3 ms·

I think this view leads to incredibly bad comparisons. Let me try to explain using a hypothetical: Child A is raised with homeschooling by parents that strictl

by Timon3 3y ago

I think this view leads to incredibly bad comparisons. Let me try to explain using a hypothetical: Child A is raised with homeschooling by parents that strictly believe in flat earth, reject "mainstream physics" and science in total, and Child A fully believes it all and sees conspiracies everywhere. Child B is raised in the public school system and they have a standard science education, incl. the basics of how gravity works and so on. They also have talked in class about flat earth and disproved the theory on multiple grounds any person can try - but they have honestly tried to look into it. Child B believes in our standard models, to the best of their knowledge. Who is more indoctrinated?

tivert 3y ago
> Who is more indoctrinated? You're still not getting it. Quit looking at things from your point of view for a minute. They're both indoctrinated, and "more" in this case is simply a function of how far they are from your ideology.
- Timon3 3y ago
  You can repeat this as often as you want to, but I will not agree that we live in post-factual times and everything is fully subjective. If you give somebody the tools to find the truth themselves they will not be necessarily follow their parents indoctrination. Try to consider whether you really wish to treat every single viewpoint as equal.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > You can repeat this as often as you want to, but I will not agree that we live in post-factual times and everything is fully subjective. I figured as much. It's hard to believe you're not at the center of the universe. > If you give somebody the tools to find the truth themselves they will not be necessarily follow their parents indoctrination. You have to indoctrinate someone with the doctrine that "the truth" as the output of those tools. The problem you're having is you refuse to acknowledge that, and arbitrarily redefine certain kinds of indoctrination as not-indoctrination. It's probably because you need to feel that indoctrination is something that only the other guys do, because you've labeled indoctrination as bad thing done by baddies, and think of yourself as a goodie. > Try to consider whether you really wish to treat every single viewpoint as equal. I obviously don't. I have by own viewpoint that I prioritize over others because it's mine. I just don't lie to myself pretend that preference has a faux "objectivity."
    - Timon3 3y ago
      > I figured as much. It's hard to believe you're not at the center of the universe. Funnily enough that's what you're arguing - there is no truth, all knowledge is indoctrination, the only important thing is what you believe. I think that there is knowledge beyond humanity, and we are able to explore and discover more and more through scientific processes. We're not at the center, we're outside looking in. > You have to indoctrinate someone with the doctrine that "the truth" as the output of those tools. The problem you're having is you refuse to acknowledge that, and arbitrarily redefine certain kinds of indoctrination as not-indoctrination. No, I'm following commonly accepted epistemological frameworks. You're on the other hand re-defining "indoctrination" to mean "passing any kind of knowledge and opinion", which coincidentally means you don't really have to evaluate what you pass on - it's all indoctrination anyway! > It's probably because you need to feel that indoctrination is something that only the other guys do, because you've labeled indoctrination as bad thing done by baddies, and think of yourself as a goodie. Is your moral framework really this shallow? I simply acknowledge that I am fallible, and most of my knowledge is wrong. So instead of focussing on passing on my knowledge and opinions, I focus on fostering the ability to gain knowledge. But obviously there is no way someone else is doing something better than you! After all, you're at the center of the universe. You know how everything works, and what all things are. So of course you know there can't be any difference between what I do and what you do. > I obviously don't. I have by own viewpoint that I prioritize over others because it's mine. I just don't lie to myself pretend that preference has a faux "objectivity." You should really, really look into epistemology. There is a lot more to this world than "I thought of it, so it's what I think" - people have spent a lot of time thinking about how knowledge works, how you can gain it, and how you can differentiate truth from untruth. It seems you've either read a lot and rejected all of it, or you haven't read anything - in both cases you should give it another go, there might be interesting thoughts in there for you which you didn't come up with yourself!
      - tivert 3y ago
        > No, I'm following commonly accepted epistemological frameworks. Another term for those? Doctrine. > You're on the other hand re-defining "indoctrination" to mean "passing any kind of knowledge and opinion" That's not a redefinition, btw. Look it up. > which coincidentally means you don't really have to evaluate what you pass on - it's all indoctrination anyway! You seem to be overreacting. > So instead of focussing [sic] on passing on my knowledge and opinions, I focus on fostering the ability to gain knowledge. That's an artificial distinction, which is really the only point I've been trying to communicate throughout this whole discussion. What you call "the ability to gain knowledge" is still a collection of "knowledge and opinions," but perhaps obscured and not always clearly labeled as such. Obscuring doctrine like that is actually characteristic of deep and thorough indoctrination. Your doctrine isn't privileged such that training someone in it is somehow not indoctrination or less so than training other doctrines. > You should really, really look into epistemology. Which one?

by Timon3 3y ago

tivert 3y ago

> Who is more indoctrinated? You're still not getting it. Quit looking at things from your point of view for a minute. They're both indoctrinated, and "more" in this case is simply a function of how far they are from your ideology.

Timon3 3y ago
You can repeat this as often as you want to, but I will not agree that we live in post-factual times and everything is fully subjective. If you give somebody the tools to find the truth themselves they will not be necessarily follow their parents indoctrination. Try to consider whether you really wish to treat every single viewpoint as equal.
- tivert 3y ago
  > You can repeat this as often as you want to, but I will not agree that we live in post-factual times and everything is fully subjective. I figured as much. It's hard to believe you're not at the center of the universe. > If you give somebody the tools to find the truth themselves they will not be necessarily follow their parents indoctrination. You have to indoctrinate someone with the doctrine that "the truth" as the output of those tools. The problem you're having is you refuse to acknowledge that, and arbitrarily redefine certain kinds of indoctrination as not-indoctrination. It's probably because you need to feel that indoctrination is something that only the other guys do, because you've labeled indoctrination as bad thing done by baddies, and think of yourself as a goodie. > Try to consider whether you really wish to treat every single viewpoint as equal. I obviously don't. I have by own viewpoint that I prioritize over others because it's mine. I just don't lie to myself pretend that preference has a faux "objectivity."
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > I figured as much. It's hard to believe you're not at the center of the universe. Funnily enough that's what you're arguing - there is no truth, all knowledge is indoctrination, the only important thing is what you believe. I think that there is knowledge beyond humanity, and we are able to explore and discover more and more through scientific processes. We're not at the center, we're outside looking in. > You have to indoctrinate someone with the doctrine that "the truth" as the output of those tools. The problem you're having is you refuse to acknowledge that, and arbitrarily redefine certain kinds of indoctrination as not-indoctrination. No, I'm following commonly accepted epistemological frameworks. You're on the other hand re-defining "indoctrination" to mean "passing any kind of knowledge and opinion", which coincidentally means you don't really have to evaluate what you pass on - it's all indoctrination anyway! > It's probably because you need to feel that indoctrination is something that only the other guys do, because you've labeled indoctrination as bad thing done by baddies, and think of yourself as a goodie. Is your moral framework really this shallow? I simply acknowledge that I am fallible, and most of my knowledge is wrong. So instead of focussing on passing on my knowledge and opinions, I focus on fostering the ability to gain knowledge. But obviously there is no way someone else is doing something better than you! After all, you're at the center of the universe. You know how everything works, and what all things are. So of course you know there can't be any difference between what I do and what you do. > I obviously don't. I have by own viewpoint that I prioritize over others because it's mine. I just don't lie to myself pretend that preference has a faux "objectivity." You should really, really look into epistemology. There is a lot more to this world than "I thought of it, so it's what I think" - people have spent a lot of time thinking about how knowledge works, how you can gain it, and how you can differentiate truth from untruth. It seems you've either read a lot and rejected all of it, or you haven't read anything - in both cases you should give it another go, there might be interesting thoughts in there for you which you didn't come up with yourself!
    - tivert 3y ago
      > No, I'm following commonly accepted epistemological frameworks. Another term for those? Doctrine. > You're on the other hand re-defining "indoctrination" to mean "passing any kind of knowledge and opinion" That's not a redefinition, btw. Look it up. > which coincidentally means you don't really have to evaluate what you pass on - it's all indoctrination anyway! You seem to be overreacting. > So instead of focussing [sic] on passing on my knowledge and opinions, I focus on fostering the ability to gain knowledge. That's an artificial distinction, which is really the only point I've been trying to communicate throughout this whole discussion. What you call "the ability to gain knowledge" is still a collection of "knowledge and opinions," but perhaps obscured and not always clearly labeled as such. Obscuring doctrine like that is actually characteristic of deep and thorough indoctrination. Your doctrine isn't privileged such that training someone in it is somehow not indoctrination or less so than training other doctrines. > You should really, really look into epistemology. Which one?