4 ms·

If you want your truth from authority, join a church. Universities have the same selection method (existing clergy/academics choose the next generation based on

If you want your truth from authority, join a church. Universities have the same selection method (existing clergy/academics choose the next generation based on whether the existing clery/academics agree with the views of the rising class), and same history (Harvard, Yale, etc were founded seminaries). Do you apply the same reasoning to the physical sciences? It would be awesome if you downgraded the germ theory of disease to a kooky religious superstition. I studied political-science at Yale, and the professors are in their own world. Their studies had little to relation to the real world of politics, which I had learned about from actually working in Congress. So, you chose poorly when it came to grad school. Then you inferred that all grad schools suffered the same problems at the institution you poorly selected. Is that right? Your description of academia does not jive with the academic writings I read at Lawyers, Guns and Money or the Duck of Minerva or the Edge of the American West. Those academics seem pretty realistic. I have not been blown away by the knowledge, let alone the honesty of congressmen and their staff. There is no question that the Revolution was followed by a great deal of bad government, political corruption, sectional strife, coarseness in manners, hostility to the arts and refinements of life, assassination, lynch law, and other things which horrified Englishmen and afforded the stock material for the ridicule of such writers as Dickens and Mrs. Montagu. Um, are we to believe that before the revolution, there was no corruption in the entire British Empire? No bad government? No coarseness of manners? No assassination? I suppose the British Empire was a very polite place. Unless you were Irish. Or Indian. Or Chinese. Then you'd be exterminated by very very polite British monarchists. But that's OK, their manners were impeccable, and in the end, isn't that what really matters? Honestly, do you have anything beyond royalist propaganda? It happens most in autocracies that came to a power as a result of party politics, or a violent struggle between political parties. Really? I think the number of autocracies that have their genesis in military coups shows otherwise. Elections are the poison, tyranny and civil war are the disease. It's extremely rare in history to find a demagogue monarch. So Emperor Hirohito is the one exception? As is Ghengis Kahn? And why are we limiting ourselves to monarchs? There are many demagogues who were also tyrants. Demagogy seems related to the availability of modern communications technology. The best tools to facilitate demagogy only arrived in an era where monarchism declined. If you already have a government that provides rule of law, and a good set of norms about power sharing, why change things up? Because an embryonic state that is developing the rule of law might not be as sustainable as a mature democracy. Certainly, states run exclusively by elites have to constantly worry about popular revolution.

bokonist 16y ago
Do you apply the same reasoning to the physical sciences? It would be awesome if you downgraded the germ theory of disease to a kooky religious superstition. A church can have branches that do sound science. Copernicus worked for the Catholic church, after all. What makes the physical sciences generally more sound is that a) their results can be directly tested and observed and b) the topics are generally less politically charged. But my point is not that the university is completely false. It's that it should not be treated as some sort of infallible source. You shouldn't be putting peer-reviewed articles on a pedestal above any other type of evidence. So, you chose poorly when it came to grad school. Then you inferred that all grad schools suffered the same problems at the institution you poorly selected. Is that right? It was undergrad actually. The problem is endemic to the field, it was based not just on the classes but browsing through the major journals. Of course, there are interesting political scientists. Academics who blog tend to be quite a bit more grounded. Journal articles are primarily arcana and numerology. Those academics seem pretty realistic. I have not been blown away by the knowledge, let alone the honesty of congressmen and their staff. I'm saying that the academic study of politics is very far removed from what's actually going on. Um, are we to believe that before the revolution, there was no corruption in the entire British Empire? No bad government? We're talking relative quality of government. The quality of government in America pre-1776 was generally much better than 1783 to 1789. George Washington himself agrees with me: 'Washington, black with depression, decided and bluntly said "that mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government" ... "Good God!" cried Washington, "Who, besides a Tory, could have foreseen, or a Briton predicted" the things that were going on! "The disorders which have arisen in these States, the present prospect of our affairs . . . seems to me to be like the vision of a dream. My mind can scarcely realize it as a thing in actual existence. . . . There are combustibles in every State, which a spark might set fire to." Source: http://books.google.com/books?output=text&id=XtxBAAAAIAAJ http://books.google.com/books?output=text&id=XtxBAAAAIAA... From the same book: "During his early years in the Legislature, as has appeared, Marshall's opinions were changing. Washington, as we shall see, soon after peace was declared, lost much of his faith in the people; Madison arrived at the opinion that the majority were unequal to the weightier tasks of popular rule; and Marshall also finally came to entertain the melancholy fear that the people were not capable of selfgovernment. Indeed, almost all of the foremost men of the period now under review were brought to doubt the good sense or sound heart of the multitude ... This revolution in the views of men like Washington, Madison, and Marshall was caused largely by the conduct of the masses, which, to such men, seemed to be selfish, violent, capricious, vindictive, and dangerous." These quotes of course, will not be found in your AP History Book, which consists entirely of Patriot propaganda. The constitutional convention is most accurately seen as an aristocratic counter revolution. Only 1/6 of the resulting government was designed to be popular elected, and even that election restricted suffrage to property owners. Unformulated, the system soon degenerated into democracy and the quality of government got much worse. Both the British aristocratic government and the American democratic government were pretty terrible for blacks and Indians, but democracy turned out to be much worse. So Emperor Hirohito is the one exception? As is Ghengis Kahn? Hirohito was a figurehead, he had no real power at that time. The Mongols were a warrior people. Certainly, states run exclusively by elites have to constantly worry about popular revolution. The Deng Xiaoping solution (Tienanmen) works a lot better than the Louis XVI solution (conciliation and a refusal to use the army to stop the mob).

bokonist 16y ago

Do you apply the same reasoning to the physical sciences? It would be awesome if you downgraded the germ theory of disease to a kooky religious superstition. A church can have branches that do sound science. Copernicus worked for the Catholic church, after all. What makes the physical sciences generally more sound is that a) their results can be directly tested and observed and b) the topics are generally less politically charged. But my point is not that the university is completely false. It's that it should not be treated as some sort of infallible source. You shouldn't be putting peer-reviewed articles on a pedestal above any other type of evidence. So, you chose poorly when it came to grad school. Then you inferred that all grad schools suffered the same problems at the institution you poorly selected. Is that right? It was undergrad actually. The problem is endemic to the field, it was based not just on the classes but browsing through the major journals. Of course, there are interesting political scientists. Academics who blog tend to be quite a bit more grounded. Journal articles are primarily arcana and numerology. Those academics seem pretty realistic. I have not been blown away by the knowledge, let alone the honesty of congressmen and their staff. I'm saying that the academic study of politics is very far removed from what's actually going on. Um, are we to believe that before the revolution, there was no corruption in the entire British Empire? No bad government? We're talking relative quality of government. The quality of government in America pre-1776 was generally much better than 1783 to 1789. George Washington himself agrees with me: 'Washington, black with depression, decided and bluntly said "that mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government" ... "Good God!" cried Washington, "Who, besides a Tory, could have foreseen, or a Briton predicted" the things that were going on! "The disorders which have arisen in these States, the present prospect of our affairs . . . seems to me to be like the vision of a dream. My mind can scarcely realize it as a thing in actual existence. . . . There are combustibles in every State, which a spark might set fire to." Source: http://books.google.com/books?output=text&id=XtxBAAAAIAAJ http://books.google.com/books?output=text&id=XtxBAAAAIAA... From the same book: "During his early years in the Legislature, as has appeared, Marshall's opinions were changing. Washington, as we shall see, soon after peace was declared, lost much of his faith in the people; Madison arrived at the opinion that the majority were unequal to the weightier tasks of popular rule; and Marshall also finally came to entertain the melancholy fear that the people were not capable of selfgovernment. Indeed, almost all of the foremost men of the period now under review were brought to doubt the good sense or sound heart of the multitude ... This revolution in the views of men like Washington, Madison, and Marshall was caused largely by the conduct of the masses, which, to such men, seemed to be selfish, violent, capricious, vindictive, and dangerous." These quotes of course, will not be found in your AP History Book, which consists entirely of Patriot propaganda. The constitutional convention is most accurately seen as an aristocratic counter revolution. Only 1/6 of the resulting government was designed to be popular elected, and even that election restricted suffrage to property owners. Unformulated, the system soon degenerated into democracy and the quality of government got much worse. Both the British aristocratic government and the American democratic government were pretty terrible for blacks and Indians, but democracy turned out to be much worse. So Emperor Hirohito is the one exception? As is Ghengis Kahn? Hirohito was a figurehead, he had no real power at that time. The Mongols were a warrior people. Certainly, states run exclusively by elites have to constantly worry about popular revolution. The Deng Xiaoping solution (Tienanmen) works a lot better than the Louis XVI solution (conciliation and a refusal to use the army to stop the mob).