government schools to private schools. So something done
> in
> > the name of equal outcomes ends up having the opposite impact.
> >
> > The thing I like about Alan's non universals list is that it is a valid
> > attempt to suggest that some knowledge might be more important than
> other
> > knowledge. This is based on scientific anthropological evidence. The
> > egalitarian assumption (and it is an assumption more than an argument)
> that
> > all curriculum areas ought to be equal is hard to change - it has become
> > institutionalised. But it's valuable to have a counter argument that is
> more
> > than just an assertion or a bald belief.
>
> Another aspect I forgot to mention about this trend is there's this idea
> among
> those who are more ideologically driven that there should be no judgement
> about
> anything. So if you're bringing in ideas that require judgement you may
> run into
> resistance. Unfortunately there are some who care so much about advancing
> the ethics of tolerance and non-judgement that they're drawn to
> absolutist,
> almost militant positions rooted in the universals. They miss some of the
> reasons why intolerance was able to flourish in the past, and I've
> found that in fact they repeat some of the same behavior patterns as those
> they
> say they despise, just with different criteria for discrimination. So
> unfortunately you may be faced with an intractible problem because you're
> dealing with people who probably don't have an appreciation for the
> non-unversals to begin with. I wish I could give advice for how to deal
> with
> this mentality, but I've only seen this in people. I haven't had to deal
> with
> them.
>
> > Other parts of your post indicate that there is an endless stream of
> > proposals which superficially might sound like "good ideas" (computer
> > literacy, vocational training, emotional intelligence) but which in all
> > likelihood just tap into the more mainstream universals thinking. Once
> > again, for me, the non universals list provide a coherent rallying point
> to
> > resist this sort of thing.
>
> I personally liked it when they were promoting programming as "computer
> literacy", and from reading Mark Guzdial's blog it looks like that idea
> might be
> returning, now in a broader context. I'd like to think that programming at
> least
> provided some lessons in the non-universals, though I'm sure that
> wasn't the intent for bringing it in. In reality schools behaved as if
> they were
> part of a "cargo cult", as I've seen some people use the term. They were
> swept
> up by the idea that "this is the next big thing and we don't want to be
> left
> behind". Schools are not the only places where this happens. It happens in
> business as well. The whole dot-com boom and bust was a "cargo cult" writ
> large.
> It's a pattern that's been repeated over and over. The same thing happened
> with
> toll roads and railroads in the U.S. in the 19th century. What always
> happens is
> a practical context eventually emerges from the "cargo cult" once people
> sober
> up from their mania. This is always preceded by an economic crash.
> Eventually
> these technologies are used in a meaningful way. Since there's apparently
> a
> symbiotic relationship between schools and industry, it's understandable
> though unfortunate that schools end up getting caught in this. The thing
> is if
> they didn't they'd be accused of teaching students "useless knowledge", or
> not
> promoting progress and meeting trends. I used to think this way. I knew
> others who did as well. There's a certain practicality about it. If you're
> just trying to make a living it can seem like there's little point in
> trying to
> become enlightened. It's easier to try to swim in the same waters as
> everyone else, because it seems like this will open up the largest number
> of opportunities for you. There's comfort in numbers. The practical ethic
> is
> that enlightenment is for those who have the time (and money) for it, or
> for
> those who are smart and can "get it" quickly. Since most high school
> students do not go on to college (at least in the U.S.), the practical
> ethic
> probably holds sway most  of the time.
>
> I know our present situation is not nearly as precarious, but this reminds
> me a
> bit of the mindset of the Middle Ages. Despite the illiteracy of common
> folk and
> leaders of countries, Charlemagne was someone who thought differently and
> recognized the value of literacy and education, despite his own
> circumstances
> and that of his people. I haven't heard an explanation yet on why. I might
> investigate that sometime. He learned to read, and set about setting up
> schools
> for the populace, though as I understand his campaign to promote education
> didn't last long because of other disruptions. The impression I get is
> this
> probably mystified a lot of people of the time. It would've been seen as
> frivolous, having no practical value. Today we see this action on his part
> as
> enlightened.
>
> I think the idea of emotional intelligence is coming out of a managerial
> ethos.
> People have been picking up on the idea since the 1990s (that's when I
> first
> noticed it, anyway) that the way things are shaping up is that the U.S.
> will no
> longer be a place where stuff is made, but rather where ideas are created,
> and
> then turned into tangible products elsewhere. In short, "the rest of the
> world
> will produce, and we will manage that process". That's the idea anyway. I
> don't
> know how well it will pan out, and I personally don't endorse it. I like
> the
> idea that we make stuff here as well as around the world. But to take this
> managerial argument to its logical conclusion, IMO you need some
> technical intelligence to come up with feasible ideas for products to
> begin with, unless all you want to have is executive management that
> just allocates resources and that's the only domain in which you
> expect innovation to take place. Basically if you're going to become a
> global "management society" (if that's the goal), then you need people who
> can work well with other people, here and in other cultures, and
> inspire and lead to get things done--emotional intelligence (though I'd
> just
> call it by its common name: social skills)--along with the logistical
> skills.
> The problem is I don't see quite where schools fit into this. They can
> teach the
> logistical skills, and knowledge about other cultures, but they're not
> configured to "teach" social skills. That skill is inculcated most
> effectively
> in the family, IMO.
>
> > One of the things I lament about the U.S. public school system is it's
> > > becoming increasingly politicized in the sense that teachers are
> literally
> > > bringing political topics into classrooms where they don't fit well
> ....
> >
> >
> >
> > I disagree  with you on  the 3 paragraphs beginning with the above. Say,
> > take intelligent design. My feeling is that rather than banning it, it
> would
> > be better to debate it. This sharpens up peoples understanding of the
> > issues.
> >
> > The real problem here I think is lack of democracy in schools. ie. a
> teacher
> > may express a poltical view and students feel they don't have the right
> to
> > contradict it. I feel that we need to learn to debate and argue better
> and
> > this takes practice!
>
> The supporters of the teaching methods I described previously (I hesitate
> to use
> the word "method", because I don't really see a purpose to it, but some
> people
> do) say that this sort of "dialogue" between teachers and high school
> students
> "promotes debate". The examples I've heard about do not promote debate.
> They're
> more like class lectures with the teacher rambling on about their POV on
> the
> world, and not very intelligently at that. I've heard people compare this
> to the
> Socratic method, which strains believability and insults people's
> intelligence
> (the comparison, that is). I don't mean to equate this to germane
> discussions
> that fit within the context of the subject being taught, and there's a
> give and
> take between teachers and students. As I said in an earlier posting on the
> Squeakland list, when done well it can be a valuable learning experience.
>
> I haven't heard of any heavy handed intimidation with teachers and
> students in high schools. I have heard of an unsettling number of
> instances
> of this at universities, in the arts and humanities, where political
> correctness stifles healthy discussions. In these settings it seems more
> like
> attempts at indoctrination than education, which is a real shame, not only
> because they take the approach of shoving an ideology down students'
> throats and
> call it "critical thinking" (they use this canard as well), rather than
> conveying knowledge and encouraging academic investigation of it, but also
> it's
> a big waste of money. College is not cheap.
>
> I used to entertain the idea of ID being discussed in biology. While I
> don't
> mind its existence being mentioned, I've changed my mind about it going
> further
> than that. Physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson made a very good argument against
> entertaining ID in science classes. He said the danger of bringing in the
> idea
> that an intelligent designer created what we see in our world is it
> precludes
> discovery. If a designer made what we see then there's no reason to
> explore
> it, because the cause of the phenomenon's existence, structure, and
> other properties have already been determined. He concluded with a
> concept I had never heard before, but I think it puts science in its
> proper
> context: Science is a philosophy of discovery. So anything that says
> "we cannot explore this, because we already know the answer" has no
> place in this philosophy. He emphasized that this does not mean that
> people's faith in a higher power is invalid. It just means it has no place
> in a scientific context, and it seemed to me that by defining science as
> a philosophy he implied that it did not have a monopoly on the truth
> either. It's a method of discovering things about us and our world, which
> produces knowledge that is consistent and reliable. Unfortunately I can't
> reproduce exactly what he said here, but I thought his argument was so
> good that
> there was no disputing it.
>
> You might ask why not have this discussion in biology, since it would
> clarify
> the issue. I think once you open it up for discussion you introduce a
> dynamic
> where no matter how well reasoned the argument is there will be some who
> will
> choose to not agree with it, because they feel it challenges their faith,
> and
> this can be disruptive. What I used to hear happened at the high school I
> attended was when a science class got into subjects that fundamentally
> disagreed
> with students' faith, they were free to leave the classroom while that
> subject
> was being covered, and could come back in later. This expressed their
> dissent,
> and they could choose not to be present for ideas that they fundamentally
> disagreed with, but it did not open the subject up for non-scientific
> debate.
> This seems like a reasonable policy to me for science courses. If students
> want
> to bring up anomalies in the theory of evolution, fine, but I don't think
> it's
> appropriate to set up a situation where you get into a discussion of
> whether
> something supernatural created what we see or if it came about through
> random
> interactions. Save that for existential philosophy.  There are other
> outlets for
> this as well, such as literature, art, and perhaps religious studies.
>
> You might ask why treat science courses differently than others? I think
> that
> science is unique with respect to religion, because both attempt to
> explain in
> their own way why things are the way they are. Some would say science
> explains
> more about *how* things are than why, and there's some truth to that.
> There's
> no rhyme or reason for it except what is self-evident. Religion uses
> methods
> that fit in the universals category, magical and intuitive, for explaining
> these
> things. Science uses methods that fit in the non-universals category. Not
> to
> say that this encompasses all that religion is. It promotes some
> non-universals, like reading, obviously, and it promotes some aspects of
> civilization, like following a set of laws, and social harmony, foregoing
> one's
> own interests for the greater good. These aspects of it were far more
> valuable
> in Medieval times when illiteracy and chaos were rampant, but I don't
> think it
> should be taken for granted today. It's natural for children up to about
> age 7
> to exist entirely in the universals. I'm just speculating, but religion
> may very
> well provide a vital bridge for children so they can transition from the
> universals to the non-universals.
>
> ---Mark
> mmille10 at comcast.net
> http://tekkie.wordpress.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://squeakland.org/pipermail/squeakland/attachments/20070906/670ee979/attachment-0001.htm