quote:Irami, your summary of what you are saying rarely, if ever, matches what you have said. Are you backing off of the "throw out all math and science; it makes for immoral people" argument, because it sounds so ridiculous when summed up?
Kat,
I think this is all rooted on the preeminence of science in educational institutions. Look at my response No. 6's question. It's not percise. It's a little hand-wavy. It's neither objective nor subjective, it's got nothing to do with faith or science, in short, there is a large swath of american institutions who would find this answer unsuitable. The thing is, it's appropriate.
Profiles in Courage is a decent book. What makes piece of art is that one feels the presence of courage as one reads it.
posted
Sorry about ducking your thwap, rivka. Pressing work issues.
I'd have to say that the character thing is nebulous. AND that we are really cool here in the Bay Area. Posts: 410 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure most public schools have a curriculum that resembles this:
1 math class 1 science class 1 english class 1 history class 1 elective ================= Math and science is less than half of the curriculum. What kind of preeminence are you talking about?
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, math and science have an even smaller part of the curriculum; most (high) schools have 7 or 8 periods. Typically, the schedule looks a bit more like this: 1) Math 2) Science 3) English 4) History/Social Sciences (I'm thinking Government and Economics here) 5) Foreign Language 6) P.E./Business/Computer/Music/Theater/Art/Technical stuff (like Woodshop, Work-study, or Apprenticeship type classes) 7) See 6
I think this is a fairly balanced school schedule, and it was the norm at my high school (at least for the students who weren't complete slackers trying to avoid all forms of education). I'm not saying it's perfect--I'd love to see a required philosophy course or, even better, a critical reasoning and writing course, but I think a student who followed the above schedule for four years would come out of high school with a strong knowledge base that they can apply either in college or the "real world."
edited to add: no. 6 is correct. We simply are super cool in the Bay Area
quote:Math and science is less than half of the curriculum. What kind of preeminence are you talking about?
Do you see what you did? You quantified under inappropriate lines and judged, probably under the background of majority rule, and somehow that's seen as appropriate. It's amazing that that's how we've been programmed to take in information. It's distressing. I can play the game, too. In high school, I took algebra my freshman year. I really haven't used anything past algebra in seven years, the basic geometry I learned in junior high is fine.
And any math I've learned for specialize tasks is math I've learned for specialized tasks, against the back drop of sixth grade math.
I think morally, speak, and write everyday, and my diction is atrocious. Not only that, the decisions I make concerning thinking, reading, and writing are important, not only to myself, but to those around me. So even under a strict utilitarian calculus-- a means that I don't think is at all appropriate, but is so thoughtlessly pervasive it's disconcerting-- two classes out of five is too much.
Would it be so bad to have a reading and a writing course? I wouldn't mind a Great Books course, a writing/language/philology course, intellectual history course(western thought), a traditional history course(chronicling wars, I hate that, but maybe it's necessary, I don't think so, but I can't decide.), and math/science.
There are six courses. Maybe we could toggle one of the history courses with an foreign language or other elective course.
posted
Take kaioshin00's answer. Instead of thinking about education's task and it's relation to 21st century American public citizen, he/she subtracted 3 - 2. In his/her defense, he/she got a neat, clean answer, it doesn't mean it's at all appropriate.
Look at Flying Cow's post on the Teachers' thread. It's the same phenomena. ________
There is a sense in which the 1000 post landmark is held hostage by the same bounds, but it's become ritualized in a nice way.
I meant "accidental" as in a deviation or falling off from the essence of man.
posted
I managed to avoid posting on this thread when it was concerning itself with diet and weight, and I thought I could keep myself from posting as it moved into academics, but...
Into the breach!
Irami: Preeminence is defined as "high status importance owing to marked superiority" by dictionary.com. Accepting this as our definition of preeminence, we can call math and science as subjects preeminent over other subjects only if they are given a high status by our culture (or whatever other general social body you're claiming gives preeminence to these subjects). However, anyone can claime that something is given high status or not--it's a pretty subjective idea, and depends quite a bit on a person's personal history. You can say that engineers get respect in social circles, I can say that everyone I know wants to be an author...
So, I propose that the best way to tell whether something is given a high status by our society/culture is by the amount of resources (time, money, etc) devoted to it. The more you vaule "fitness" the more time you'll spend exercising, and perhaps you'll spend money to get a gym membership. If you value fien jewlery, you'll be willing to spend money to purchase it.
From an educational standpoint, if the schooling is free, then the resource that a student can devote to different subjects is his time. If a student thinks that "science and math" are high status subjects, then he will devote relatively more of his time to studying these subjects than he will other ones.
However, the typical American student does not spend more time studying science and math than he does the humanites (english, history, art, music, etc). I'll see if I can find a study to prove this claim, but I think most people who have been through the American education system can agree to this claim... thus, I would say that science and math aren't given preeminence
posted
Irami, you seem to have this notion that if people were only educated "properly" they'd think like you, and that the only reason they aren't is that lack. Though I don't think you'll pay the least bit of attention (which is an amusing lack of the critical thinking you affect to support), that's not how people work, for which the evidence is abundant, in whatever form you care to take it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, also, I'd like to know how basket weaving is a "deviation or falling off from the essence of man".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think this is all rooted on the preeminence of science in educational institutions.
quote: Take kaioshin00's answer. Instead of thinking about education's task and it's relation to 21st century American public citizen, he/she subtracted 3 - 2. In his/her defense, he/she got a neat, clean answer, it doesn't mean it's at all appropriate.
My post had nothing to do with the education system. I wanted to know how you came up with science and math being preeminent over the rest of the subjects.
Preeminent means "Superior to or notable above all others."
How else would you measure this than quantitatively? Please, tell me how you decide whether one thing is "notable above all others" without looking at the amount present of the items your comparining.
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I also believe more people would eat better and drive less with a more rigorous early education in the humanities.
This is ridiculous, Irami. I had twice the early humanities education you had, and I drive --and weigh -- at least twice as much as you do.
--------
quote: I think this is all rooted on the preeminence of science in educational institutions. Look at my response No. 6's question. It's not percise. It's a little hand-wavy. It's neither objective nor subjective, it's got nothing to do with faith or science, in short, there is a large swath of american institutions who would find this answer unsuitable.
The biggest reason it's unsuitable, Irami, is that the only thing going for that argument is that you say so. It's not logical. It's not precise. It's ambiguous and fluffy and chock full of pretention. And we should believe it because you feel it's true.
quote:Mine is non-traditional evidence. It doesn't mean I'm wrong, it merely means that the problem isn't going to be solved by subtracting 3 - 2.
You know, you're always dismissive of math, science, and people who have specialized in either. When you elaborated on your proposed curriculum change it didn't seem terribly unreasonable to me, but what you missed is that you pretty much did exactly what you criticize kaoshin for, which is to say that you gave us a list. kaoshin's list was a guess at the current curriculum; yours was a guess at the ideal curriculum.
If he's subtracting two from three, then so are you.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. I guess as the type who throws in the towel after three pages, I don't understand the other types.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Irami's point with the basketweaving comparison was not that math/science are given the most time and resources in American education (which is really irrelevant), but that they are given more time and resources than they deserve. Just as it would be a misuse of resources to require everyone to take two periods of basketweaving.
However, I'm skeptical that the utility of math/science has sunk to that of basketweaving. I'm also skeptical that reducing the time spent on math/science and using it on humanities instead would actually improve most students' grasp of humanities. Learning in different subjects is more often complementary than mutally exclusive.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, I did that on purpose. I thought I made it clear when I said, "I can play that game too."
quote:You know, you're always dismissive of math, science, and people who have specialized in either.
I don't mind people who have specialized in either, I am, however, suspicious of why the general run is taught to revere both, out of principle.
Tom,
quote:This is ridiculous, Irami. I had twice the early humanities education you had, and I drive --and weigh -- at least twice as much as you do.
But you feel bad about it. That counts for a lot.
quote:The biggest reason it's unsuitable, Irami, is that the only thing going for that argument is that you say so. It's not logical. It's not precise. It's ambiguous and fluffy and chock full of pretention. And we should believe it because you feel it's true.
That's actually a remarkably fascist viewpoint.
Well, No. 6 thinks so also, and I don't think that's happenstance. And if number six didn't agree, we'd sit down and speak to it. The great thing about math and science is that it let's people go on. You get a quick answer, and you get to the next concept. That's seductive in its percision, but in important matters, it's really silly. It's not fascist if people are engaged with the ground of education, it's fascism if I tell people what the ground is and enforce it by the law. There is an argument to be made that the current system has a stronger sense of fascism, and then is guided by the tyranny of what's quantifiable.
kaioshin00,
quote:Please, tell me how you decide whether one thing is "notable above all others" without looking at the amount present of the items your comparing.
The same way you know it's bad to steal. You think about it.
posted
"You get a quick answer, and you get to the next concept. That's seductive in its percision, but in important matters, it's really silly."
What's interesting, Irami, is that I think the "sit down and talk about it" approach is already being used for important matters, even the ones influenced by -- and influencing -- science.
What we're bad at is listening.
------
"The same way you know it's bad to steal. You think about it."
What, exactly, do you think about it? If you do not compare and contrast these items in measurable ways, what are you thinking about?
It's put against the backdrop of all of your experience and narratives, and then, you pick the side that invites dignity or virtue or God or whatever to presence.
Now to someone who says that this is an example of the schools abrogating the duties of parents, I'd argue that this task is big enough to be shared. I mean, there is a reason why they have "To Kill a Mockingbird" in the schools, and the schools are better for it. Secondly, this discussion is all rooted in making the curriculum dignified in relevant way, and that doesn't come from teaching kids formulas, it comes from inviting kids to think about morally relevant issues.
posted
Which involves comparing it to your previous experience and taking a rough measure of its worth or value.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's put against the backdrop of all of your experience and narratives, and then, you pick the side that invites dignity or virtue or God or whatever to presence.
Alternatively, you could consider it in a roughly (but not strictly) utilitarian fashion and arrive at the same result (in the case of stealing, that is).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an odd standard for deciding what's treated preeminently in society, which is what at least some of us have been trying to figure out your mechanism for, as you say you've produced evidence (for math and science being preeminent) but don't seem able to point at it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That's an odd standard for deciding what's treated preeminently in society, which is what at least some of us have been trying to figure out your mechanism for...."
As far as I can tell, what Irami is saying is that when he decided that math and science were preeminent concerns in American education, he did so by sitting down and meditating until he concluded that this would be the interpretation with the most dignity.
posted
Irami is at least consistent is his unconcern for science. It is much easier to keep your delusions when you believe it is undignified to test them against reality.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what concerns me about Irami's approach is that I see far too much of it -- from my perspective as an employee at a private liberal arts college -- among Humanities faculty. It leads to a perception that Truth doesn't matter as much as Right and Wrong, and I believe this perception to be profoundly damaging.
For example, we recently had a case here on campus where someone screamed racism where no racism had occurred. After the facts were brought to light, the person crying racism continued to do so, on the following grounds:
1) Racism is a more compelling narrative than incompetence. 2) That racism exists is a terrible wrong. Therefore, we should expend energy fighting racism not only where it occurs, but also where it does not occur, because not fighting racism is akin to encouraging racism -- and, therefore, refusing to punish someone for being racist even when he was not being racist merely reinforces the idea that it's okay to be racist, whereas punishing that person would have reinforced the idea that racism is bad regardless if that individual had been racist or not.
I find that position ludicrous in the extreme. But she was genuinely surprised to discover that I did not find her argument compelling.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alternatively, you could consider it in a roughly (but not strictly) utilitarian fashion...
And I imagine that one may go to a prostitute and obtain roughly an approximation of making love, but I'm not sure that's the same thing, there is degrading aspect.
Kat,
Then I imagine, after taking this estimate, you'd compare these two by some calculus. What I'm saying that comparisons are tricky business and the important onese don't have common currency from which to adjudicate. The important decisions usually are between apples and oranges, except morally relevant. And trying to reduce everything to a common currency degrades that which you are speaking to.
posted
*waits patiently for some evidence, in any form, that math and science are preeminent*
C'mon Irami, there's definitely evidence out there, even if I think it ultimately would fail to support your conclusion.
Of course, since you say you've already provided it, you really should be restricted to quoting yourself where you stated that evidence.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of which addresses the concerns that have been brought against your argument, and is again another example of you dancing away from the issue and trying to muddy your steps with another inflammatory subject.
At least pretend you are being honest in this discussion.
posted
"The important decisions usually are between apples and oranges, except morally relevant. And trying to reduce everything to a common currency degrades that which you are speaking to."
Hm. This is where I'm going to get philosophical to prove you wrong.
Because it is, as you know, possible to compare apples to oranges. And the comparison is indeed as scientific as any other comparison, even though they aren't the same fruit.
Apples and oranges share several traits. They have flavors. They have colors. They have sizes. They are fruits. You can say that an apple is red, while an orange is orange. Apples are, in general, tangier and less juicy than oranges, while oranges are more acidic. Most varieties of oranges and apples are of a similar size, but slightly different shapes (and textures).
You can say, then, that if someone wants to eat something that is acidic and orange-colored, he would be better off with an orange.
And that's a perfectly scientific way of comparing apples to oranges.
Now, you can ask "which is better?" And here's where it gets hard -- not because apples and oranges aren't similar enough to be compared, but because the word "better" is meaningless when the things being compared are each suited more ideally for a specific need or task or niche. Apples are much better at pie, for example. Oranges are better in chocolates. And both are equally good at juice, unless you're trying to compare by mass.
Whichever one makes you happier, or which you prefer, depends entirely -- as long as you're honest with yourself -- on which criteria you're using for that determination.
What you're doing, Irami, is refusing to admit that you're applying criteria. And we're all saying "bull" -- because, let's face it, you are applying criteria. You just want to get away with being lazy and making up and/or changing your criteria at a moment's notice.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, my problem isn't that you view things a certain way, it's that you look on other views with disdain.
There's nothing terribly wrong about thinking you're better than some people, everyone does that to an extent. But dripping disdain for everyone who doesn't see things precisely your way is a bit much.
Edit:
Also,
quote:And I imagine that one may go to a prostitute and obtain roughly an approximation of making love, but I'm not sure that's the same thing. A degrading aspect.
Going to a prostitute: sexual gratification with short-term partner.
Making love: sexual gratification, emotional bonding with long-term partner.
Utility is clearly greater for making love, since strengthening the emotional bond between two long-term partners is pretty obviously of value to a society. If all we needed was to get our rocks off, families wouldn't exist.
I'm not strongly utilitarian in my views, but unlike you I don't look down my nose at someone who is.
quote: quote:Please, tell me how you decide whether one thing is "notable above all others" without looking at the amount present of the items your comparing.
The same way you know it's bad to steal. You think about it.
I'm thinking about it, and I don't think that they're preeminent. Nor are they quantitatively preeminent.
It doesn't seem like anyone else feels like the sciences are too much, either. If we are indeed supposed to be feeling this, then how come no one is? Are you the only one here who has freed his mind from the evil clutches of our math and science based society?
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
hey Tom, what you should've done is just for the sake of argument, start calling her a racist and persecuting her for it ;-) See what she thinks of her view then. By her philosophy she should be punished for being racist just for being accused of it. And you could construct a nice argument that she is racist, too, along the lines of her being prejudiced against a race of people who she claims has prejudice against another race.
I would like to point out that in general those who excel at math/science also tend to excel at the humanities.
Also, to separate the subjects so much that it creates this division is just not sound. Everything requires everything else.
To be a basket weaver/artist, you need to have skill in calculation and engineering as well as an aesthetic eye. To be a doctor you need to know biology inside and out and also need to have an understanding of philosophy regarding ethics of human life. To be a philosopher you need to know the great religious works and also you need to be able to do a complex logic proof. A historian needs to know humanities and philosophy and science and math in order to study the history of all these things well.
Of course, you can be in any of these professions and lack a skill on either the science or the humanities side of things, but then you just won't be very good at whatever you're doing. You'll be an imprecise artist, or an unethical doctor, a philosopher unable to make a sound argument, or a shallow historian.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not saying that there aren't conditions of satisfaction, I'm saying that with important matters the criteria often aren't finitely enumerable. That's why I think the pornography metaphor works. You aren't going to find a scientific standard to adjudicate pornography from art deserving of reverence, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a difference.
quote:I think what concerns me about Irami's approach is that I see far too much of it -- from my perspective as an employee at a private liberal arts college -- among Humanities faculty. It leads to a perception that Truth doesn't matter as much as Right and Wrong, and I believe this perception to be profoundly damaging.
I'll be the first to say that the Humanities, as currently studied, do a good job in making themselves irrelevant, especially in this post-structuralism, post-truth, post-wisdom approach that makes everything concern idiosyncracies of the writer. I also blame the love affair everything new, even crap. I think social sciences are even bigger offenders, trying to behave like hard sciences, and failing at the tasks with which they are charged. My argument is that the "achievement" gap is rooted in the disconnect between our educational institutions and the human condition, including public affairs.
kaioshin00,
quote:Are you the only one here who has freed his mind from the evil clutches of our math and science based society?
No, I'm in a quiet minority. I don't know if it's an issue of freeing ourselves from math and science, as much as it's an issue of relegating the principles they imbue to the appropriate situtions, that is, not getting drunk with the exactitude math and science confer. I think American institutions are carrying on with a comely mistress instead of going home to their spouse and kids where they belong.
quote: My argument is that the "achievement" gap is rooted in the disconnect between our educational institutions and the human condition, including public affairs.
But, see, you're blaming the wrong villain, here. The fact that we are occasionally successful at teaching math and science is not to blame for our failure to properly teach philosophy and politics. (In fact, I find that having a solid grounding in the hard sciences has made it considerably easier for me to think philosophically.)
The issue is not, I think, one of education but one of reward; out in the real world, we do not always value what we say we value. And so some of the behaviors that we as a society say we expect from our people are in fact punished, and I believe that children (and their parents) pick up on this and react accordingly. And I don't think education can fill this gap, as the problem is not with the schools but with the world outside the school.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
