4 ms·
Proof of better outcomes is unnecessary. That sounds anti-science if ever I heard it. Claiming inherent superiority while denigrating evidence and empirical a
by dmpk2k 14y ago
Proof of better outcomes is unnecessary.
That sounds anti-science if ever I heard it.
Claiming inherent superiority while denigrating evidence and empirical approaches is cut from the same cloth as religion, and certainly won't convince those of us with higher standards.
- randallsquared 14y agoIt depends on what you think "better" means. If you use "better" to mean "fits what I think ought to happen", then it makes sense to test market outcomes against nonmarket outcomes and decide which is better. If you use "better" to mean "what most people prefer", then the market is, in most cases, the best way we have to determine that, and talking about proof of better outcomes is analogous to asking for empirical proof that empiricism is a better way to find truth.
- cynicalkane 14y agoThis is a great attitude to make yourself feel better, but it's not terribly productive if you can't produce some science yourself, or if you are, you know, any way inclined towards respecting humans' individual choices. Economists and sociologists, who are much better at science than educators, try to avoid making the mistake of knocking peoples' choices unless they're obviously irrational, because forcing peoples behavior to be a certain way in the name of "science" is an easy way to be disastrously wrong.
- vidarh 14y agoLetting parents choose schools is not any more respective the choice of the individuals most directly affected than having government decide on the school.