3 ms·

So long as you recognize that there exists a material reality, the correspondence to which we call truth, there can be objectivity and a separation of activism

So long as you recognize that there exists a material reality, the correspondence to which we call truth, there can be objectivity and a separation of activism from teaching. If there can be no reasonable way to get closer to an objective truth, the very foundations of universities are in question and the entire institution destroyed. In fact, that is exactly what Queer Theory promotes, in which papers describe that when Queer Theory becomes normal, it must deconstruct itself further. No. I reject that notion. There is objective reality, and there is a reasonably objective way to teach knowledge apart from activism. It is entirely possible to promote alternate viewpoints without activism, so long as your alternate viewpoint is not "there is no objectivity".

wolverine876 3y ago
There's objective reality IMHO, but humans have demonstrated that we fail to see it clearly, and that our view of reality is biased by our beliefs, drives, experiences, etc. This understanding of human nature extends back to Plato, at least. One strong bias is that we follow social norms; we follow the herd. Challenges to that norm are upsetting, disruptive. But norms are not privileged in truth; there have been endless evil and ignorant norms in history. > If there can be no reasonable way to get closer to an objective truth, the very foundations of universities are in question and the entire institution destroyed. Nobody said we can't get closer, but the way to get closer is not to accept one set of beliefs and supress the others; it's to innovate and improve. We know much more about economics than we did 50 years ago and 100 years ago and centuries ago, but we still have far to go. > that is exactly what Queer Theory promotes Could you give an example of that?
- kardianos 3y ago
  You are joining a truth to a lie. Truth: Social normal and bias correlate. Lie: Engineering, History, Science, et al are strongly dependent on social norms.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Lie: Engineering, History, Science, et al are strongly dependent on social norms. I believe in the ideals you are talking about - I think they are essential. If we don't look at how we fail those ideals, how our biases have resulted in untruths, obviously we won't get closer to them. We need to face the cold, difficult truths: I encourage you to read histories of those fields; it is overwhelmingly the case that bias has affected them in significant ways. As simple examples, much of engineering has historically assumed male users; not only does that affect seatbelt usage or bulletproof vest usage in the military (a real thing!), but it also excludes women from doing certain jobs - the equipment is made for men but not for women. Much of medical research has been on males for male problems - for example, heart disease research for a long time used only male subjects, though the disease affects women differently. Part of the reason is the training (school) and hiring bias toward male researchers, as many studies have demonstrated (some simply by removing author names). It's self-perpetuating: We are biased, of course, to hire people like ourselves (an early lesson in business school) and to focus on problems we have experience with. You need someone to push to disrupt that cycle, force women, in these examples, into the system. Otherwise, it just keeps running on that way forever.
    - alasdair_ 3y ago
      >Much of medical research has been on males for male problems Or even men for pills designed for women. e.g. https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/a-drug-for-women-tested-on-men/ https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/a-drug-for-women-test...
    - kardianos 3y ago
      ... None of those biases require anything remotely like "activism" found in today's environments. All of those can be addressed with ease in existing objective frameworks.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        What reason do you have to say that? These biases have persisted for generations, even millenia in some cases. Generally, they don't change without pressure and, as MLK said, 'tension'. Plus, what is so bad about activism? What is wrong with people actively participating in democracy? It's nothing compared to the consequences of racism, sexism, etc.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  There are lots of topics being conflated here IMO. There are surely questions of subjectivity and bias, but I think they are distinct and perhaps secondary to the question of intellectual honesty and humility. My favorite thinkers with intellectual honesty and humility will not only admit, but highlight the biggest challenges to what they believe. They can acknowledge counterpoints and tradeoffs. When someone intentionally dodges or avoids the weakness of their own opinions, they are practicing rhetoric and manipulation, not education and truth-seeking. This is not so much an act of internal bias, but proactively attempting to mislead and instill bias in others. How many people can or will identify and confront the strongest possible counterargument against what they think without changing the subject?
thereticent 3y ago
This is a very naive take. The view of most postmodern forms of critique is that we can rule out clearly wrong views of the world as useless or counterproductive, but there is no one unmediated perspective that represents the truth. Moreover, there are many perspectives of the underlying reality that should be considered and treated with charity to determine what is "true" in them. That's why queer theory holds that it should be deconstructed if it becomes the dominant perspective. There doesn't need to be one! The "working theory" of reality can and should be intersubjective because it is always mediated through individual perspectives, language, etc. It's a matter of finding common ground and incorporating productive ground from other perspectives that moves us forward as a society. Seeking an objective and unified description of the underlying "foundational" reality is silly. Reality is not Truth. Instead, truth is a property of linguistic statements and other representations of (what are ultimately subjective or intersubjective) perspectives of the underlying reality. People reject that notion with funny statements like "No. I reject this" because they don't understand the argument and feel threatened by it.
scrubs 3y ago
Agree - your first paragraph restated better what I wrote elsewhere in this comment set. Telling a student what's going on in a subject is one thing. Intent to mould an outcome isn't. Teaching is not a by way to lobby.

wolverine876 3y ago

There's objective reality IMHO, but humans have demonstrated that we fail to see it clearly, and that our view of reality is biased by our beliefs, drives, experiences, etc. This understanding of human nature extends back to Plato, at least. One strong bias is that we follow social norms; we follow the herd. Challenges to that norm are upsetting, disruptive. But norms are not privileged in truth; there have been endless evil and ignorant norms in history. > If there can be no reasonable way to get closer to an objective truth, the very foundations of universities are in question and the entire institution destroyed. Nobody said we can't get closer, but the way to get closer is not to accept one set of beliefs and supress the others; it's to innovate and improve. We know much more about economics than we did 50 years ago and 100 years ago and centuries ago, but we still have far to go. > that is exactly what Queer Theory promotes Could you give an example of that?

kardianos 3y ago
You are joining a truth to a lie. Truth: Social normal and bias correlate. Lie: Engineering, History, Science, et al are strongly dependent on social norms.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Lie: Engineering, History, Science, et al are strongly dependent on social norms. I believe in the ideals you are talking about - I think they are essential. If we don't look at how we fail those ideals, how our biases have resulted in untruths, obviously we won't get closer to them. We need to face the cold, difficult truths: I encourage you to read histories of those fields; it is overwhelmingly the case that bias has affected them in significant ways. As simple examples, much of engineering has historically assumed male users; not only does that affect seatbelt usage or bulletproof vest usage in the military (a real thing!), but it also excludes women from doing certain jobs - the equipment is made for men but not for women. Much of medical research has been on males for male problems - for example, heart disease research for a long time used only male subjects, though the disease affects women differently. Part of the reason is the training (school) and hiring bias toward male researchers, as many studies have demonstrated (some simply by removing author names). It's self-perpetuating: We are biased, of course, to hire people like ourselves (an early lesson in business school) and to focus on problems we have experience with. You need someone to push to disrupt that cycle, force women, in these examples, into the system. Otherwise, it just keeps running on that way forever.
  - alasdair_ 3y ago
    >Much of medical research has been on males for male problems Or even men for pills designed for women. e.g. https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/a-drug-for-women-tested-on-men/ https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/a-drug-for-women-test...
  - kardianos 3y ago
    ... None of those biases require anything remotely like "activism" found in today's environments. All of those can be addressed with ease in existing objective frameworks.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      What reason do you have to say that? These biases have persisted for generations, even millenia in some cases. Generally, they don't change without pressure and, as MLK said, 'tension'. Plus, what is so bad about activism? What is wrong with people actively participating in democracy? It's nothing compared to the consequences of racism, sexism, etc.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
There are lots of topics being conflated here IMO. There are surely questions of subjectivity and bias, but I think they are distinct and perhaps secondary to the question of intellectual honesty and humility. My favorite thinkers with intellectual honesty and humility will not only admit, but highlight the biggest challenges to what they believe. They can acknowledge counterpoints and tradeoffs. When someone intentionally dodges or avoids the weakness of their own opinions, they are practicing rhetoric and manipulation, not education and truth-seeking. This is not so much an act of internal bias, but proactively attempting to mislead and instill bias in others. How many people can or will identify and confront the strongest possible counterargument against what they think without changing the subject?

thereticent 3y ago

This is a very naive take. The view of most postmodern forms of critique is that we can rule out clearly wrong views of the world as useless or counterproductive, but there is no one unmediated perspective that represents the truth. Moreover, there are many perspectives of the underlying reality that should be considered and treated with charity to determine what is "true" in them. That's why queer theory holds that it should be deconstructed if it becomes the dominant perspective. There doesn't need to be one! The "working theory" of reality can and should be intersubjective because it is always mediated through individual perspectives, language, etc. It's a matter of finding common ground and incorporating productive ground from other perspectives that moves us forward as a society. Seeking an objective and unified description of the underlying "foundational" reality is silly. Reality is not Truth. Instead, truth is a property of linguistic statements and other representations of (what are ultimately subjective or intersubjective) perspectives of the underlying reality. People reject that notion with funny statements like "No. I reject this" because they don't understand the argument and feel threatened by it.

scrubs 3y ago

Agree - your first paragraph restated better what I wrote elsewhere in this comment set. Telling a student what's going on in a subject is one thing. Intent to mould an outcome isn't. Teaching is not a by way to lobby.