3 ms·

> society is much better off when more of the public is educated. To what extent of educated? What do you mean by educated? A lot of what the general public ge

by mfer 4y ago

> society is much better off when more of the public is educated. To what extent of educated? What do you mean by educated? A lot of what the general public gets isn't deep thought. It's being told what to think. A lot of the what to think is ideas based on assumptions and beliefs. Are people better off for learning them? For those who want to think deeply, are modern colleges a place that allow for that? I know PhDs who no longer teach because there is a lack of intellectualism and too much indoctrination. A dedicated professor telling me what to think (their ideas) rather than teaching me how to think and navigate the space well... for general things... may not be so useful to society.

azinman2 4y ago
> A lot of what the general public gets isn't deep thought. It's being told what to think. A lot of the what to think is ideas based on assumptions and beliefs. Are people better off for learning them? Yes because what it would be replaced with is even worse and likely instantly falls apart under a modicum of critical thinking.
- mtrower 4y ago
  That's just indoctrination. Great I guess if you agree with the brainwashing. Not so great if you're on the other side.
  - Dudeman112 4y ago
    Yes, there's a big overlap between "learning" and "indoctrination". For mysterious reasons we only care about not being indoctrination when it comes to adults or almost adults People wouldn't learn anything if they had to deeply understand and verify every part by themselves before moving on Great I guess if you're happy with most of society never moving too far past what's covered in the first stretch of middle school
    - mtrower 4y ago
      > Yes, there's a big overlap between "learning" and "indoctrination". Perhaps if you subscribe to the "chinese master" mentality. I never had much regard for this. > For mysterious reasons we only care about not being indoctrination when it comes to adults or almost adults Uh. I sure gave a damn for all of my memorable life --- literally since at least 4 years of age. I don't know about you. > People wouldn't learn anything if they had to deeply understand and verify every part by themselves before moving on This is true to some extent of everyone, but I always tried to think for myself as much as possible. Actually, it earned me a lot of scorn and ire, for not just following the herd... > Great I guess if you're happy with most of society never moving too far past what's covered in the first stretch of middle school If by middle school you mean social pressure to conform... well, I'd say we want the opposite of that. If you mean that without indoctrination, people won't move past middle school in terms of knowledge... well, I would argue that most people don't seem to retain most of what they learned in middle school and high school to begin with... hell, that's basically the first half of college right there, just re-hashing those same topics...
  - psyklic 4y ago
    It's "indoctrination" to point out arguments that fall apart under a modicum of critical thinking? You could easily argue that education involves learning to construct solid arguments that do not fall apart.
    - mtrower 4y ago
      No, not at all. You have to look at the context here, the post that I'm replying to. I'm a strong, staunch supporter of critical and independent thought. I'm sure some colleges probably teach that well, and I would heartily support, promote and defend such establishments, insofar as those practices were concerned. However, this is not what is being disputed. > > A lot of what the general public gets isn't deep thought. It's being told what to think. A lot of the what to think is ideas based on assumptions and beliefs. Are people better off for learning them? The issue is that azinman2 says this is fine (due to a claimed worse alternative). This is not critical thought at all. "Being told what to think", "based on assumptions and beliefs", is simply indoctrination. I cannot and will not support such.
      - azinman2 4y ago
        Being told what to think involves thousands of years of the evolution of human knowledge. It involves math, science, chemistry, language, writing systems, etc. Things that have been challenged and evolved by critical thought from subject experts over hundreds or thousands of years. You seem to think it’s necessarily evil in some way, when it’s instead what’s in the best interest for society. Otherwise the entire populous will be flat earther simpletons.
        mtrower 4y ago
        > Otherwise the entire populous will be flat earther simpletons. At face value, this is obvious nonsense; if the entire populous was naught but simpletons, who would even introduce new concepts to them? > challenged and evolved by critical thought This is literally the opposite of what you are advocating for by "being told what to think". Or is it only the elite and privilege few that are allowed to think for themselves (presumably after having been groomed to produce very specific thoughts to begin with)? Additionally, as noted by Max Planck: > The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Science basically evolves because the the people carrying the old school of thought literally die out, leaving the ideas that are more popular with the new generation. This could lead to genuine advancement, but the obvious flipside is that you could "advance" in an untrue direction. It's not just science that is like this, you see it for example in IT as well. My entire point is that in teaching people what to think, you create this > simpletons ..whereby in teaching them how to think, you promote this > critical thought They are more or less mutually exclusive.

by mfer 4y ago

azinman2 4y ago

> A lot of what the general public gets isn't deep thought. It's being told what to think. A lot of the what to think is ideas based on assumptions and beliefs. Are people better off for learning them? Yes because what it would be replaced with is even worse and likely instantly falls apart under a modicum of critical thinking.

mtrower 4y ago
That's just indoctrination. Great I guess if you agree with the brainwashing. Not so great if you're on the other side.
- Dudeman112 4y ago
  Yes, there's a big overlap between "learning" and "indoctrination". For mysterious reasons we only care about not being indoctrination when it comes to adults or almost adults People wouldn't learn anything if they had to deeply understand and verify every part by themselves before moving on Great I guess if you're happy with most of society never moving too far past what's covered in the first stretch of middle school
  - mtrower 4y ago
    > Yes, there's a big overlap between "learning" and "indoctrination". Perhaps if you subscribe to the "chinese master" mentality. I never had much regard for this. > For mysterious reasons we only care about not being indoctrination when it comes to adults or almost adults Uh. I sure gave a damn for all of my memorable life --- literally since at least 4 years of age. I don't know about you. > People wouldn't learn anything if they had to deeply understand and verify every part by themselves before moving on This is true to some extent of everyone, but I always tried to think for myself as much as possible. Actually, it earned me a lot of scorn and ire, for not just following the herd... > Great I guess if you're happy with most of society never moving too far past what's covered in the first stretch of middle school If by middle school you mean social pressure to conform... well, I'd say we want the opposite of that. If you mean that without indoctrination, people won't move past middle school in terms of knowledge... well, I would argue that most people don't seem to retain most of what they learned in middle school and high school to begin with... hell, that's basically the first half of college right there, just re-hashing those same topics...
- psyklic 4y ago
  It's "indoctrination" to point out arguments that fall apart under a modicum of critical thinking? You could easily argue that education involves learning to construct solid arguments that do not fall apart.
  - mtrower 4y ago
    No, not at all. You have to look at the context here, the post that I'm replying to. I'm a strong, staunch supporter of critical and independent thought. I'm sure some colleges probably teach that well, and I would heartily support, promote and defend such establishments, insofar as those practices were concerned. However, this is not what is being disputed. > > A lot of what the general public gets isn't deep thought. It's being told what to think. A lot of the what to think is ideas based on assumptions and beliefs. Are people better off for learning them? The issue is that azinman2 says this is fine (due to a claimed worse alternative). This is not critical thought at all. "Being told what to think", "based on assumptions and beliefs", is simply indoctrination. I cannot and will not support such.
    - azinman2 4y ago
      Being told what to think involves thousands of years of the evolution of human knowledge. It involves math, science, chemistry, language, writing systems, etc. Things that have been challenged and evolved by critical thought from subject experts over hundreds or thousands of years. You seem to think it’s necessarily evil in some way, when it’s instead what’s in the best interest for society. Otherwise the entire populous will be flat earther simpletons.
      - mtrower 4y ago
        > Otherwise the entire populous will be flat earther simpletons. At face value, this is obvious nonsense; if the entire populous was naught but simpletons, who would even introduce new concepts to them? > challenged and evolved by critical thought This is literally the opposite of what you are advocating for by "being told what to think". Or is it only the elite and privilege few that are allowed to think for themselves (presumably after having been groomed to produce very specific thoughts to begin with)? Additionally, as noted by Max Planck: > The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Science basically evolves because the the people carrying the old school of thought literally die out, leaving the ideas that are more popular with the new generation. This could lead to genuine advancement, but the obvious flipside is that you could "advance" in an untrue direction. It's not just science that is like this, you see it for example in IT as well. My entire point is that in teaching people what to think, you create this > simpletons ..whereby in teaching them how to think, you promote this > critical thought They are more or less mutually exclusive.