KC Johnson has an excellent discussion of ideological diverstiy, or its absence, on campuses today.
Previous Entry: A Senator’s Confusion
Next Entry: Gloomy, Nay-Saying Liberals
KC Johnson has an excellent discussion of ideological diverstiy, or its absence, on campuses today.
Well, as much as I liked Johnson’s article, he could have been more to the point. This can all be summarized in one sentence:
“How in the world can any sane person espouse Marxism in light of the events of the 20th Century?”
The class/race/sex theorists are Marxists. Humanities departments in universities are full of Marxists. No decent, sane person talks Marxism, any more than a decent, sane person takes Nazism. They are the same thing.
And, no, the problem isn’t that it hasn’t been done right yet.
According to the Pitt quartet, self-selection accounts for findings that the faculty of elite disproportionately tilts to the Left.
Richard, I’ve seen a lot of silliness in the humanities, but what you say above is a wild overstatement. There is a vast amount of genuine scholarship in the humanities, and many, many cases in which someone set out to prove one thing, determined after working on the problem that s/he was incorrect, and published the truth as best s/he knew it. It operates almost exactly like science in that regard: You have a hunch, and you see whether the evidence you can find backs it up.
“No decent, sane person talks Marxism, any more than a decent, sane person takes Nazism.”
that’s what neo-marxism is for.
But plenty of people have a use or the ideas in the preface to the critique of political economy, for example.
Sorry Michelle, I seemed to have hit a sensitive nerve there. I certainly didn
Richard,
To take a case in which I personally made an idiot of myself in a paper (sorry if it’s tedious to follow, but it’s the best way I can see to make the point):
By the early 18th century, a “concerto grosso” was a piece involving a “concertino” of a few players and a bigger body (called the “concerto grosso”) accompanying and interacting with it. The usual concertino was two violins and cello, but Francesco Geminiani added a viola to the group in his concerti grossi. Geminiani, before the pieces in question, had arranged some Corelli violin sonatas as concerti grossi, and there also he used a viola in the concertino group.
My beautiful theory was that in the Corelli arrangements Geminiani needed some way of adding textural interest in the middle, and hit on having an extra part in the concertino so that the second violin and viola could trade off in the middle register. (They do, a lot.) And then he liked the setup so much that he kept on using it.
The ugly fact spoiling the beautiful theory is that Pietro Locatelli used a viola — sometimes even more than one — in the concertino even before Geminiani started messing with Corelli’s sonatas. So it’s quite likely he got the idea elsewhere.
So there you go. I have a theory about why someone came to do something. I don’t recognize that someone else whose work the composer would surely have known had already done it. I have to modify my theory.
Just an illustration, one I know particularly well. But as I said, there are a heck of a lot more where that came from.
Michelle, that was an interesting example but you are using the word theory in a different context than the way it is used in science. The definition of theory you are using is the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another. Obviously, if you find a contrary fact then your theory (really a hypothesis) is disproved. However, what you did is not what is meant by the scientific method. The scientific method works as follows:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
The basic assumption in science is that the results of an experiment are reproducible. What is missing in non-science disciplines is the ability to make predictions and do experiments to test these predictions. That is why it is called the scientific method, because it is used to validate or disprove a hypothesis about the laws of nature.
“When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena”
I wish someone would explain this to the creationists.
Surprise actus, but we actually agree on something. No not your fascination with Marxism (or neo-Marxism) but you disdain for
Creationism. Creationism has nothing to do with science. It is a religious belief that attempts to use the trappings of science to support its position. However, you can
“. No not your fascination with Marxism (or neo-Marxism)”
What fascination with Marxism (or neo-marxism)?
“I wonder why the Left gets so upset about people who believe in Creationism?”
Its not just the left. Its people concerned about all sorts of things such as science education and preventing the establishment of religion in schools. I’m guessing a lot of opposition is because the wackos want to establish religion, piggyback onto the good name of science, and are using the general right wing PR machine built over the last several decades. And it infuriates people to see something gaining traction due to this PR when it obviously has no merit.
“Until Creationists are able to develop technology that is based on their
“. No not your fascination with Marxism (or neo-Marxism)”
What fascination with Marxism (or neo-marxism)?
Actus, you have told us many times about your dislike of capitalism. So if it is not Marxism what political philosophy do you favor?
I’m guessing a lot of opposition is because the wackos want to establish religion, piggyback onto the good name of science, and are using the general right wing PR machine built over the last several decades. And it infuriates people to see something gaining traction due to this PR when it obviously has no merit.
I think you have indirectly answered my question. It is not so much the fact that Creationism is promulgating incorrect ideas that bothers you as the fact that it is being done by fundamentalism Christian groups. You dislike (hatred?) of fundamentalism Christian religion seems to be what is upsetting you so much. I gave you examples of other erroneous information that is being promulgated in the schools but that does not seem to bother you in the least. Environmentalism is being taught in the schools as a religion and not as a science. The fact that it is paganism (we must worship Mother Earth/Gaia) as opposed to Christianity should not make it any less objectionable for someone who professes to be concerned with the separation of church and state. I guess a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
“Actus, you have told us many times about your dislike of capitalism.”
My dislike of “capitalism”? Like what? and even if there is some, why does it have to be marxist? Was there no dislike of ‘capitalism’ before marx? I don’t like plutocracy, but thats not very Marxist.
“It is not so much the fact that Creationism is promulgating incorrect ideas that bothers you as the fact that it is being done by fundamentalism Christian groups.”
I directly answered your question that fundemantalists are trying to prosletyze by using PR, the good name of science, and our schools.
What schools are teaching pagan worship as science? I can see schools presenting holistic views of earth systems, as well as stressing the importance of respecting the finite resources we have. I can see how wingers might feel that opposition to their views is religious and not rational.
Actus, for your reading pleasure. The subject of environmentalism as a religion is discussed by a noted author.
“The subject of environmentalism as a religion is discussed by a noted author.”
some people treat environmentalism as a religion. What schools are teaching it that way?
Actus, don
“Why do I have to do all your work for you? ”
Because you’re the one saying it. Duh.
I looked at a few of your links.
I agree that “mother earth” should not be in school. Have the kids just write a letter to the earth.
But whats the problem with these:
http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlresources/units/Byrnes-celebrations/earthday.html
http://www.lessonplanspage.com/SSScienceMusicEarthDaySongIdeaK4.htm
“Why do I have to do all your work for you? “
Because you’re the one saying it. Duh.
One of us lacks a sense of humor.
But whats the problem with these:
Subject – Social Studies, Music, Science
Grade Level – K-4
Love Our World
tune: “If You’re Happy and You Know it…”
If you love our world, clap your hands (clap, clap)
If you love our world, clap your hands (clap, clap)
If you love our world, really love our great big world; If you love our world, clap your hands! (clap, clap)
If you love our world, plant new trees (new trees!)
If you love our world, plant new trees (new trees!)
If you love our world, plant new trees for birds and bees; If you love our world, plant new trees! (new trees!)
If you love our world, recycle (recycle!)
If you love our world, recycle (recycle!)
If you love our world, then recycle and reuse; If you love our world, recycle! (recycle!)
If you love our world do your part (do your part!)
If you love our world do your part (do your part!)
If you love our world, really love our great big world; If you love our world, BE SMART! (be smart!!)
You really don’t see how “if you love our world” is inappropriate for a secular classroom? How does this differ from paganism? We are no more supposed to be teaching love of Mother Earth than we are teaching love of God in the classroom.
As to your other reference it was the save our world theme that I objected to. However, these are only the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of more links if you care to look them up. I believe I made my point about how environmentalism is being taught as a religion in the classroom. Besides I think we are boring everyone else so I will stop posting on this link.
“You really don’t see how “if you love our world” is inappropriate for a secular classroom? How does this differ from paganism? We are no more supposed to be teaching love of Mother Earth than we are teaching love of God in the classroom.”
We can love the world in that we care for it, rather than worship it. Its not idolatry to sing “god bless america, land that I love.”
“As to your other reference it was the save our world theme that I objected to.”
I figured. I don’t see how saving the world from environmental devastation is religious.