Diversity of Everything but Thought

Foxfyre wrote:

we (those who support the thesis) at least have provided data and testimony from informed opinion.
.

data from opinion?

I don't know where you were educated, but that isn't acceptable at any university I've gone to.

I originally came here to read because you had an interesting idea - however, you haven't been able to back up that idea with proof/hard evidence.

So at this point what we can conclusively say is, "FF had an idea."

Full stop.

0 Replies

Okay the syntax was awkward ehBeth. So sue me.
We presented scientific data AND we presented testimony from informed opinion.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

To Lola: The studies/polls we posted indicating a strong Democrat and/or leftish tilt on university campuses were presented as scientifically done. The informed opinion came from educators and others in a position to have done the research as to the implications of the studies. The former you could say is scientific. The latter is not.

So if you have any data that disputes the studies that have been done re the political affiliation and/or ideology of academic faculties, that would be really good to post.

If you have informed opinion from academics or people with access to research that disputes the informed opinion we have presented, that would also be really good to post.

Bear in mind that our 'expert witnesses' cited studies and verifiable accounts of incidences of bias or excessive emphasis on leftish curriculum or points of view. I do not consider anybody an 'expert witness' (or credible) who can only insult, make derogatory aspersions, or just say bullshit but has no data or first hand knowledge to bring to the discussion.

Oh dear........

0 Replies

Evidence of what, exactly, FF?

I think most posters agree that there are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in the population of U.S. academics.

That doesn't extrapolate into up or down or left or right or to or fro - without further evidence of something.

~~~~~~~~

So, what exactly were you trying to prove?

(is it different from the 'intent' you posted earlier in the thread?)

0 Replies

Fox

Quote:

At this time I will concede that we have not made a conclusive case to support the thesis but we (those who support the thesis) at least have provided data and testimony from informed opinion.

Thanks, that's all I needed to hear.

I would suggest that everyone else BM this post as I have done, as it is, to me, the penultimate post in our conversation; the final, begrudging, acceptance of the failure of the initial thesis due to lack of evidence. You knew this in your heart a hundred pages ago....

I applaud the fact that you presented a thesis at all, Fox; I even welcome further discussion of your thesis if you can provide logic or factual data with which to further said thesis. You may be able to find a long post by me stating many different ways in which you could provide said evdience and even places to start looking for it.

Kudos

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lola writes

Quote:

I'm confused. Are we to present "data and testimony from informed opinion" or are we to present evidence as in scientific fact? I know of no studies addressing this subject. Do you?

If you can find data to dispute the results of the scientifcally produced studies re political affiliation and/or ideology of university faculties that we posted, that would be great.

If you can find informed opinion from academics or persons who have done the research that dispute the informed opinion of our 'expert witnesses', that would also be great.

Bear in mind I do not consider an informed opinion to be one that uses purely opinion to dispute the thesis just because they don't want to believe it. An informed opinion has to be more than simply insulting the viewpoint or opinions of the other side. A Paul Krugman piece posted sometime back on this thread, for instance, was very well written and did provide a different direction to look at; i.e. conservatives do not WANT to teach at the university level. His reasons for why that phenomenon might exist however, were unconvincing and unsupported. And even if he is right, it does not change the fact that there is a lack of diversity; nor does it dispute that such lack of diversity extrapolates into an intolerance for diversity of thought.

0 Replies

It has been pointed out time and again that the "scientifically produced studies" to which you allude were not at all scientifically produced, lacking valid points of comparison, based upon false assumptions, and lacking statistical significance. But i'm sure that won't stop you from continuing to make such false assertions, it hasn't stopped you so far.

0 Replies

Well if you can show that a Gallup poll was not produced by scientifically accepted processes, go for it Setanta.

0 Replies

? My problem isn't that they are unscientific, just that they don't relate to the thesis at all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Your Gallup poll did not prove your thesis--the one claim you have made for a study which proves your thesis was the paper done by the doctoral students, which was riddled with faulty method.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well KW, Ican did say he didn't have access to the book which I took to mean he didn't have the book, and thus he would not have access to any passages other than those on Amazon.com to which he referred us.

True, but Ican only siad that days after he
A) said that Blatham's quoted passages were being misinterpreted, which would imply that he at one time hasd to have possission of the book long enough to actually read it.

B) Said that he would supply the passages in question but his transcription would not be believed.

Only days after he said that did he say that he actually didn't have the book in his possession.

Sounds fishy.

Even if Ican did not have the book handy, you would think he could point to specific parts in the book where Horowitz says that Republicans must take the high road, not the low road in answer to the alleged low road taken by Democrats. Ican hasn't done that, either.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well KW, Ican did say he didn't have access to the book which I took to mean he didn't have the book, and thus he would not have access to any passages other than those on Amazon.com to which he referred us.

True, but Ican only said that days after he:

A) said that Blatham's quoted passages were being misinterpreted, which would imply that Ican at one time had to have possession of the book long enough to actually read it.

B) Said that he would supply the refuting passages in question but his transcription would not be believed.

Only days after he said that did he say that he actually didn't have the book in his possession.

Sounds fishy.

Even if Ican did not have the book handy, you would think he could point to specific parts in the book where Horowitz says that Republicans must take the high road, not the low road in answer to the alleged low road taken by Democrats. Ican hasn't done that, either.

0 Replies

I know you passionately believe your perception is accurate KW. Maybe it is. For now I'm going to stick to mine until new information is available.

0 Replies

New information implies that you had information in the past--as opposed to what was, simply, biased opinion.

0 Replies

I don't think this piece from the WSJ has been posted. If it has, apologies. If it hasn't, here's a bit more grist for the mill.

Excerpts:

Quote:

Some moderate voices are raising the alarm over the problem. A Nov. 9 staff-written editorial in the Columbia Spectator, the mainstream student newspaper at New York's Columbia University, called for a greater range of views on campus. "In all other areas of campus life, students do not hesitate to call for diversity," the editorial said in pointing out the complete absence of conservatives from history, philosophy and humanities departments. "It should be self-evident that a faculty that speaks with unanimity on some of the most divisive issues of the day is not fulfilling its duty. Students across the ideological spectrum must demand that Columbia address this need."

The Spectator editorial comes at a time when several Jewish students are charging that they have been intimidated by anti-Israel professors. Several of the students told their stories in a new 25-minute film, "Columbia Unbecoming," produced by the Boston-based David Project. Student Ariel Berry says that Prof. Joseph Massad told students that "the Palestinian is the new Jew, and the Jew is the new Nazi." Columbia alumna Lindsay Shrier said Prof. George Saliba told her, "You have no claim to the land of Israel. You have no voice in this debate. You have green eyes. You're not a Semite. I have brown eyes. I am a Semite."

Such incidents have led both the New York Sun and Rep. Andrew Weiner, a Brooklyn Democrat, to call for dramatic reforms on Columbia's campus. This month, Lee Bollinger, Columbia's president, asked the university's provost to investigate the claims made in the film, partially backpedaling from a statement he had made in May supporting the findings of a university committee that found no evidence of "systematic bias" in Columbia classrooms.

and

Quote:

Furthermore, a new national study by Swedish sociologist Charlotta Stern and Santa Clara University economist Daniel Klein found that in a random national sample of 1,678 responses from university professors Democratic professors outnumber Republicans 3 to 1 in economics. 28 to 1 in sociology and 30 to 1 in anthropology. Their findings will be published in Academic Questions, the journal of the National Association of Scholars.

The whole piece is here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110005928

0 Replies

Excuse me, Fox. I would take the time to look back on all the pages of this thread to find these studies or surveys you've mentioned, but I'm drastically over booked. I did return to page one again and re-read the George Will piece. He refers to "some studies" and "another study" but does not name these studies or the organizations that conducted them, other than the magazine of The American Enterprise Institute, which is a Scaiffe funded organization.

If there is a page on which these studies have been named so that we can look at their methodology and make up our own minds whether or not it stands up to scientific standards, please post those pages. Or if you know the exact name of these studies, please post. I really don't have time to search. But since you say you and others have posted this information, maybe you can just repost it so we can go from here.

The information provided by George Will gives us few clues. He says, "One study of 1,000 professors finds that Democrats out number Republicans at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences." But he doesn't mention, that I can find, which 1,000 professors from which universities on what day in what year, etc. He goes on to say, "that imbalance, more than double what it was three decades ago, is intensifying because younger professors are more uniformly liberal than the older cohort that is retiring," but he doesn't say what his source is for this information, whether it's included in the "one study" to which he's referring or if this information is from another unnamed source.

He goes on to say, "Another study, of voter-registration records, including those of professors in engineering and the hard sciences, found nine Democrats for every Republican at Berkeley and Stanford. Among younger profs, there were 183 Democrats, six Republicans." Here he does say that the voter registration records were for professors at Berkeley and Stanford, but he still doesn't name his source. I should point out that Berkeley and Stanford are hardly representative of all universities in this country and the oft repeated point that a professor's political party (on registration) tells us nothing about what or how that professor teaches in the classroom.

He goes on to say, "but we essentially knew this even before The American Enterprise magazine reported in 2002 of examinations of voting records in various college communities. Some findings about professors registered with the two major parties or with liberal or conservative minor parties:

Cornell: 166 liberals, 6 conservatives.

Stanford: 151 liberals, 17 conservatives.

Colorado: 116 liberals, 5 conservatives. "

This tells us that The American Enterprise Magazine reported in 2002 that there were some examinations of voting records in "various" college communities. He does not mention who examined these voting records, what their methodology was or which college communities are included in the "various." It tells us further that "some findings" about registered professors reveal the data listed. But he doesn't tell us about the other findings or of what percentage of the findings his reported data represent from The American Enterprise Magazine's reporting about some examinations of various college communities. You can see that this data falls hugely short of anything resembling scientific data or of anything remotely resembling objective data. And he also doesn't mention how "we already essentially knew" this before the American Enterprise Magazine reported it.

Anyone can post articles about "some examinations of various college communities" and what "we already essentially knew." But it informs us not at all about anything other than the writer's opinion. And we are well informed at this point about your opinion and that of George Will.

Is there more you have offered? If so, please repost it. And we can proceed.

Thank you.

0 Replies

Personally, i know far, far more about the opinions of Fox and Mr. Will than i ever cared to learn . . .

0 Replies

Lola writes

Quote:

Is there more you have offered? If so, please repost it. And we can proceed.

Yes, there are specific studies cited in the thread but I'm working and don't have time to research the thread either. If I can find Brandy, she did recently read the thread and I know she copied some links. I'm hoping she copied the ones containing the studies.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Lola writes

Quote:
Is there more you have offered? If so, please repost it. And we can proceed.

Yes, there are specific studies cited in the thread but I'm working and don't have time to research the thread either. If I can find Brandy, she did recently read the thread and I know she copied some links. I'm hoping she copied the ones containing the studies.

Thank you Fox. I would appreciate some help.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Only for those who already have their minds made up ehBeth. But if you have data or hard evidence to dispute the data and evidence presented in support of the thesis, by all means go for it. At this time I will concede that we have not made a conclusive case to support the thesis but we (those who support the thesis) at least have provided data and testimony from informed opinion.

The opposition so far has at times scathingly, insultingly, excoriatingly denounced the thesis andor those presenting the data and evidence, but have provided very little otherwise to dispute it.

So, in interest of acheiving diversity of thought in the exercise, why don't those of you condemning the thread (though you return again and again to it) put your evidence up there?

I will even stick my neck out and speak for other supporters of the thesis that you will be given a fair hearing.

But present it as fact; not opinion, so we can properly request any necessary supporting documentation for it.

OK Fox, you like published data, hard facts and such but while you may ask for your facts to be accepted I respectfully submit that you have to entertain a few questions. After all, at one time we all knew the world was flat. So with this in mind I ask that you entertain the following

How exactly do we "KNOW" the voter registration of university professors? Are they required to indicate it on their job application, does the university routinely (say every election year) scour voter registration sites to determine if some rogue professor has strayed from the "Democrat" Party? (OK, I'm taking a leap of faith here and assuming that Horowitz does not think anyone registered as an Independent could ever lean a little left). What about this, since the Professors are potentially such partisan hacks, maybe they will all start to register as "Republicans" to divert suspicion. Kind of like convicted killers, et al., in prison finding God and hoping this will provide them the means to return to polite society.

Now when it comes to "informed opinion", we have all seen where that has led us in recent years. It didn't start with Bush, it goes all the way back to when the wall came down in Germany and the Politicians saw a wonderful opportunity to cut spending for the Military and Intelligence and use the money elsewhere. Every single President from Reagan and every new session of the Congress were anxious to cut funding and personnel. I remember vividly the assessments of warning that went out to the House and Senate Intelligence Commitees, and I remember the answer back, roughy put they said we were just trying to justify our existence. I can't speak for every branch of the Intelligence Community, but I do know that in November 2001, a month and a half after 9/11 my Agency offered incentivised retirement to the workforce with the goal of reducing by 600 people. Since the middle of Reagan's second term until after 9/11, the personnel in the entire Intelligence Community was reduced by a solid third. I've heard a lot of folks say it's good to get those old stale folks out of their cushy Government jobs, but think about this. These retirement incentives could be used by people with as few as 20 years service and 45 years of age. If these experienced professionals were too old to perform, how do you explain the ages of the current President, Vice President, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and all of the other "informed opinion makers" currently trying to read the tea leaves. Now, my Agency has annouced it will be hiring 7,500 folks over the next 5 years. Anybody want to guess how they will be training them????? They are hiring back all those fiftyish old timers to help teach people to do the gathering, research, analysis, language and every other skill they will need to try and keep this nation safe. The workforce I knew didn't define itself as liberal or conservative, democrat or republican. We served every Commander in Chief by providing the most accurate, detailed and vetted information we could possibly find. Come to think about it, the workforce was largely educated prior to coming to DOD by those so-called left loving anarchists. Employees do have differing opions about every Presidents effectiveness, but the discussions they have at lunch are much more civil than anything I see here. This is the first Administration I have seen that gets it's informed opions from political appointees who seem to think it's OK to cherry pick while working up an intelligence estimate.

This is getting a little long, but I would like to thank Atkins for the nice remark. When I first saw my quote show up, I thought oh crap, here we go again. Thanks for surprising me. I don't know if I have seen "Plainoldme" yet, so I will gracefully assume that foxfyre was neither insulting nor complimenting the posters, simply stating an opinion not a fact. Adieu for now. I need to find some other way to entertain myself.

0 Replies

Diversity of Everything but Thought

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know