Sweet Jesus

[Zombie]

I don't watch Fox so I can't reply to this post, specifically. However, I have spoken with so many kids in college that seem completely brain-washed by their egomaniac professors. They are teaching theory as if it's their own baby and that it is factual beyond reproach. Okay, a bit of hyperbole there, but I have many times left a conversation with that feeling..

It isn't just fox news, I've many people use both terms and others like them derisively, although I'd imagine they are probably much further to the right than you are. I know what you mean about kids taking what their professors word as gospel, but I think much of that passes in time, and I think that tends to be overblown. Leading up to going to college I was constantly being reminded not to get indoctrinated, I don't recall that I ended up with any professors that wore their politics on their sleeves though. My politics may have changed after going to college (I voted Bush in '04), but I attribute that to getting different perspectives on life and getting out of a small town, not to getting my head stuffed full of ideas by left-wing intellectuals.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Conspiracy theory? This isn't a conspiracy. This is an obvious observation on the mentality of conservatives nowadays. Like Zombie said, watch FoxNews and other conservative media and you'll hear an attack on scientists, educated elites, intellectual professors, and such. This is one conspiracy you can verify yourself within the hour!

And by the way, your audience does NOT know best. Those who studied the subject for a good portion of their lives know best. This idea that some shmuck who doesn't know the difference between a log function and a log cabin gets a say on the validity of math is absurd. Just because someone happens to exist doesn't mean their personal pet theories are just as good as legitimate knowledge. But the very fact that I'm having to defend this shows how far we've fallen. So far down from the mid 20th century when the United States ruled the world through their intellectual achievement. So much science and technology, so much social progress, and so many contributions in every field imaginable. Back then, it was a child's dream to become an physics or an engineer or an astronautic. Now an intellectual is someone who wants to steal your kids and teach them all kinds of evil unamerican ways.

You've taken my statements so far out of context and are drifting so far from my intended conversation that I have to just stop or we have to start over. I've been pretty congenial here, so I admit it could be entirely my fault that my words were taken out of context.

Look how many people have been wrong in their theories/observations over the course of centuries. I love hearing the theories. I also put an awful lot of weight on someone that has dedicated their life to a subject. But I do not appreciate someone telling me the world is flat, as a fact, if they're merely hypothesizing. I appreciate the information, but I appreciate it even more when I feel I can listen to someone that can separate what they think they know from what is truly known.

Look, I'm not even talking about science .. I'm talking about analysis of social security, the welfare system, the needs for military spending, whatever..

I started the discussion in this thread from the standpoint and sadness that we the people are forced to second guess every single thing we're told .. in fact, we expect to be lied to. Most people I know don't wish to try to take the time anymore to get to the facts because the muck is so deep and it seems there is NO reliable source. Just one lie leading to the next.

 

[northeast]

I've also talked recently with a professor who got indignant at the implication that a college professor would ever teach any values to a student , because they would fear losing their job if they ever said anything that could be considered partisan.
All values are learned outside of the classroom, they have no involvement with that, according to her.

 

[Dr. Jones]

It isn't just fox news, I've many people use both terms and others like them derisively, although I'd imagine they are probably much further to the right than you are. I know what you mean about kids taking what their professors word as gospel, but I think much of that passes in time, and I think that tends to be overblown. Leading up to going to college I was constantly being reminded not to get indoctrinated, I don't recall that I ended up with any professors that wore their politics on their sleeves though. My politics may have changed after going to college (I voted Bush in '04), but I attribute that to getting different perspectives on life and getting out of a small town, not to getting my head stuffed full of ideas by left-wing intellectuals.

Good post. Hope you are right. I don't fear any particular party .. I only fear a body of voters that don't actually think for themselves .. however they may vote.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I've also talked recently with a professor who got indignant at the implication that a college professor would ever teach any values to a student , because they would fear losing their job if they ever said anything that could be considered partisan.
All values are learned outside of the classroom, they have no involvement with that, according to her.

Maybe it's a geographical thing. In the midwest and south it is definitely an everyday topic. Btw, I wasn't even talking politics specifically. Just more of a recklessness of fact vs. opinion.

 

[Zombie]

You've taken my statements so far out of context and are drifting so far from my intended conversation that I have to just stop or we have to start over. I've been pretty congenial here, so I admit it could be entirely my fault that my words were taken out of context.

Look how many people have been wrong in their theories/observations over the course of centuries. I love hearing the theories. I also put an awful lot of weight on someone that has dedicated their life to a subject. But I do not appreciate someone telling me the world is flat, as a fact, if they're merely hypothesizing. I appreciate the information, but I appreciate it even more when I feel I can listen to someone that can separate what they think they know from what is truly known.

Look, I'm not even talking about science .. I'm talking about analysis of social security, the welfare system, the needs for military spending, whatever..

I started the discussion in this thread from the standpoint and sadness that we the people are forced to second guess every single thing we're told .. in fact, we expect to be lied to. Most people I know don't wish to try to take the time anymore to get to the facts because the muck is so deep and it seems there is NO reliable source. Just one lie leading to the next.

I agree with much of this, I do however think the muck isn't as deep as it seems to be. Certainly, much of the media is happy to play along with the politicians and parrot the soundbites that sound oh so good, while the pundits spin and spin. However, we live in the information age, often the facts are out there people are just to lazy to go out and look for them. I mean, take the original post, the work out of welfare thing. There is something that is so blatantly false that it took me seconds to find out the deception when this was the new talking point a month ago. Yet there are probably millions of people out there who believe it.

 

[northeast]

I think she was being absurd.

 

[northeast]

There are hundreds of issues to research, and just one of them might require a lot of time and hard work from an intelligent person to get a handle on. Most people just do not have that time, ability , or inclination to master several subjects, let alone all of them, and will rely on experts , news, and public opinion to guide them , if they take any interest at all.

 

[Gameface]

I think we need more non-lawyers making our laws.

And more non-scientists making our science?

 

[Siro]

You've taken my statements so far out of context and are drifting so far from my intended conversation that I have to just stop or we have to start over. I've been pretty congenial here, so I admit it could be entirely my fault that my words were taken out of context.

Look how many people have been wrong in their theories/observations over the course of centuries. I love hearing the theories. I also put an awful lot of weight on someone that has dedicated their life to a subject. But I do not appreciate someone telling me the world is flat, as a fact, if they're merely hypothesizing. I appreciate the information, but I appreciate it even more when I feel I can listen to someone that can separate what they think they know from what is truly known.

Look, I'm not even talking about science .. I'm talking about analysis of social security, the welfare system, the needs for military spending, whatever..

I started the discussion in this thread from the standpoint and sadness that we the people are forced to second guess every single thing we're told .. in fact, we expect to be lied to. Most people I know don't wish to try to take the time anymore to get to the facts because the muck is so deep and it seems there is NO reliable source. Just one lie leading to the next.

I didn't mean to be a dick (well, not to you anyway). I'm just passionate like that.

But, you're missing my point. There is nothing wrong with someone doubting a theory or a hypothesis, no matter how scientific or established. Einstein's theory came from doubting Newton's ideas. But Einstein was a brilliant scientist who spent close to a decade studying the question and working out solutions. Through real scholarly intellectual scientific pursuit, he turned physics on its head, and overturned an entrenched idea hundreds of years old. And he was accepted by the "consensus" within a few years! That's because science does not care how established or entrenched an idea is. It only pursues the truth (ideally), with the best methods available. Sometimes we fall short, but more often we come up with good explanations.

Of course someone should tell your children how to think. How else would they learn? How would they maintain a world that was created through so much knowledge? Telling them how to think does not mean teaching them not to think. It means teaching them that knowledge is indeed acquirable, the methods used to acquire such knowledge, and its current state according to those who know it best.

This applies to soft science as well. It is perfectly acceptable for a professor to teach the students about the glory of communism. Or about how Christian values create the best cultures. With a strong education, students should know that such things are subjective opinions that they can accept or reject depending on how they view the criteria for the educator's judgment. Brain washing is not an issue to a person who knows how to evaluate and use knowledge. That's the beauty of legitimate scholarly pursuit. Nobody has to tell you anything! You can just look up everything yourself. If you doubt the findings, all you need to do is replicate the research.

I graduated from BYU. I swam in an ocean of conservative professors advocating conservative causes for 6 years. Look how full of conservative ideas my brain has become.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I didn't mean to be a dick (well, not to you anyway). I'm just passionate like that.

But, you're missing my point. There is nothing wrong with someone doubting a theory or a hypothesis, no matter how scientific or established. Einstein's theory came from doubting Newton's ideas. But Einstein was a brilliant scientist who spent close to a decade studying the question and working out solutions. Through real scholarly intellectual scientific pursuit, he turned physics on its head, and overturned an entrenched idea hundreds of years old. And he was accepted by the "consensus" within a few years! That's because science does not care how established or entrenched an idea is. It only pursues the truth (ideally), with the best methods available. Sometimes we fall short, but more often we come up with good explanations.

Of course someone should tell your children how to think. How else would they learn? How would they maintain a world that was created through so much knowledge? Telling them how to think does not mean teaching them not to think. It means teaching them that knowledge is indeed acquirable, the methods used to acquire such knowledge, and its current state according to those who know it best.

This applies to soft science as well. It is perfectly acceptable for a professor to teach the students about the glory of communism. Or about how Christian values create the best cultures. With a strong education, students should know that such things are subjective opinions that they can accept or reject depending on how they view the criteria for the educator's judgment. Brain washing is not an issue to a person who knows how to evaluate and use knowledge. That's the beauty of legitimate scholarly pursuit. Nobody has to tell you anything! You can just look up everything yourself. If you doubt the findings, all you need to do is replicate the research.

I graduated from BYU. I swam in an ocean of conservative professors advocating conservative causes for 6 years. Look how full of conservative ideas my brain has become.

I don't agree with all that you have written here, but agree enough that most of our differences are found in semantics.

 

[northeast]

And more non-scientists making our science?

very different, I would not expect you to understand.

 

[Dr. Jones]

There are hundreds of issues to research, and just one of them might require a lot of time and hard work from an intelligent person to get a handle on. Most people just do not have that time, ability , or inclination to master several subjects, let alone all of them, and will rely on experts , news, and public opinion to guide them , if they take any interest at all.

That's the 2nd time I've agreed with you today. Either you're getting smarter or I'm getting dumber.

 

[franklin]

To speak pejoratively on both of these parties' apparent styles:

Republicans never changing sides could mean not adapting to the times. Currently, our gay and lesbian friends need to be equally as empowered as the heterosexual community. Republicans are having a very hard time doing that.

Democrats being flexible and changing could mean being "wishy-washy," or worse, molding to the whims of the zeitgeist. Someone once told me, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." This is true, but it's in the eye of the beholder to determine what it means to stand for something.

Do you stand for traditions, culture norms, or dogmatic hand-me-downs, just because they have "stood the test of time?" Or, do you seek to understand how current cultural vestiges are depriving minority groups of an equal chance to succeed in a society that is in place because those in power created it this way?

Being a fiscal conservative is wise, in the sense that being a frugal family means buying only what you truly need. However, the USA is one of the largest, most culturally heterogeneous countries in world history, and humanity has yet to experiment with such a mixture of ideals, backgrounds, and the compounding factor of instant communicative technology. Summarily, social conservatism is rending the fabric of the nation from the top (that's some biblical **** fo' yo' ***).


PS: I'm way hopped up on goofballs.

Solid response & defense. I think this is the first time I've seen you make a serious post.

The main issues I disagree with the conservative platform are LGBT, abortion, & tax policy. Coincidentally, the issues I disagree with the liberal platform are tax policy, abortion, & LGBT.

We are facing a crisis in education as students learn less and less in school. And yes, that includes science and math education. You know? That concept that created the modern world and gave us all those nifty things we have today like the internet and medicine? There is a systematic and intentional campaign on knowledge and scholarly achievement, designed specifically to disarm the public and maintain the status quo.

You're buying into the same type of hype that you're accusing others of promoting. The alleged issues with education are as overblown as any of the other talking points being ping ponged around these days.



& I can't rep your Newton post because our commie dictator has broken the system. I think you're wrong that higher education doesn't support the subjective thinking ideals you seem to be saying it no longer does though.

 

[Dr. Jones]

OT: Was just listening to more of the same about some dude in Mizzuruh.

9.1% unemployment next year? Deep recession next year? Fourth year of $1+ trillion added to the deficit? But go right ahead and keep talking about a stupid *** Akin to deflect from the real problems.

 

[Siro]

& I can't rep your Newton post because our commie dictator has broken the system. I think you're wrong that higher education doesn't support the subjective thinking ideals you seem to be saying it no longer does though.

Okay, I was doing my pre-sleep reading when the notification of a response popped up. So I'll keep it short.

Perhaps higher education is still in a good shape, I have heard the arguments for both sides, and I'm not taking a position on the quality of higher education. I am talking about the culture of education. There is strong anti-education sentiment within the conservative movement (mostly). There is a large and vocal group that systematically attacks scholarly types and pursuits. Even on these very forums, I have several arguments a day where I have to convince a bunch of people that modern science is NOT a plot to steal their money.

This certainly was not the case a few decades ago, when intellect and education was held in high regard across much of mainstream culture. Are you telling me things have always been this way? Are you saying this is just a case of selective bias? I find that very hard to swallow.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Not saying you are wrong, Siro, but it seems ridiculous that conservatives are anti-education. I could certainly see certain ideals within a group of scholars coming under disagreement, but to wholesale the idea that the GOP is attempting to keep/make Americans dumb is too far-fetched for me.

I would love to see a link to anything that suggests anyone is attacking scholarly pursuits in general. Like I said, though, I'm certain some specific pursuits may come under fire..

This just seems absurd to me.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Also, even though I am;

a) From Kentucky (though living in UT)
b) Evangelical
c) Slanted conservative

I find it embarrassing and quite stupid that politicians in Kentucky are attempting to remove the theory of evolution from the classrooms. They say it is only a theory and should not be discussed as science. That is extremely short-sighted and intellectually bankrupt (whether you believe in evolution or not). I believe in creationism, but find it incredibly backward to try to protect Jesus from the mean professors.

 

[babe]

Also, even though I am;

a) From Kentucky (though living in UT)
b) Evangelical
c) Slanted conservative

I find it embarrassing and quite stupid that politicians in Kentucky are attempting to remove the theory of evolution from the classrooms. They say it is only a theory and should not be discussed as science. That is extremely short-sighted and intellectually bankrupt (whether you believe in evolution or not). I believe in creationism, but find it incredibly backward to try to protect Jesus from the mean professors.

Well, I can see this as an intelligent reaction to the politicization of symbolic issues derived from some popular misconceptions of science.

But it really runs both ways: a century of zealous ideological anti-religious professors trying to "save" students from Jesus has reaped a rather massive popular rejection among folks who just want freedom to be religious, symbolically if not rationally. It makes some demagogues just froth at the mouth. . . . and raise the rhetoric. . . .

probably popular religion is no better than popular science, but perhaps it is just as true turned the other way. There's no way the mass populace can be all that educated, and still do the work it takes to live. We all have to do a lot of symbolic allegiance to commonplace comfortable notions. "progressives" who are ardent enough about their ideals are in many ways just like religious missionaries trying to save mankind from some imagined Hell. And are, sometimes, just as wrong.

I'm quite impressed that there are enough people in this sports forum who can give the issues a real run and cover so much information applicable to the debate.

putting ideas like individual human rights vs the greater good for mankind (as seen by a professional class of brahmins) into play in politics is something I see going on all over our discussions. If humans don't have the "right" to be wrong, or stupid, or uninformed, or sentimental, or irrational. . . . we indeed have lost all of our rights.

That's why I often come down on the side of just taking these "issues" out of the political process and try to say everyone should be respected in their chosen current opinions. It makes for more freedom to accept better ideas, by the way.

 

[Dr. Jones]

It makes for more freedom to accept better ideas, by the way.

Or to simply be duped .. at an escalating rate.