3 ms·

Being told what to think involves thousands of years of the evolution of human knowledge. It involves math, science, chemistry, language, writing systems, etc.

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.

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.