spendius wrote:A good education in my opinion is one where the whole nation is taught and becomes convinced that they have a duty to send me £10 on my birthday. That would make me a competitive bidder at an art auction for any painting you might mention.
When's your birthday and what's your mailing address?
wandeljw wrote:That is true, timber. Farmerman's analysis of spendi's communication problem is the best I have seen so far. We have all tried in vain to understand what goes on in spendi's unique mind.
Really? You don't understand his communications? I can't imagine that. Admittedly he doesn't always actually say something, but every now and then when he actually does, it is sometimes kind of sort of interesting and/or profound.
OK spendi - I'll play. First lets do a little term-establishing.
c i said "A good education is a necessary component to remain competitive in this world."
The grammar and usage may be a tad wobbly, but the intended sense makes itself known well enough, IMO - stop me right now if you take issue with that conclusion; should such be the case, we've gotta helluva lotta basic prep work to do before we start building any sorta consensus.
What do we mean by "good"? May we agree that "good", in the context of c i's statement, defines as "Of the greatest overall benefit to the greatest number; to the furthest practicable extent removed from general harm, degradation, or inconvenience"?
What do we mean by "Education"? May we agree "education", again in in context of c i's statement, means "A process through which the subject individual(s) be enabled not merely to acquire and retain knowledge and fact, but further be enabled to assimilate and integrate that knowledge and fact into synthesized developmental progressions from that knowledge and fact which lead to further discovery of knowledge and fact while providing a basis from which to form and effect concepts, strategies, and volitions which most efficiently serve simultaneously to perpetuate the human species and to enhance the human condition while protecting and enhancing the environment, physical, intellectual, and ideological, in which humankind finds itself"? (In a very real sense, that last would referrence and depend upon the earlier-proposed "greatest good" concept)
There's more to define of course, and it should be done if the question at discussion is to be settled, but before we go there, lets try to get these two out of the way; not much point pressing on if we can't agree on where we started and where we want to end up.
fisherman - welcome to A2K - I think it safe to say you'll find a broad range of competencies and proficiencies - some claimed, others demonstrated - represented among the membership here. A feature of web forums is that anyone's posting history is out there to consider - form your own impression of anyone's credential, using whatever criteria work for you ... and expect others to do the same in regard to your interactions as they appear. This being the internet and all, one can't see or hear those whom one encounters, but one still can get a pretty fair idea of what, if not precisely who, one is dealing with.
BTW - education is merely a tool - or better, the components from which effective tools may be made and by which it may be determined how best to employ those tools to a desired end. A box of wrenches and screwdrivers is useful for repairing an engine, for example - provided one knows what to do with those wrenches and screwdrivers. Otherwise, what you've got is a buncha tools you don't know what to do with, and you've got an engine in need of repair.
Hello Lola-
This is just for you-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2514342,00.html
I'll be back later to demonsrate, I hope, that timber has said no more than the statement under discussion does.
Hello Foxy.
Welcome fisherman.
I have been, and for a long time, surprised, nay flabbergasted, that American viewers of this thread have been content to sit on their hands and allow a view of American standards of discourse to be presented to an international audience which completely belies that picture of America which I have grown up to know and love and admire.
The ubiquitousness of the unsubstantiated assertion on here cannot but give the impression that grass roots America is one giant tower of Babel in which there is no meeting ground between people other than in some sort of power relation where the loudest and most strident voice is triumphant over civilised and reasoned discussion.
I suppose this is understandable in a Darwin influenced microcosm because those are the only standards which exist in the field of animal evolution. When such voices go unchallenged by the macrocosm it is reasonable to suppose they are approved by it.
And the worst thing about it to a literary mind is its sheer crass witlessness which must be utterly boring at close quarters and when going on incessantly excruciatingly unbearable.
spendis still angry about that little disturbance at Yorktown.
Your picture of America?
please describe "that picture of America which" you "have grown up to know and love and admire."
fisherman-
It is one which contains Thornstein Veblen, Bob Dylan, Chucks Jones and Yeagar, Tony Curtis, Norman Mailer, Andy Warhol, Barbara Stanwyk, Oliver Hardy, W.C. Fields, Doris Day, Henry Miller -this is not fair-- there are too many.
NASA, the liberation from the jackboot, Mr Tambourine Man, Titanic, freedom, space, Yogi Bear, Robber Barons, Olive Oil, The Empire State, Elections, new words and phrases, rock and roll, generosity, hanging loose and cool, place names, Mississippi steamboats, gamblers, Mitchum's eyes, Hell-fire preachers, chaste ladies, rascals, hookers, popcorn, .......The flash.
Yeah-I know. Always look on the brightside. I'll admit being a bit selective and turning away from the sordid. And there's nothing so sordid as evolution theory no matter how empirically correct it might be. Who wants reality.
It was an impressionistic painting on a grand scale and I can't imagine life without it.
But I love England too.
There's no love in Darwin. Useful no doubt for some specialists to improve certain things with if Hutber's law is ignored but for all the kids in all the schools-NO SIR.
I like some romance. I think kids do too. Tell us a story grandpa.
I'm re-reading Tom Jones. Now there's a story. Written by a man who loved the first great storyteller, Homer.
Thwackum and Square's argument about how the comely boy should be educated is useful for this debate. Tom didn't give a phewk.
spendius wrote:Hello Lola-
This is just for you-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2514342,00.html
I'll be back later to demonsrate, I hope, that timber has said no more than the statement under discussion does.
Hello Foxy.
Welcome fisherman.
I have been, and for a long time, surprised, nay flabbergasted, that American viewers of this thread have been content to sit on their hands and allow a view of American standards of discourse to be presented to an international audience which completely belies that picture of America which I have grown up to know and love and admire.
The ubiquitousness of the unsubstantiated assertion on here cannot but give the impression that grass roots America is one giant tower of Babel in which there is no meeting ground between people other than in some sort of power relation where the loudest and most strident voice is triumphant over civilised and reasoned discussion.
I suppose this is understandable in a Darwin influenced microcosm because those are the only standards which exist in the field of animal evolution. When such voices go unchallenged by the macrocosm it is reasonable to suppose they are approved by it.
And the worst thing about it to a literary mind is its sheer crass witlessness which must be utterly boring at close quarters and when going on incessantly excruciatingly unbearable.
LOL. Well sometimes interesting and even profound, but I don't necessarily always agree with your conclusions.
I will accept that there is a lot of witlessness expressed here these days, but surely you aren't suggesting that the same phenomenon does not exist in the UK? (Careful how you respond. I read a lot of your on line publications.)
And as for the Tower of Babel metaphor, I have also peeked in on Parliament via C-span. You are are no worse than us, but you can't claim moral superiority on that front.
I will agree that we too often rant at each other rather than engage in civil discourse and that is certainly the case here on A2K. There are also many significant exceptions among the rank and file and every now and then that is also demonstrated on A2K.
Education in America is largely substandard in the last several decades, at least in my opinion, but nevertheless many have been able to educate themselves quite well.
The America you know and love is still here. Please do not judge us by what you see on television (which presents just about everything incompetently) or by our politicians who are likely to be the cause of the next major American revolution.
And in your statement here:
Quote:I suppose this is understandable in a Darwin influenced microcosm because those are the only standards which exist in the field of animal evolution. When such voices go unchallenged by the macrocosm it is reasonable to suppose they are approved by it.
I disagree that Darwin cannot be challenged as the ONLY possible explanation and there is still room for debate. While I think Darwin has stood the test of time and only the most ignorant would reject it out of hand, to close one's mind to all other possibilities furthers neither the cause of science nor education.
I am of the school that teaches that we don't know all there is to know about anything and we have only a tiny fraction of the science that is available to have.
Foxy wrote-
Quote:but surely you aren't suggesting that the same phenomenon does not exist in the UK?
Not at all. It exists here alright.
My complaint was about this thread and not about America and specifically about how the statement-
Quote: A good education is a necessary component to remain competitive in this world.
has had only me questioning it. If an English person had said it I would have stood up and reminded viewers that not everybody in England thinks it means something.
Anything meaningless is off topic.
There seems to me to be a pretty high standard in our Parliament if the high profile bits are ignored. I presume it is the same in your chambers.
spendi wrote: ... Who wants reality ...
That's you, spendi, in a nutshell - and by self declaration. Priceless.
spendi also wrote:There seems to me to be a pretty high standard in our Parliament if the high profile bits are ignored. I presume it is the same in your chambers.
For all of Blighty's self-professed, self-lauded propriety, one cannot but note that one thing more evident in the American versions of national parliamentary bodies compared to their British equivalents is decorum. Gotta give the entertainment points to Her Majesty's crew there.
timberlandko wrote:spendi wrote: ... Who wants reality ...
That's you, spendi, in a nutshell - and by self declaration. Priceless.
spendi also wrote:There seems to me to be a pretty high standard in our Parliament if the high profile bits are ignored. I presume it is the same in your chambers.
For all of Blighty's self-professed, self-lauded propriety, one cannot but note that one thing more evident in the American versions of national parliamentary bodies compared to their British equivalents is decorum. Gotta give the entertainment points to Her Majesty's crew there.
Spankings. The Brits have everyone on spankings. Its a bit naughty and certainly fun and not damaging in the grand scheme of things - much the way I think of spendi himself.
As to "decorum", I find it terribly interesting that the governing system evolved in Britain manages a level of egalitarian regard towards its leaders whereas in the US it is simply expected that the President (and those about her) ought to be accorded the elevated or protected status of monarch (or similar...strict daddy, Grandiose Poobah, dictator, etc)
Hey, there, blatham - Happy New Year to ya (and to Glamor Gams as well, of course)
Good points - and as I said, the entertainent points go the Houses on the Thames, not the Houses near the Potomac
Hell, even the scoundrels in Ottawa are more fun to watch, as a rule, than their American counterparts. We Yanks just have a way of taking ourselves in general more seriously than by any reasonable criteria might be justified.
But then, while we as a People may not be big on spankings, we have Rodeos, the NFL and NASCAR - majesty indeed, and down-home, real-world at that.
A most sincere best wishes to you too, timber.
As to Nascar...have you seen Talladega Nights? Absolutely brilliant.
Hi Spendi,
I see you've abandoned your previous fun-loving style for one in which you dot your eyes and cross your teas. What's become of you, thrashing about here trying to talk sense when in fact your great talent is in entertainment and poetry? Where has the Dylan in you gone?
But I recognize that your other speciality is that of provocateur. Sadomasochism is a past time for you as it seems to be for most of us. I only hope, fisherman, that you're up to the hurting-to-be-hurt atmosphere we all enjoy as often as possible.
Now on to the serious stuff.
Elizabeth and I share many things in common. I was a difficult to manage child and ran away from home at age 16. My lovers have been less well known but I've had a few. I settle for the nobility of A2K which is far more sensible in my opinion. I also keep pet bears, as a matter of fact I have one in my bedroom at the moment. Some say I'm hard to live with, but only after they've tried. I also perform a version of the spider dance, which rather than being an imitation of Donna Maria Dolores de Porris y Montez's is also my own creation and a very effective one if I do say so myself. And we're both known as Lola for short.
Other than that, she bears no resemblance to me.
Otherwise I see that the subject under discussion has a neverending supply of arguments and attempts to define terms. It makes for excellent reading......as demonstrated in Timber's last post.........and of course, your always entertaining contributions however dotted and crossed they may be. And of course my best bear Blatham whose a match for anyone.
In the Sunday Times Culture this weekend there is a review of a book entitled Books on Trial from Madame Bovary to Lolita by Elisabeth Ladenson.The reveiwer is Christopher Hart under the headline Grime and Punishment.
Here is a part of it-
Quote:With every text she so perceptively reads, she has something fresh and arresting to say. She is especially brilliant on Ulysses, along with Madame Bovary the most obvious work of genius under examination here. One of James Joyce's greatest offences was repeatedly to conflate in the mind of Leopold Bloom, as she delicately puts it, the "erotic and the excretory". His moral critics again and again argued that this was not how any decent person thought or felt. And again and again they betrayed themselves, by describing purely sexual scenes as "filth" and "dirt", emanating "from the sewer", thereby proving precisely the truthfulness of Joyce's slightly uncomfortable Freudian point about how the human subconscious functions in regard to matters below-the-belt. Meanwhile, Virginia Woolf, while twittering on in her Bloomsberryish way about the importance of truthfulness in modern literature, couldn't cope with Ulysses at all, reacting with hilarious snobbery to this "illiterate, underbred book", which reminded her of "a queasy undergraduate scratching his pimples". Among other things, Woolf wouldn't have been able to cope with "the first non-comical defecation in literature". It is typical of Ladenson's approach to cast her cultural net wide and remind us that, while the 1967 film of the novel by Jospeh Strick reproduced the spanking and fornication, it still couldn't cope with that simple act of "non-comical defecation".
I like to think of myself as a "decent person".
Reality is only embraced, except for professional reasons, by those who are given to " twittering on in their Bloomsberryish way about the importance of truthfulness in modern literature" and who would faint clean away if forced to read a backnumber of the English comic ZIT which is sadly no longer being published.
Lola dear-
The problem is that you are no longer available to inspire me as you used to. It is not my loss of fun loving which is, if anything, worse than it was.
American presbyterians are enough to put the dampeners on Rabelais and Benny Hill.
But the education of the youth of our ally is a rather important subject. Humour does not always have to be advertised. I do more laughing on this thread than most. Check out some of my acronyms.
There is the Brits Thread on International News hostessed by Slapper smorgsie from Manchester. It has its moments.
Excerpt from "Seeing the light -- of science" by Steve Paulson (Salon.com, Jan. 2, 2007)
Quote:How do we explain the stubborn resistance to Darwinism?
University of Wisconsin historian Ronald Numbers is in a unique position to offer some answers. His 1992 book "The Creationists," which Harvard University Press has just reissued in an expanded edition, is probably the most definitive history of anti-evolutionism. Numbers is an eminent figure in the history of science and religion -- a past president of both the History of Science Society and the American Society of Church History. But what's most refreshing about Numbers is the remarkable personal history he brings to this subject. He grew up in a family of Seventh-day Adventists and, until graduate school, was a dyed-in-the-wool creationist. When he lost his religious faith, he wrote a book questioning the foundations of Adventism, which created a huge rift in his family. Perhaps because of his background, Numbers is one of the few scholars in the battle over evolution who remain widely respected by both evolutionists and creationists. In fact, he was once recruited by both sides to serve as an expert witness in a Louisiana trial on evolution. (He went with the ACLU.)
Numbers says much of what we think about anti-evolutionism is wrong. For one thing, it's hardly a monolithic movement. There are, in fact, fierce battles between creationists of different stripes. And the "creation scientists" who believe in a literal reading of the Bible have, in turn, little in common with the leaders of intelligent design. Numbers also dismisses the whole idea of warfare between science and religion going back to the scientific revolution. He argues this is a modern myth that serves both Christian fundamentalists and secular scientists.
****
Given the overwhelming scientific support for evolution, how do you explain the curious fact that so many Americans don't believe it?
I don't think there's a single explanation. To many Americans, it just seems so improbable that single-celled animals could have evolved into humans. Even monkeys evolving into humans seems highly unlikely. For many people, it also conflicts with the Bible, which they take to be God's revealed word, and there's no wiggling room for them. And you have particular religious leaders who've condemned it. I think there's something else that I hate to mention but probably is a serious contributing factor. I don't think evolution has been taught well in the United States. Most students do not learn about the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
At the university level or the high school level?
Grade school, high school and university. There are very few general education courses on evolution for the nonspecialist. It's almost assumed that people will believe in evolution if they've made it that far. So I think we've done a very poor job of bringing together the evidence and presenting it to our students. There's a stereotype that creationists just aren't that smart. I mean, how can you ignore the steady accumulation of scientific evidence for evolution? Is this a question of intelligence or education? Not fundamentally. There is a slight skewing of anti-evolution towards lower levels of education. But it's not huge. One recent poll showed that a quarter of college graduates in America reject evolution. So it's not education itself that's doing this. There are really dumb creationists and there are really dumb evolutionists. Of the 10 founders of the Creation Research Society, five of them earned doctorates in the biological sciences from major universities. Another had a Ph.D. from Berkeley in biochemistry. Another had a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. These were not dumb, uneducated people. They rejected evolution for religious and, they would say, scientific reasons.
But that's so hard to understand. If you get a graduate degree in the biological sciences, how can you still allow religion to trump science?
They don't see it that way. They see religion as informing their scientific choices. I think it's extremely hard for human beings to see the world as others see it. I have a hard time seeing the world as Muslim fundamentalists see it. And yet, there are many very smart Muslims out there who have a totally different cosmology and theology from what I have. I think one of the goals of education is to help students, and perhaps help ourselves, see the world the way others see it so we don't just judge and say, "They're just too stupid to know better."
My guess is that the most persuasive arguments for evolution are not going to come through scientific reasoning. They're going to come from scientists, and from theologians and other people of faith, who say you can believe in God and still accept evolution, that there's nothing incompatible about the two. Do you agree?
To a large extent, I do. But I think the influence of those middle-ground people is limited. Conservatives don't trust them. They think they've already sold out to modernism and liberalism. And a lot of the more radical scientists spurn them as well. Richard Dawkins, for example, would argue that evolution is inherently atheistic. That's exactly what the fundamentalists are saying. They agree on that. So you have these people in the middle saying, "No, no. It's not atheistic for me. I believe in God and maybe in Jesus Christ. And in evolution." Having these loud voices on either side of them really tends to restrict the influence that they might otherwise have.
wandeljw wrote:Excerpt from "Seeing the light -- of science" by Steve Paulson (Salon.com, Jan. 2, 2007)
Quote:How do we explain the stubborn resistance to Darwinism?
University of Wisconsin historian Ronald Numbers is in a unique position to offer some answers. His 1992 book "The Creationists," which Harvard University Press has just reissued in an expanded edition, is probably the most definitive history of anti-evolutionism. Numbers is an eminent figure in the history of science and religion -- a past president of both the History of Science Society and the American Society of Church History. But what's most refreshing about Numbers is the remarkable personal history he brings to this subject. He grew up in a family of Seventh-day Adventists and, until graduate school, was a dyed-in-the-wool creationist. When he lost his religious faith, he wrote a book questioning the foundations of Adventism, which created a huge rift in his family. Perhaps because of his background, Numbers is one of the few scholars in the battle over evolution who remain widely respected by both evolutionists and creationists. In fact, he was once recruited by both sides to serve as an expert witness in a Louisiana trial on evolution. (He went with the ACLU.)
Numbers says much of what we think about anti-evolutionism is wrong. For one thing, it's hardly a monolithic movement. There are, in fact, fierce battles between creationists of different stripes. And the "creation scientists" who believe in a literal reading of the Bible have, in turn, little in common with the leaders of intelligent design. Numbers also dismisses the whole idea of warfare between science and religion going back to the scientific revolution. He argues this is a modern myth that serves both Christian fundamentalists and secular scientists.
****
Given the overwhelming scientific support for evolution, how do you explain the curious fact that so many Americans don't believe it?
I don't think there's a single explanation. To many Americans, it just seems so improbable that single-celled animals could have evolved into humans. Even monkeys evolving into humans seems highly unlikely. For many people, it also conflicts with the Bible, which they take to be God's revealed word, and there's no wiggling room for them. And you have particular religious leaders who've condemned it. I think there's something else that I hate to mention but probably is a serious contributing factor. I don't think evolution has been taught well in the United States. Most students do not learn about the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
At the university level or the high school level?
Grade school, high school and university. There are very few general education courses on evolution for the nonspecialist. It's almost assumed that people will believe in evolution if they've made it that far. So I think we've done a very poor job of bringing together the evidence and presenting it to our students. There's a stereotype that creationists just aren't that smart. I mean, how can you ignore the steady accumulation of scientific evidence for evolution? Is this a question of intelligence or education? Not fundamentally. There is a slight skewing of anti-evolution towards lower levels of education. But it's not huge. One recent poll showed that a quarter of college graduates in America reject evolution. So it's not education itself that's doing this. There are really dumb creationists and there are really dumb evolutionists. Of the 10 founders of the Creation Research Society, five of them earned doctorates in the biological sciences from major universities. Another had a Ph.D. from Berkeley in biochemistry. Another had a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. These were not dumb, uneducated people. They rejected evolution for religious and, they would say, scientific reasons.
But that's so hard to understand. If you get a graduate degree in the biological sciences, how can you still allow religion to trump science?
They don't see it that way. They see religion as informing their scientific choices. I think it's extremely hard for human beings to see the world as others see it. I have a hard time seeing the world as Muslim fundamentalists see it. And yet, there are many very smart Muslims out there who have a totally different cosmology and theology from what I have. I think one of the goals of education is to help students, and perhaps help ourselves, see the world the way others see it so we don't just judge and say, "They're just too stupid to know better."
My guess is that the most persuasive arguments for evolution are not going to come through scientific reasoning. They're going to come from scientists, and from theologians and other people of faith, who say you can believe in God and still accept evolution, that there's nothing incompatible about the two. Do you agree?
To a large extent, I do. But I think the influence of those middle-ground people is limited. Conservatives don't trust them. They think they've already sold out to modernism and liberalism. And a lot of the more radical scientists spurn them as well. Richard Dawkins, for example, would argue that evolution is inherently atheistic. That's exactly what the fundamentalists are saying. They agree on that. So you have these people in the middle saying, "No, no. It's not atheistic for me. I believe in God and maybe in Jesus Christ. And in evolution." Having these loud voices on either side of them really tends to restrict the influence that they might otherwise have.
I always wonder about theists who take violent exceptiong to evolution...or the Big Bang.]
Is it really all that difficult to conceive of a GOD that would work ITS miracles that way rather than like Presto Digitator?
Frank,
I am very glad to see you posting on this subject. Bertrand Russell once said there are actually
four different positions that can be taken on the conflict between religion and science.
The last part of the excerpt was the most interesting for me:
Quote:Richard Dawkins, for example, would argue that evolution is inherently atheistic. That's exactly what the fundamentalists are saying. They agree on that. So you have these people in the middle saying, "No, no. It's not atheistic for me. I believe in God and maybe in Jesus Christ. And in evolution." Having these loud voices on either side of them really tends to restrict the influence that they might otherwise have.
Richard Dawkins, an Oxford science professor, has written many popular books about controversial issues in science. Unfortunately (in my opinion) he takes the position that science has made religion obsolete. While many science educators protest that teaching evolution is
not teaching atheism, Dawkins boldly uses science to promote the cause of atheism. Thus we have the odd situation where an evolutionary scientist is actually giving credence to something fundamentalists have always complained about.
wande quoted-
Quote:He argues this is a modern myth that serves both Christian fundamentalists and secular scientists.
I told you that ages ago but it looks like you need authority figures to convince you of things. It serves their counsel even better.
You are in awe of public persons and have no faculty for the idea itself. You need telling what to think.
Quote:And the "creation scientists" who believe in a literal reading of the Bible have, in turn, little in common with the leaders of intelligent design.
And I told you that too.
Although I didn't use the word "little". I prefer "nothing".
Anyway- you seem to be starting to be homing in on the periphery of the serious stuff at last.
We'll see. Hold on to the safety rail.
