After articles and columns and posts and rants about "intellectuals" and their academic religions, this was a nice little clarification:
"Who Are the Real Intellectuals?
If you're really smart -- a genuine intellectual -- then you will be able to communicate effectively, especially with people who disagree with you. (In physics, the language used is mathematics; but in most fields, it is the native tongue of the people.)"
This is the way I have always felt about REAL intellectuals. I am glad you allow for the idea of people being interested in intellectual persuits, and not being brainwashed priests of athiethism (or whatever the hyperbole).
quote:The best writers aren't writing to please their professors.
The best artists aren't taking their classes or applying for their grants.
The best young office-seekers are sickened by the Groupthink and desperate to find sensible real-world solutions to real problems instead of joining either of the two teams of semi-insane people called "parties."
The best teachers let the words of the education theorists pour over them like rain and then get on with their work in the real world.
Again, yes. But here's the thing, and its coming from a senior (double English/Musicology) major who is researching his thesis, I have always felt that these people were the CENTER of my university life. Like you, I do ocassionally see fellow students (all quite brilliant) become "jargon junkies" and flunkies to a specific order, but I have NEVER had any illusions about what that meant. I naturally (so I would hope anyway) flinch at what looks like reactionism (reactionary-ism??), and psuedo-intellectual garbage, and frankly I can't see how anyone is fooled into believing that people who spout the party line are actually thinking for themselves. When it's obvious to me, it seems it should be obvious to EVERYONE that there is a difference between smart and quick. What I mean to say: you assume (in a way like me) that YOU will be able to spot the lemmings, but you express the fear that others may be fooled. If you see them as being so laughably obvious (and they are mostly) then why worry at all?
The fear that lemmings and "groupthinkers" will invade our academic disciplines and bread ignorance and fear of individuality is silly though. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. People don't get smarter or stupider collectively over a span of knoweable years: and yet you suggest that somehow a group of fakers will "take over" (have taken over) and destroy education? What happens when a branch of study becomes obsolete, or when a university campus falls into mismanagement and decline?
You fear the artificial preservation of psuedo-intellectual departments, but remember that MANY fields (take your own example, string theory) are exhausted quickly, and preserved for political reasons, rather than being completely changed. Like you say: effective study moves on to somewhere else. In the 19th century, effective study of the physical world was largely divided among rich and priveliged gentlemen who indulged scientific hobbies: chemisty and geology were fashionable persuits then, just as pleasure reading and film going are today. The study moved into the university, but it was never a hollowed ground, above rebuke or beneath suspician. When the system becomes less effective, over time, it dies away, a natural death. There is less to worry about than you think.
But like you say, and you're right to say it: good writers (take yourself perfectly good example) and good thinkers keep writing on and thinking despite everything that changes. That does not change: people are not getting stupider- their just not always getting wiser.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The best teachers let the words of the education theorists pour over them like rain and then get on with their work in the real world."
Well, no. The best teachers listen to the education theorists, because the education theorists have a lot of data backing their theories up. The people who don't listen to the education theorists, and are still good teachers, usually have many of the same ideas the education theorists have.
But the educators turned out by quality education departments (any by quality, I mean departments that rely on the scientifically gathered data about learning for the backbone of their curriculum) are typically quite good.
Over on ornery, in the world-watch section, someone wrote a brilliant rebuttal to OSC"s assertions about the world of physics. I suggest you take a peek at it. Well worth your time.
Well, no. The best teachers know what they are talking about and don't need any "theories" that cloud the issues. And no, they don't have the same ideas as the education theorists. They have completely different ones that actually work, and don't pretend that they work because they think they should work. I'll go with OSC on this one.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
That is a good link.
I don't agree with Smollin: sure, string theory isn't a first-class theory, and it's questionable whether it's a scientific theory, or rather, group of theories -- in that you can alter a lot about any particular version w/o changing what it predicts about the real world -- but physicists know this and have been both questioning it and simultaneously pursuing other options, as Stradling points out in the link.
There is scientific groupthink, to be sure. People who approve of its results call it "scientific consensus," but it's still a disaster. From around 1930-1970, there was a scientific consensus that continental drift was hogwash. After Pasteur's germ theory of disease and whatshisname's experiment that showed surgeons who washed their hands had way fewer deaths from post-surgical infection, scientific consensus was that whatshisname's idea was stupid. Today, according to the media, there is scientific consensus that global warming on Earth today is caused by global CO2 emissions, despite the simultaneous warming on Jupiter and Mars, and the changes in solar activity that would affect all 3.
--
One of my colleagues (math) recently did a workshop on using the classics, which our college tries to promote. (He's using Euclid. ) He said the humanities people asked him if he used "theory" in math. It's the same kind OSC is talking about as "theoretics," and I asked a couple of English profs (fifty-somethings; political liberals). They said it was about analyzing every text from the perspective of some ideology. Peter Rabbit can be analyzed using Marxist theory, feminist theory, queer theory (yes, they call it that!).
What difference does it make if someone analyzes a text from some perspective? I think the problem is that the text becomes the servant of the ideology, and that's too much blind faith for me. It makes sense to analyze The Time Machine from the perspective of class struggle, but it makes little sense to analyze Alice's Adventures Underground that way.
What I am more concerned with is if professors require adherence to an ideology for a passing grade, or for hiring and promotion. Which apparently they do in some places. At my college, though, the professors simply want their students to give coherent opinions, right or wrong. Of course, we're not Harvard.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Well, no. The best teachers know what they are talking about and don't need any "theories" that cloud the issues. And no, they don't have the same ideas as the education theorists. They have completely different ones that actually work, and don't pretend that they work because they think they should work. I'll go with OSC on this one."
You and OSC are both wrong, because you're not talking about educational theorists. You're talking about a stereotype about what education theory is, that doesn't actually match reality. You're talking about educators who don't listen to educational theorists. The educational theorists are the people who actually have data showing that their ideas work. There's quite a lot of data thats been collected on how students learn, and that data is what educational theorists are using to formulate their ideas.
I've used these ideas on several different varities of students, and I see them working. I have 3 classes of fairly motivated physics students, at a college preperatory level. One class of physics students who aren't really motivated, and will probably never take another science course. One class of freshmen biology, completely unmotivated students, most with severe learning disabilities, and some with serious behavorial problems, ranging from severe ADHD to mild autism. IQ's in the class start at 60, and most are well below average intelligence. I've also used educational theories in an inner city classroom of 8th graders mostly unmotivated to learn.
Surprisingly, the data collected by educational theorists and the ideas they formulated based on those ideas, have helped me in each of those four classroom settings far more then the ideas of people who disdain educational theory.
[ October 21, 2006, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm using the term "Educational theorist" to apply to the group of people that I think OSC is talking about, which are people who study how students learn and how to understand how students learn so that we can apply proper teaching techniques to maximize learning.
And what those people do certainly applies to both physics and english... WHAT to teach its students, and some of the specifics of how to teach (for example, the construction of demonstrations, the choice of textbooks, etc) is certainly done within each discipline. But HOW to teach is what educational theorists work on.
One of the examples is what is often called "think -pair-share." How I apply this concept in my classroom is by showing a situation, or demonstration. Each student comes to an understanding of the situation, without much guidance from me as a teacher. Then students pair or group up and argue out their different ideas. Here, I'll give some guidance. I might remind them of principles they've already learned. Then, after each group has reached a consensus, we come back to a whole class meeting, and I'll do a demonstration or we'll do an activity that isolates the key concept that will allow the students to understand the physical principle behind the first situation I showed them.
This method has a lot of evidence that it WORKS to help students learn, regardless of discipline, and it works WELL. Yeah, teachers probably did it before it was called think-pair-share, or interactive learning demonstration, or whatever each education department calls it. But we now KNOW it works, because we have evidence that is collected as close to scientifically as possible when dealing with something like education, and so we can disseminate that information, along with the information that shows most adolescents do not learn well from lectures, and point out that if we want our students do learn, TPS or ILD is far better then lecture.
Its one small example of how badly OSC is wrong. And its cross disciplinary.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The problem with educational theory and most other fields is that in order for people to get Ph.D.s they have to keep changing stuff. At least, it seems to me that's how it works. There is a worthwhile and important change from time to time, and the field wouldn't stay alive to see these changes if people weren't pressed to innovate. So I don't know what the answer is.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Will- Read the column again. Orinocro quotes part of the passage at the top of the column. He talks about how The best TEACHERS (without other qualifiers) do not listen to education theorists.
Perhaps its not possible to understand what OSC is talking about if you've never read his other essay's, but to me at least, its very clear that he's talking about people who spend their lives studying how people learn and applying that to education.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
No, its not meant to condemn education theorists. Its a potshot in passing at a group he likes to take potshots at.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
If "education theorists" are so right, why is education still going down the drain?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If "education theorists" are so right, why is education still going down the drain?
Do you want a sincere answer to that question?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Because people like you don't want educational theorists designing curriculum and teaching strategies? And because we get people elected who think that the way to fix education is to make standardized tests for everything, which is something educational theorists have strongly identified as being anti-learning? And because school boards and state legislators refuse to listen to advice educators offer, instead listening to business interests? And because we try to teach EVERYONE, regardless of their desire to learn or the desire of their parents to learn? Possibly also the disdain large portions of the country have for education, thus undermining educators? Also because economic access and parental time spent with students are huge determinants in academic success and our economy is such that fewer and fewer kids have the home resources needed to excel because both their parents are working, and have less money to spend on educational tools? But perhaps most importantly because our society views education as a means to a good job, and getting a good job is not the goal to have in mind if you want to get a good education, because goal oriented learning is less effective then internally motivated learning.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hmmm. I started this thread because I was glad OSC was acknowledging that there is MORE than one way of looking at any situation... Okey dokey.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
There is more then one way of looking at a situation.
But OSC tells us that the people who actually know the most about that situation don't know anything, because for political reasons he doesn't like the people who know things (usually because they disagree with him) so he takes potshots like this one at educational theorists, without actually bothering to be RIGHT when he takes those potshots... which means he's spreading damaging misinformation.
OSC's a hack. Never trust him when he criticizes a group that is sometimes identified with the "left" because he's almost never criticizing that group based on reality.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: [QB] There is scientific groupthink, to be sure. People who approve of its results call it "scientific consensus," but it's still a disaster. From around 1930-1970, there was a scientific consensus that continental drift was hogwash. After Pasteur's germ theory of disease and whatshisname's experiment that showed surgeons who washed their hands had way fewer deaths from post-surgical infection, scientific consensus was that whatshisname's idea was stupid. Today, according to the media, there is scientific consensus that global warming on Earth today is caused by global CO2 emissions, despite the simultaneous warming on Jupiter and Mars, and the changes in solar activity that would affect all 3.
And now there is scientific consensus that washing hands is a Good Thing for surgeons. Is that wrong too, then, since so many scientists agree on it? You are cherry-picking your examples, here. I would suggest that if 'groupthink' is going to mean 'lots of scientists whom I disagree with', then it is not a very useful concept.
Incidentally, you are probably thinking of Semmelweiss. Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Cherry-picking is justified if your point is to show that some fruits are cherries! These examples show that scientific consensus is unreliable. One would have been sufficient.
But the great thing about science is that we don't have to rely on consensus; we can rely on observation. We don't believe in sterile practices for surgery because we take polls; we do it because we've done observations and confirmed that it *is* a good idea.
Saying that the majority of polled scientists is always wrong is the same sort of error as saying it's always right: it replaces observation with fashion.
--
(I deleted the posts I'd made asking Paul about his comments, because, well, when I'm at someone's place and another guest starts calling the host names, I prefer to be in another room when that happens.)
[ October 21, 2006, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:These examples show that scientific consensus is unreliable. One would have been sufficient.
I know someone who, had he been wearing his eeatbelt when his car was struck by an oncoming truck, would have been decapitated by a girder. I assume wearing a seatbelt, thanks to this single data point, is demonstrably a bad idea?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Sure, you can assume whatever you want. I'm not trying to control what you think, just to present a view of what's worked and what hasn't.
Is it so hard? Every single one of us has had science in school; we have every reason to know how it works. We see every day the power of what science has done for us. We also see throughout history the examples of consensus's unreliability. If we abandon science for orthodoxy, I'll grant that we're being consistent with human nature, but I'd rather know the truth than agree with everyone.
[ October 22, 2006, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: We also see throughout history the examples of consensus's unreliability.
These tend to be exceptions that prove the rule, though. While it's certainly true that consensus itself means nothing, consensus is often symptomatic of accuracy.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
And there is a pretty simple rule. When consensus agrees with observation, it's probably right. When it disagrees with observation, it's probably wrong. When it's unclear whether it agrees with observation, it's unclear whether consensus is right. It's obvious where the reliability lies -- and where string theory and anthropogenic global warming fit into this.
Posted by Dasa (Member # 8968) on :
I think the issue is not that straightforward.
Most of the times, the problem is not with the observations themselves but with the interpretation of the observations. Then, there is a consensus on the interpretation with which you might agree or disagree.
Posted by Abyss (Member # 3086) on :
quote:Today, according to the media, there is scientific consensus that global warming on Earth today is caused by global CO2 emissions, despite the simultaneous warming on Jupiter and Mars, and the changes in solar activity that would affect all 3.[
I'm not doubting the accuracy of this statistic, I'm just interested in the science behind it. Can anyone give me a link for more information on this?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think this issue of consensus actually comes up because of the desperate attempts of politicians to cast doubt on it. "Yes, ok, your observations show X, and so do 99% of the published papers, but I know someone whose third cousin has a degree in sociology, and he disagrees!" We've seen it in smoking, it's going on right now in creationism, and it is still happening in global warming. The appeal to consensus is not an argument in itself, it's a counter to those who refuse to look at the evidence, and think that two or three opposing views are enough to overturn the whole edifice.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote: I think this issue of consensus actually comes up because of the desperate attempts of politicians to cast doubt on it.
For me the issue of consensus comes up because I've seen a probably false consensus widely publicized and used to end the argument (a global warming thread a while back for example). It really becomes a problem when dissenters are not published due to controversy about their findings rather than their methodology.
quote: The appeal to consensus is not an argument in itself, it's a counter to those who refuse to look at the evidence, and think that two or three opposing views are enough to overturn the whole edifice.
KOM, just one opposing view, if correct, should be enough to overturn the whole ediface, if there is scientific integrity. Although I know you meant incorrect opposing views, it bothers me a bit reading it as it was worded.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My boss starts his genetics class (above intro level) off each year with the challenge to prove DNA is the mechanism of inheritance. It is funny watching all these senior, smart premed students attempt to convince him of this fact. They talk about all the experiments and possible experiments and he sits there coming up with holes in every argument. He claims he has never been beat. His point is that if you can't come up with an argument against something you just lack creativity. In the end, science can always be debated but we can't move forward without accepting something. I don't think most people really understand this concept though.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I didn't look over these links in detail, but here are some.
quote:Originally posted by scholar: In the end, science can always be debated but we can't move forward without accepting something. I don't think most people really understand this concept though.
I think some people understand that more than you think. However, they worry that if the underlying science isn't good, then are you really moving forward by accepting and developing it as much as you could be if you were working with real information?
It's definately a catch-22, but as long as everyone is honest it works itself out. The problems occur when bias, politics, egos, grants & funding, and agendas all get mixed up in it all. The even greater problem occurs when people deny that any of the above exist in science.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The even greater problem occurs when people deny that any of the above exist in science.
Who has ever claimed this? Keep in mind that the money, bias, and politics in this issue are overwhelmingly on the side of the people who don't want you to think "global warming" is happening.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Keep in mind that the money, bias, and politics in this issue are overwhelmingly on the side of the people who don't want you to think "global warming" is happening.
Really? Can you prove that? Or is it more likely that there is money, bias, and politics on BOTH sides?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I wasn't specifically talking about global warming Tom, but it is the hot button issue right now I guess. On the other side of the forum, IIRC people have denied that any of that affects the peer review process, for example. I read an interesting article in a British newspaper a couple years back about peer review and consensus. I'll see if I can dig it up later today.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Really? Can you prove that?
I can't, personally, but lots of other people seem to have done so. A quick Google will give you statistics.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Wow. Think of all the movies that have been made to convince us global warming isn't happening. (I can't think of any.) All the grants that are handed out to prove it isn't happening. (I can't think of any.) All the coverage of how it isn't happening in mass media. (It might have happened, sometime; I missed it.)
Contrast this with The Day After Tomorrow, An Inconvenient Truth, Pew Charitable Trust Grants, EPA grants, NSF grants, Time Magazine's "Be Very Afraid" issue, ABC asking people to write in stories of how global warming has already hurt them, and a slew of smaller media efforts.
Overwhelming underdog status! Wow.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
It is very hard to prove a negative, so that would be something you would never get a grant for. In order to get a grant, you must first have a theory and evidence backing it up and maybe a paper published by you showing you are right. In essence, you have to have done all the work you are asking them to fund. Ok, I am a bit cynical right now, but the requirements for getting a grant right now are crazy. Of course, these requirements are adjusted depending on what your peers think of you.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I found that article I mentioned earlier, it's in the Telegraph. It's worthwhile reading the whole article, here's a few quick points.
quote:The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.
The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.
quote:However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.
Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".
There's a few more examples in the article, but the problem in this one seemed clearest. The original study has been used to show a consensus among scientists about a certain theory. A professor in the university across the ocean produces a study that shows there is no such consensus, pointing out numerous faults in the original study. They won't publish it because it was supposedly all over the internet. However, since it's not peer reviewed, it won't be taken seriously-hence it doesn't count.
Another example in the article is from a professor in Germany, who had a similar case. His reason for rejection was that, "They [Science]said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish." Rejecting a study because it pointed out flaws and came to a different conclusion than what they wanted? Wow, just wow.
BTW, here's Dr Peiser's paper that he attempted to have published in Science magazine. They printed a small correction to the original article, and then refused to publish it as a paper. He tried as a letter, and was also shut down: Benny Peiser paper
Note: I'm not saying that Peiser's research is somehow impeccable. I'm merely using it as a tool to illustrate some problems in scientific consensus.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) He said the humanities people asked him if he used "theory" in math. It's the same kind OSC is talking about as "theoretics," and I asked a couple of English profs (fifty-somethings; political liberals). They said it was about analyzing every text from the perspective of some ideology. Peter Rabbit can be analyzed using Marxist theory, feminist theory, queer theory (yes, they call it that!).