3 ms·
> No, I'm following commonly accepted epistemological frameworks. Another term for those? Doctrine. > You're on the other hand re-defining "indoctrination" to
by 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?
- Timon3 3y agoSee, the problem is that with something like: > Another term for those? Doctrine. you show that there is literally no sense in attempting to convince you. You divide everything into black and white, where seemingly any kind of knowledge is automatically doctrine. If I bring up ways to analyze how we attain knowledge and how we can make sure knowledge follows "facts" in a philosophical sense, you just declare that to be doctrine too. You're not responding to any arguments or thoughts beyond automatically declaring them doctrine. > That's not a redefinition, btw. Look it up. Sure, let's do it! Cambridge says: "the process of repeating an idea or belief to someone until they accept it without criticism or question" Dictionary.com says: "the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view" So your definition is completely different from the first (since I mentioned critical examination), and it falls under one specific part of the second (but fails the others completely). So sure, if you completely ignore the other - more commonly known - definition, you are technically correct. If you accept the word as it is commonly used (we don't want to put you at the center of the universe, do we?) suddenly your rants are pretty baseless.