6 ms·

Sorry, but all teaching[1] takes a position. Being fringe/widely accepted and taking a position are orthogonal concepts. It sounds like Yale's instead engaging

Sorry, but all teaching[1] takes a position. Being fringe/widely accepted and taking a position are orthogonal concepts. It sounds like Yale's instead engaging in curriculum by controversy avoidance, which incidentally is one of the worst ways of designing a curriculum and most certainly "taking a position" - the position of trying to avoid controversy. 1. by virtue of being an interpersonal interaction

smokel 3y ago
I started writing a similar comment at this, but then figured that the situation is not so black-and-white. Some activists are using disingenuous practices to undermine science. Undermining science by itself might be a noble cause in some areas, but please just use the legal or political systems to accomplish that. Do not attack individuals directly.
- jimbokun 3y ago
  What would be an example of nobly undermining science? Do you mean undermining poorly done science with better science?
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Maybe they mean "calling scientific method a form of racism?" Just a thought.
  - bilbo0s 3y ago
    I think they mean demanding the elimination of peer review. There is a movement afoot to eliminate the practice because if it is done the way intended, the bar is too high. The bar probably is too high, but that's not necessarily a problem. Rather that's the point. I agree, that particular movement does have at its root an assault on science.
    - jimbokun 3y ago
      Should go on peer review, and demand replication of results before accepting a paper's findings, in an ideal world.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - smokel 3y ago
    I could imagine some people not liking research into several kinds of weapons, artificial intelligence, or research that requires animal testing.
gnicholas 3y ago
> It sounds like Yale's instead engaging in curriculum by controversy avoidance This isn’t my reading of the situation at all. They aren’t seeking to avoid all controversy, but rather to allow students and faculty to discuss even controversial issues from multiple sides. Can you point to the language that makes you think they’re trying to avoid teaching controversial subjects?
jimbokun 3y ago
Bias may be unavoidable, but it should be rooted out to the greatest extent possible. This is a core principle central to human advancement. It is central to the scientific method, and liberal societies generally. Fringe positions can be revolutionary and important. More often, they are reactionary and not well thought out. There is nothing wrong with advocating for a fringe position. But you better have the intellectual goods, and not just win arguments by default by suppressing dissent. The latter is activism. Controversy should mean giving opposing view points a fair shake and judging between them by the strength of the data and arguments supporting them. Not by university administrations unilaterally deciding and declaring dissent as "unsafe" for the students who don't want to be exposed to anything that challenges their world views.
- shuntress 3y ago
  The issue here is Overton Window.
- gnramires 3y ago
  I think it's important to understand what bias is. Bias is not having an opinion. Bias is when several particulars to you influence your opinions in ways that don't reflect certain values, like the common good, truth, accurate representations of the matter, or similar values. I also think conveying certainty when there is none is a form of bias (when advocating for change, for example), as is equally advocating for absolute ignorance where there are some principles we can have confidence is. That's different from neutrality, which for me is avoiding expressing opinions at all. I think neutrality is valuable if otherwise dialogue would be misinterpreted or cause conflict. Conversations need a well moderated (safe, welcoming, with vigilance for good-faith discussion) and freely exchanging environment to be productive, otherwise I think neutrality is the best option. Neutrality is also a good option when there are different cultural notions/opinions that can coexist without coming into conflict (this is a case where promoting uniformity and uniform agreement can be harmful, I believe! -- like, we don't need to agree that basketball is superior to football or something like that).
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > Bias may be unavoidable, but it should be rooted out to the greatest extent possible That's not the way I'd phrase it. Bias should aim towards truth. Unbiased signal treats Young Earth Creationism and the geologically- and astronomically-rooted theory of long time as equivalently valid viewpoints. The bias should be, for hard sciences, on the scientific method and evidence-based reasoning.
idkdotcom 3y ago
[dead]
prof-dr-ir 3y ago
All teaching? So which position am I taking when I teach students how to compute the determinant of a matrix? Of course I can imagine that, say, constitutional law might currently be a bit more difficult to teach. But I still do not see what concretely the Yale administration is called upon to stop doing.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  Thank you! This is a really good example of assuming that topics as things in themselves have the essential characteristic of neutrality. Which is itself a position. The opposite of which is that things don't have an essential characteristic of neutrality.[1] Sorry, but there's no escape hatch in the hard sciences; there's only one level of indirection. For any topic, I can generate a frame[2] in which it takes a non-neutral position. That's why neutrality doesn't exist. 1. teach the controversy, both sides! (in jest) 2. See Frame Analysis, Erving Goffman
- itishappy 3y ago
  > So which position am I taking when I teach students how to compute the determinant of a matrix? You mean the wedge product? ;)
- lambertsimnel 3y ago
  > So which position am I taking when I teach students how to compute the determinant of a matrix? That how to compute the determinant of a matrix is not only worth knowing, but worth prioritising over other things. It's an eminently reasonable position, but there's an opportunity cost to learning about determinants.
tivert 3y ago
> It sounds like Yale's instead engaging in curriculum by controversy avoidance, which incidentally is one of the worst ways of designing a curriculum and most certainly "taking a position" - the position of trying to avoid controversy. I don't see the phrase "taking a position" in the OP, and your point seems to rest on that phrase. But to your point, you're interpreting "taking a position" to be so broadly that it's meaningless. There's definitely a phenomenon of activists trying to co-opt prestigious institutions to further their activist goals, but that has a way of debasing the institutions' other goals. It seems like these measures are meant to counter that problem. Activists tend to have a kind of monomania, where they're so focused on their activist goal that most other good things lose their value in comparison, so they're willing and eager to sacrifice those things. That's often a warped perspective, and the people who value those other good things need to labor to keep the activist impulse in check.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
The educating someone on a topic can be distinct in both process and outcome from simply converting them to a position. conversion is a primary goal of activism, and education can be counterproductive to this goal. Selective information, misinformation, and intentional generation of bias are all ways to convert someone to a position. You can often see these tools utilized by activists of all types. Teachers will always have positions given that they are human. However, not all humans deploy the same intellectual honesty. For example, if someone is teaching about a subject where they have a position, they can present the strongest or weakest counter position, or none at all. A classic example of this is how basically every country depict their national history in schools.

smokel 3y ago

I started writing a similar comment at this, but then figured that the situation is not so black-and-white. Some activists are using disingenuous practices to undermine science. Undermining science by itself might be a noble cause in some areas, but please just use the legal or political systems to accomplish that. Do not attack individuals directly.

jimbokun 3y ago
What would be an example of nobly undermining science? Do you mean undermining poorly done science with better science?
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Maybe they mean "calling scientific method a form of racism?" Just a thought.
- bilbo0s 3y ago
  I think they mean demanding the elimination of peer review. There is a movement afoot to eliminate the practice because if it is done the way intended, the bar is too high. The bar probably is too high, but that's not necessarily a problem. Rather that's the point. I agree, that particular movement does have at its root an assault on science.
  - jimbokun 3y ago
    Should go on peer review, and demand replication of results before accepting a paper's findings, in an ideal world.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- smokel 3y ago
  I could imagine some people not liking research into several kinds of weapons, artificial intelligence, or research that requires animal testing.

gnicholas 3y ago

> It sounds like Yale's instead engaging in curriculum by controversy avoidance This isn’t my reading of the situation at all. They aren’t seeking to avoid all controversy, but rather to allow students and faculty to discuss even controversial issues from multiple sides. Can you point to the language that makes you think they’re trying to avoid teaching controversial subjects?

jimbokun 3y ago

Bias may be unavoidable, but it should be rooted out to the greatest extent possible. This is a core principle central to human advancement. It is central to the scientific method, and liberal societies generally. Fringe positions can be revolutionary and important. More often, they are reactionary and not well thought out. There is nothing wrong with advocating for a fringe position. But you better have the intellectual goods, and not just win arguments by default by suppressing dissent. The latter is activism. Controversy should mean giving opposing view points a fair shake and judging between them by the strength of the data and arguments supporting them. Not by university administrations unilaterally deciding and declaring dissent as "unsafe" for the students who don't want to be exposed to anything that challenges their world views.

shuntress 3y ago
The issue here is Overton Window.
gnramires 3y ago
I think it's important to understand what bias is. Bias is not having an opinion. Bias is when several particulars to you influence your opinions in ways that don't reflect certain values, like the common good, truth, accurate representations of the matter, or similar values. I also think conveying certainty when there is none is a form of bias (when advocating for change, for example), as is equally advocating for absolute ignorance where there are some principles we can have confidence is. That's different from neutrality, which for me is avoiding expressing opinions at all. I think neutrality is valuable if otherwise dialogue would be misinterpreted or cause conflict. Conversations need a well moderated (safe, welcoming, with vigilance for good-faith discussion) and freely exchanging environment to be productive, otherwise I think neutrality is the best option. Neutrality is also a good option when there are different cultural notions/opinions that can coexist without coming into conflict (this is a case where promoting uniformity and uniform agreement can be harmful, I believe! -- like, we don't need to agree that basketball is superior to football or something like that).
shadowgovt 3y ago
> Bias may be unavoidable, but it should be rooted out to the greatest extent possible That's not the way I'd phrase it. Bias should aim towards truth. Unbiased signal treats Young Earth Creationism and the geologically- and astronomically-rooted theory of long time as equivalently valid viewpoints. The bias should be, for hard sciences, on the scientific method and evidence-based reasoning.

idkdotcom 3y ago

[dead]

prof-dr-ir 3y ago

All teaching? So which position am I taking when I teach students how to compute the determinant of a matrix? Of course I can imagine that, say, constitutional law might currently be a bit more difficult to teach. But I still do not see what concretely the Yale administration is called upon to stop doing.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
Thank you! This is a really good example of assuming that topics as things in themselves have the essential characteristic of neutrality. Which is itself a position. The opposite of which is that things don't have an essential characteristic of neutrality.[1] Sorry, but there's no escape hatch in the hard sciences; there's only one level of indirection. For any topic, I can generate a frame[2] in which it takes a non-neutral position. That's why neutrality doesn't exist. 1. teach the controversy, both sides! (in jest) 2. See Frame Analysis, Erving Goffman
itishappy 3y ago
> So which position am I taking when I teach students how to compute the determinant of a matrix? You mean the wedge product? ;)
lambertsimnel 3y ago
> So which position am I taking when I teach students how to compute the determinant of a matrix? That how to compute the determinant of a matrix is not only worth knowing, but worth prioritising over other things. It's an eminently reasonable position, but there's an opportunity cost to learning about determinants.

tivert 3y ago

> It sounds like Yale's instead engaging in curriculum by controversy avoidance, which incidentally is one of the worst ways of designing a curriculum and most certainly "taking a position" - the position of trying to avoid controversy. I don't see the phrase "taking a position" in the OP, and your point seems to rest on that phrase. But to your point, you're interpreting "taking a position" to be so broadly that it's meaningless. There's definitely a phenomenon of activists trying to co-opt prestigious institutions to further their activist goals, but that has a way of debasing the institutions' other goals. It seems like these measures are meant to counter that problem. Activists tend to have a kind of monomania, where they're so focused on their activist goal that most other good things lose their value in comparison, so they're willing and eager to sacrifice those things. That's often a warped perspective, and the people who value those other good things need to labor to keep the activist impulse in check.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

The educating someone on a topic can be distinct in both process and outcome from simply converting them to a position. conversion is a primary goal of activism, and education can be counterproductive to this goal. Selective information, misinformation, and intentional generation of bias are all ways to convert someone to a position. You can often see these tools utilized by activists of all types. Teachers will always have positions given that they are human. However, not all humans deploy the same intellectual honesty. For example, if someone is teaching about a subject where they have a position, they can present the strongest or weakest counter position, or none at all. A classic example of this is how basically every country depict their national history in schools.