Org Mobile Site
Thread: I am now a double drop-out
Having introduced myself as a certified high school drop-out for years now, I am now proud to say that I can also boast about being a certified college drop-out.
I started my masters programme this fall, and it took me until now to reach the level where I'm fed up with all the bull. Seriously, post-modernism is the single worst theory in the history of everything. I have learned a ton this fall, don't get me wrong. Unfortunately, everythign I've learned, I have learned at work. During my studies, I have learned a grand total of zero of importance. And no, it's not because I've been a slacker. I've read the curriculum, I have met prepared for every class. The problem is that post-modernism is so detached from actual reality, it's a complete joke. The one thing I've learned is why some people ridicule academics. I fully understand them now. I guess I've only exposed myself to sane academics in the past, and ignored the loonies this programme has been full of.
A particular highlight was the article/book we got explaining the origins and ideas of human rights. One page 5, it concluded that "human rights exist by use of language alone and to serve the bourgeois class". Suffice to say, I didn't bother reading the rest of that book.
One notable thing I have gained is that whenever I encounter the word "discourse" in the future, I can safely stop reading. I know now that what follows will be nothing more than a stream of utter nonsense.
Parents, send me thy kids. I'll teach them the value of sex and alcohol!
I started my masters programme this fall, and it took me until now to reach the level where I'm fed up with all the bull. Seriously, post-modernism is the single worst theory in the history of everything. I have learned a ton this fall, don't get me wrong. Unfortunately, everythign I've learned, I have learned at work. During my studies, I have learned a grand total of zero of importance. And no, it's not because I've been a slacker. I've read the curriculum, I have met prepared for every class. The problem is that post-modernism is so detached from actual reality, it's a complete joke. The one thing I've learned is why some people ridicule academics. I fully understand them now. I guess I've only exposed myself to sane academics in the past, and ignored the loonies this programme has been full of.
A particular highlight was the article/book we got explaining the origins and ideas of human rights. One page 5, it concluded that "human rights exist by use of language alone and to serve the bourgeois class". Suffice to say, I didn't bother reading the rest of that book.
One notable thing I have gained is that whenever I encounter the word "discourse" in the future, I can safely stop reading. I know now that what follows will be nothing more than a stream of utter nonsense.
Parents, send me thy kids. I'll teach them the value of sex and alcohol!
Who let you into higher education as a high school dropout?
Horrie I am proud of you, I totally share your disregard of the academic world. Not that am not educated, but they are mostly idiots.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Horrie I am proud of you, I totally share your disregard of the academic world. Not that am not educated, but they are mostly idiots.
Don't worry Fragolini, I'm not done with my own education just yet. I plan to add at least natural science to my list of subjects I can teach, and I'll probably attempt another masters degree at some point... But next time, I'll be a bit more careful and study the reading plans beforehand. If I see Bordieou on the reading list, I'll choose another one.Horrie I am proud of you, I totally share your disregard of the academic world. Not that am not educated, but they are mostly idiots.
@Husar: With my smashing good looks, of course?
Mincing my words was pure torture. I may be an idiot but I am not stupid, and I simply can't take most academics seriously. If that is arrogant so be it.
"A particular highlight was the article/book we got explaining the origins and ideas of human rights. One page 5, it concluded that "human rights exist by use of language alone and to serve the bourgeois class". Suffice to say, I didn't bother reading the rest of that book."
I can find in nature electromagnetic forces, hormones that make us more connected yet more racist and genes that express our sex.
Human rights on the other hand I cannot find a force, hormone or gene that makes it so.
Human rights are a social creation. Are the rich and powerful bound to the same rules as the middle class? Don't they get better lawyers, deals and access to pardons if they are caught? Aren't those in poverty focusing on survival? We love stories where humans are put in socially abhorrent scenarios and have to fight to survive.
So is human rights real or just a social construct for those who are in control of their own lives but not society ie the middle class?
I can find in nature electromagnetic forces, hormones that make us more connected yet more racist and genes that express our sex.
Human rights on the other hand I cannot find a force, hormone or gene that makes it so.
Human rights are a social creation. Are the rich and powerful bound to the same rules as the middle class? Don't they get better lawyers, deals and access to pardons if they are caught? Aren't those in poverty focusing on survival? We love stories where humans are put in socially abhorrent scenarios and have to fight to survive.
So is human rights real or just a social construct for those who are in control of their own lives but not society ie the middle class?
You only get respect if you finish your PhD thesis and then drop out before presenting/defending it because 
the establishment, man.
How are you supposed to get on a sarcastic independent lecture-track now?
You're a lightweight and we're disappointed in you.
the establishment, man.How are you supposed to get on a sarcastic independent lecture-track now?
You're a lightweight and we're disappointed in you.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Are the rich and powerful bound to the same rules as the middle class?
Human rights are a set of rules for states, not individuals(as opposed to the genocide convention, which is for individuals).Are the rich and powerful bound to the same rules as the middle class?
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Mincing my words was pure torture. I may be an idiot but I am not stupid, and I simply can't take most academics seriously. If that is arrogant so be it.
luckily nobody takes you serious either ;)Mincing my words was pure torture. I may be an idiot but I am not stupid, and I simply can't take most academics seriously. If that is arrogant so be it.
According to this wonderful book I am reading, post-modernism has been a joke from the start. Paul de Man was a fraud and a Nazi, Heidegger was a Nazi, Feyerabend was, well, let his words speak for themselves:
"There is not one common sense, there are many...Nor is there one way of knowing, science; there are many such ways, and before they were ruined by Western civilization they were effective in the sense that they kept people alive and made their existence comprehensible."
Post-modernism is believing yourself to be wise by claiming that ignorance is universal and that progress is impossible because....world wars happen.
People who try to talk about "seeing things from the perspective of the minority/oppressed" act as if no one was doing just that before some 20th Century French philosophers told us that people can see things differently therefore absolutely nothing is the same from person to person.
"There is not one common sense, there are many...Nor is there one way of knowing, science; there are many such ways, and before they were ruined by Western civilization they were effective in the sense that they kept people alive and made their existence comprehensible."
Post-modernism is believing yourself to be wise by claiming that ignorance is universal and that progress is impossible because....world wars happen.
People who try to talk about "seeing things from the perspective of the minority/oppressed" act as if no one was doing just that before some 20th Century French philosophers told us that people can see things differently therefore absolutely nothing is the same from person to person.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
...as opposed to the genocide convention, which is for individuals.
I always thought genocide required more then one... Either actor or victim....as opposed to the genocide convention, which is for individuals.
Originally Posted by :
"'...What little information we have about the old times, the pittance of data which the Butlerians left us, Korba has brought it for you. Start with the Genghis Khan.' 'Ghenghis . . . Khan? Was he of the Sardaukar, m'Lord?' 'Oh, long before that. He killed . . . perhaps four million.' 'He must've had formidable weaponry to kill that many, Sire. Lasbeams, perhaps, or . . .' 'He didn't kill them himself, Stil. He killed the way I kill, by sending out his legions. There's another emperor I want you to note in passing--a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.' 'Killed . . . by his legions?' Stilgar asked. 'Yes.' 'Not very impressive statistics, m'Lord.' "
It's all relative, as you know. "'...What little information we have about the old times, the pittance of data which the Butlerians left us, Korba has brought it for you. Start with the Genghis Khan.' 'Ghenghis . . . Khan? Was he of the Sardaukar, m'Lord?' 'Oh, long before that. He killed . . . perhaps four million.' 'He must've had formidable weaponry to kill that many, Sire. Lasbeams, perhaps, or . . .' 'He didn't kill them himself, Stil. He killed the way I kill, by sending out his legions. There's another emperor I want you to note in passing--a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.' 'Killed . . . by his legions?' Stilgar asked. 'Yes.' 'Not very impressive statistics, m'Lord.' "
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
"There is not one common sense, there are many...Nor is there one way of knowing, science; there are many such ways, and before they were ruined by Western civilization they were effective in the sense that they kept people alive and made their existence comprehensible."
Hah! One of the main reason I quit was because I feared for my sanity if I had to sit through yet another lecture where the professor droned on about how superduperawesome this "indigenous knowledge"(or ignorance, as it's usually called) is."There is not one common sense, there are many...Nor is there one way of knowing, science; there are many such ways, and before they were ruined by Western civilization they were effective in the sense that they kept people alive and made their existence comprehensible."
Jon Elster once noted that the only use of post-modernism is to legitimize quaks in the "alternative medicine" industry. He's got a point.
Still, I've got a worse one than your quote: I don't have the exact wording, but Bruno Latoure noted in a response to a british medical team who had examined some mummy and determined tuberculosis as the cause of death, that it was meaningless to say that he died of tuberculosis, because the term didn't exist until the 18th century... Thus, you couldn't say he died of tuberculosis.
It's like the stupidity leaps from the page.
Why does one study blabla if one does not like blabla?
There are plenty of useful sciences.
There are plenty of useful sciences.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Hah! One of the main reason I quit was because I feared for my sanity if I had to sit through yet another lecture where the professor droned on about how superduperawesome this "indigenous knowledge"(or ignorance, as it's usually called) is.
Jon Elster once noted that the only use of post-modernism is to legitimize quaks in the "alternative medicine" industry. He's got a point.
Still, I've got a worse one than your quote: I don't have the exact wording, but Bruno Latoure noted in a response to a british medical team who had examined some mummy and determined tuberculosis as the cause of death, that it was meaningless to say that he died of tuberculosis, because the term didn't exist until the 18th century... Thus, you couldn't say he died of tuberculosis.
It's like the stupidity leaps from the page.
lol You could sum that whole sentence up with, "You don't know man, you weren't there man!"Hah! One of the main reason I quit was because I feared for my sanity if I had to sit through yet another lecture where the professor droned on about how superduperawesome this "indigenous knowledge"(or ignorance, as it's usually called) is.
Jon Elster once noted that the only use of post-modernism is to legitimize quaks in the "alternative medicine" industry. He's got a point.
Still, I've got a worse one than your quote: I don't have the exact wording, but Bruno Latoure noted in a response to a british medical team who had examined some mummy and determined tuberculosis as the cause of death, that it was meaningless to say that he died of tuberculosis, because the term didn't exist until the 18th century... Thus, you couldn't say he died of tuberculosis.
It's like the stupidity leaps from the page.
I think this quote from Bruno Latoure comes from the same piece of :Daisy:
"Since the settlement of a controversy is the Cause of Nature's representation not the consequence, we can never use the outcome to explain how and why a controversy has been settled."
Obviously, nature is just giving us the answers we seek because we are defining the answer based on the question being asked. Thus, none of our answers are valid, and that's also why no scientist in the history of mankind has ever come across an answer that challenges his views or what we previously held to be true!
Originally Posted by :
"Since the settlement of a controversy is the Cause of Nature's representation not the consequence, we can never use the outcome to explain how and why a controversy has been settled."
Is he talking about the a priori? If so, it's very obnoxiously worded."Since the settlement of a controversy is the Cause of Nature's representation not the consequence, we can never use the outcome to explain how and why a controversy has been settled."
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Is he talking about the a priori? If so, it's very obnoxiously worded.
I don't have the full context available to me. Quote was footmarked as Science In Action, 1987, page 99. I certainly don't want to spend money on this garbage, so if you find a free pdf, hook me up.Is he talking about the a priori? If so, it's very obnoxiously worded.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Having introduced myself as a certified high school drop-out for years now, I am now proud to say that I can also boast about being a certified college drop-out.
I started my masters programme this fall, and it took me until now to reach the level where I'm fed up with all the bull. Seriously, post-modernism is the single worst theory in the history of everything. I have learned a ton this fall, don't get me wrong. Unfortunately, everythign I've learned, I have learned at work. During my studies, I have learned a grand total of zero of importance. And no, it's not because I've been a slacker. I've read the curriculum, I have met prepared for every class. The problem is that post-modernism is so detached from actual reality, it's a complete joke. The one thing I've learned is why some people ridicule academics. I fully understand them now. I guess I've only exposed myself to sane academics in the past, and ignored the loonies this programme has been full of.
A particular highlight was the article/book we got explaining the origins and ideas of human rights. One page 5, it concluded that "human rights exist by use of language alone and to serve the bourgeois class". Suffice to say, I didn't bother reading the rest of that book.
One notable thing I have gained is that whenever I encounter the word "discourse" in the future, I can safely stop reading. I know now that what follows will be nothing more than a stream of utter nonsense.
Parents, send me thy kids. I'll teach them the value of sex and alcohol!
This is my favorite post by you, ever. Having introduced myself as a certified high school drop-out for years now, I am now proud to say that I can also boast about being a certified college drop-out.
I started my masters programme this fall, and it took me until now to reach the level where I'm fed up with all the bull. Seriously, post-modernism is the single worst theory in the history of everything. I have learned a ton this fall, don't get me wrong. Unfortunately, everythign I've learned, I have learned at work. During my studies, I have learned a grand total of zero of importance. And no, it's not because I've been a slacker. I've read the curriculum, I have met prepared for every class. The problem is that post-modernism is so detached from actual reality, it's a complete joke. The one thing I've learned is why some people ridicule academics. I fully understand them now. I guess I've only exposed myself to sane academics in the past, and ignored the loonies this programme has been full of.
A particular highlight was the article/book we got explaining the origins and ideas of human rights. One page 5, it concluded that "human rights exist by use of language alone and to serve the bourgeois class". Suffice to say, I didn't bother reading the rest of that book.
One notable thing I have gained is that whenever I encounter the word "discourse" in the future, I can safely stop reading. I know now that what follows will be nothing more than a stream of utter nonsense.
Parents, send me thy kids. I'll teach them the value of sex and alcohol!
I've been noticing an effort in academia to discredit the very idea of human rights as an archaic fantasy, to be moved past
At this point, I think it is simply the interests groups in power that push this idea - no matter the ideological background.
During the Bush admin, the people who pulled the strings assaulted human rights. During this admin, the assault comes from the interest groups which support the new authority.
When and if libertarians ever come to power, they will rationalize why some rights need to be trampled. This is the nature of man, unfortunately. Key is to build a bulwark against it wherever we are sober enough to so.
The inebriation of power is too much for the righteous to bare and the power corrupts the best of us.
Either way, keep pushing on, education is important in life. If it doesn't make us better people, at least learn something about the way of the world.
I do agree that the financial value of the liberal arts degree is largely going the way of the buffalo, but the education itself is more important than ever. Cheap, Online education with workshops for camaraderie is the future.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
There's a good argument to be made that any inquiring mind can get whatever kmowledge they want for free these days. With nurturing from the state and an investment in providing everyone with affordable high speed internet we could make the casual liberal education more or less obsolete.
In the USA right now most degrees aren't worth the paper they are printed on, let alone tens of thousands of dollars in debt. The lengthy and expensive liberal education is pretty much nothing but an intentional wall to block the young from entering into their fields of choice without first entering into massive debt and a position of submission.
I don't know what the future of education looks like, but the present system itself is surely a joke.
Information without a guide to train you on how to think is pointless and would only serve to hurt us rather than benefit us. The liberal education fails because there is nothing "liberal" about it when it is widely recognized that some ideas or approaches are "just not in fad" or taken seriously. The hubris of post-modernism is that it knows better than you because it knows nothing and this absolute statement locks down dissenting opinions and it is because post-modernism has become so widely accepted that the issue has compounded to the point where education has now suffered tremendously. There's a good argument to be made that any inquiring mind can get whatever kmowledge they want for free these days. With nurturing from the state and an investment in providing everyone with affordable high speed internet we could make the casual liberal education more or less obsolete.
In the USA right now most degrees aren't worth the paper they are printed on, let alone tens of thousands of dollars in debt. The lengthy and expensive liberal education is pretty much nothing but an intentional wall to block the young from entering into their fields of choice without first entering into massive debt and a position of submission.
I don't know what the future of education looks like, but the present system itself is surely a joke.
If you think the "modern day" thinkers will be born out of educational Youtube videos while they munch on potato chips and self discipline, you are deluding yourself.
What was the masters' program actually called?
I mean: as far as I know, post-modernism is a general attitude towards previous theories and methods. Wether it's art, philosophy or social science. I tried skimming the wiki article on this but it was tl;dr at this hour.
Also:
1) human rights do not have an independant existence beyond the thoughts and words that are in vogue
2) the marxist bit about it serving the bourgeois class
#1 is actually debatable. I have my own theory on human rights, based on social contract, but I'm also of the opinion that much of which is passed as "human rights" nowadays doesn't really deserve the name.
I mean: as far as I know, post-modernism is a general attitude towards previous theories and methods. Wether it's art, philosophy or social science. I tried skimming the wiki article on this but it was tl;dr at this hour.
Also:
Originally Posted by :
"human rights exist by use of language alone and to serve the bourgeois class"
What part did offend you:"human rights exist by use of language alone and to serve the bourgeois class"
1) human rights do not have an independant existence beyond the thoughts and words that are in vogue
2) the marxist bit about it serving the bourgeois class
#1 is actually debatable. I have my own theory on human rights, based on social contract, but I'm also of the opinion that much of which is passed as "human rights" nowadays doesn't really deserve the name.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
I have my own theory on human rights, based on social contract, but I'm also of the opinion that much of which is passed as "human rights" nowadays doesn't really deserve the name.
Please, elaborate for our benefit.I have my own theory on human rights, based on social contract, but I'm also of the opinion that much of which is passed as "human rights" nowadays doesn't really deserve the name.
We have been combating nihilism for some time, my understanding is that a rejection of rights comes from the heart of the nihilistic problem that we all face.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Train how to think? Guide? The parents should teach kids how to think. If you don't teach your kids to read books and be critical of everything, you are a terrible fucking parent. Beyond that, you absolutely can get every nugget of true knowledge that constitutes traditional liberal education for free. If one is to get a degree saying that they are worth so much money, that degree should be highly technical and specific in nature. I'm pretty sure that's the future. Will it be more egalitarian? Probably not. I think this will actually come about through de-regulation, as the public school system is patently crap. The right will win this one, to a degree.
My point is that a liberal education is not actually about knowledge but the application of it in a sophisticated way. Training how to think is not simple kid stuff, like "look both ways before crossing the street". It's what happens when you have been staring at the board for 6 friggen hours wondering why nothing is making sense or working. You need to have tools that enable you to look at things in multiple ways and have exposure to multiple mentalities in order to have the flexibility to develop rational solutions. Parents are not part of the equation at all, because it requires multiple people with years of experience under all of their belts to provide a diversity of thought and challenges for your brain to adapt towards a critical thinking mentality. Hence the point of a traditional university.Train how to think? Guide? The parents should teach kids how to think. If you don't teach your kids to read books and be critical of everything, you are a terrible fucking parent. Beyond that, you absolutely can get every nugget of true knowledge that constitutes traditional liberal education for free. If one is to get a degree saying that they are worth so much money, that degree should be highly technical and specific in nature. I'm pretty sure that's the future. Will it be more egalitarian? Probably not. I think this will actually come about through de-regulation, as the public school system is patently crap. The right will win this one, to a degree.
Originally Posted by :
But if you think that people will continue to spend 4-6 years in college for a crappy job (if any) and crippling debt, you're the one deluding yourself.
I don't believe that at all. But I also don't believe that abstaining from traditional university in favor of the internet will do jack all towards properly educating them.But if you think that people will continue to spend 4-6 years in college for a crappy job (if any) and crippling debt, you're the one deluding yourself.
Originally Posted by :
I agree that few if any people can actually self-educate. If the future is distance-learning then it will almost certainly require structure and standards, hence "Nurturing from the state." But the status quo is definitely going to change. Its just capitalism. People won't pay for something that isn't worth it for long, and right now the higher educational institutions of this country are riding a wave of hope rather than actually trying to adapt.
What entails "nurturing from the state"? Traditional universities will have their bubble pop, I agree with you completely, but there is no concrete structure for an alternate system of higher education that does not fall back on wishful thinking or vague generalizations about the present and trying to apply it towards the future.I agree that few if any people can actually self-educate. If the future is distance-learning then it will almost certainly require structure and standards, hence "Nurturing from the state." But the status quo is definitely going to change. Its just capitalism. People won't pay for something that isn't worth it for long, and right now the higher educational institutions of this country are riding a wave of hope rather than actually trying to adapt.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Train how to think? Guide? The parents should teach kids how to think. If you don't teach your kids to read books and be critical of everything, you are a terrible fucking parent. Beyond that, you absolutely can get every nugget of true knowledge that constitutes traditional liberal education for free. If one is to get a degree saying that they are worth so much money, that degree should be highly technical and specific in nature. I'm pretty sure that's the future. Will it be more egalitarian? Probably not. I think this will actually come about through de-regulation, as the public school system is patently crap. The right will win this one, to a degree.
But if you think that people will continue to spend 4-6 years in college for a crappy job (if any) and crippling debt, you're the one deluding yourself.
I agree that few if any people can actually self-educate. If the future is distance-learning then it will almost certainly require structure and standards, hence "Nurturing from the state." But the status quo is definitely going to change. Its just capitalism. People won't pay for something that isn't worth it for long, and right now the higher educational institutions of this country are riding a wave of hope rather than actually trying to adapt.
what if nobody ever taught the parents how to think?Train how to think? Guide? The parents should teach kids how to think. If you don't teach your kids to read books and be critical of everything, you are a terrible fucking parent. Beyond that, you absolutely can get every nugget of true knowledge that constitutes traditional liberal education for free. If one is to get a degree saying that they are worth so much money, that degree should be highly technical and specific in nature. I'm pretty sure that's the future. Will it be more egalitarian? Probably not. I think this will actually come about through de-regulation, as the public school system is patently crap. The right will win this one, to a degree.
But if you think that people will continue to spend 4-6 years in college for a crappy job (if any) and crippling debt, you're the one deluding yourself.
I agree that few if any people can actually self-educate. If the future is distance-learning then it will almost certainly require structure and standards, hence "Nurturing from the state." But the status quo is definitely going to change. Its just capitalism. People won't pay for something that isn't worth it for long, and right now the higher educational institutions of this country are riding a wave of hope rather than actually trying to adapt.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
I don't believe that at all. But I also don't believe that abstaining from traditional university in favor of the internet will do jack all towards properly educating them.
What entails "nurturing from the state"? Traditional universities will have their bubble pop, I agree with you completely, but there is no concrete structure for an alternate system of higher education that does not fall back on wishful thinking or vague generalizations about the present and trying to apply it towards the future.
I present you the Hole in the wall-project:I don't believe that at all. But I also don't believe that abstaining from traditional university in favor of the internet will do jack all towards properly educating them.
What entails "nurturing from the state"? Traditional universities will have their bubble pop, I agree with you completely, but there is no concrete structure for an alternate system of higher education that does not fall back on wishful thinking or vague generalizations about the present and trying to apply it towards the future.
http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com
The basic idea is to set up computers with information on them so people can go and educate themselves on subjects. And it seems to work rather well. I heard in an experiment a class that was left alone with such a computer in order to learn about a certain biology subject got comarable test scores to a class taught about the subject by a teacher.
And who invented thinking? Countless teachers have tried to teach me how to think in mathematics and I'm still rather bad at it whereas in other subjects is much less of a problem. Different people have different approaches to different subjects and unstructured information can be taken by everyone in her or his own way while the same information structured by a teacher helps those who are structured like the teacher more than those who do not structure information like a teacher at all. Just look at how in one class some people may say this teacher is great while others say they do not understand her at all.
About ridiculing academics.
I am a Practician in my field but will meet a few so called "academics", that will theorize about solutions rather than look at the mechanics on site and thus solve based on findings.
I can get quite worked up by statements like: In theory, this should work. Yes of course in theory, but you haven't factored in equipment stand-still in a very hostile environment. If an engine is left unused and exposed to the arctic offshore weather for 12 months, don't be surprised if it turns out it is completely ruined.
Worst of them all are the entrenched academic who is rooted in nostalgia and tradition. A tradition based on false notions. "We don't do it that way as we have never done it that way".... well you do it because someone made a bad judgement call eons back. Your equation has a bad element.
I think that it is just a matter of perception.
An example that I remember from this forum is the statement (no intent to ridicule the person): The Antarctic is the driest place on earth. I remember exclaiming: "Thus speaks an academic. A practician would say: You'll never lack for water on Antarctica".
I am a Practician in my field but will meet a few so called "academics", that will theorize about solutions rather than look at the mechanics on site and thus solve based on findings.
I can get quite worked up by statements like: In theory, this should work. Yes of course in theory, but you haven't factored in equipment stand-still in a very hostile environment. If an engine is left unused and exposed to the arctic offshore weather for 12 months, don't be surprised if it turns out it is completely ruined.
Worst of them all are the entrenched academic who is rooted in nostalgia and tradition. A tradition based on false notions. "We don't do it that way as we have never done it that way".... well you do it because someone made a bad judgement call eons back. Your equation has a bad element.
I think that it is just a matter of perception.
An example that I remember from this forum is the statement (no intent to ridicule the person): The Antarctic is the driest place on earth. I remember exclaiming: "Thus speaks an academic. A practician would say: You'll never lack for water on Antarctica".
Originally Posted by Husar:
I present you the Hole in the wall-project:
http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com
The basic idea is to set up computers with information on them so people can go and educate themselves on subjects. And it seems to work rather well. I heard in an experiment a class that was left alone with such a computer in order to learn about a certain biology subject got comarable test scores to a class taught about the subject by a teacher.
Ah, the good ol' "Granny ped"... Always top of the list of "things I really want to try out, but never got around to" back in teacher training...I present you the Hole in the wall-project:
http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com
The basic idea is to set up computers with information on them so people can go and educate themselves on subjects. And it seems to work rather well. I heard in an experiment a class that was left alone with such a computer in order to learn about a certain biology subject got comarable test scores to a class taught about the subject by a teacher.
Contrary to what you may think, the teacher is actually crucial in that theory. It requires a person who can give constant positive feedback.
Btw, I start every new topic I teach in a way containing the same principles as granny ped. It does have its merits.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Ah, the good ol' "Granny ped"... Always top of the list of "things I really want to try out, but never got around to" back in teacher training...
Contrary to what you may think, the teacher is actually crucial in that theory. It requires a person who can give constant positive feedback.
Btw, I start every new topic I teach in a way containing the same principles as granny ped. It does have its merits.
You're right. I forgot about the constant positive feedback, doesn't have to be a teacher though, it can be someone who has no idea about the subject. One of our professors actually told us about this last week, he also mentioned how he studied very theoretical things himself long ago and used to look down on engineers until he looked into engineering himself and found that it's actually a much more fulfilling and useful field than just thinking about theoretical concepts of the world.Ah, the good ol' "Granny ped"... Always top of the list of "things I really want to try out, but never got around to" back in teacher training...
Contrary to what you may think, the teacher is actually crucial in that theory. It requires a person who can give constant positive feedback.
Btw, I start every new topic I teach in a way containing the same principles as granny ped. It does have its merits.
Originally Posted by Husar:
doesn't have to be a teacher though, it can be someone who has no idea about the subject.
That's what's called "a teacher" doesn't have to be a teacher though, it can be someone who has no idea about the subject.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
That's what's called "a teacher"
In Norway perhaps, apparently even a double dropout can be a teacher there.That's what's called "a teacher"
I first ran into Postmodernism in the late 1980s studying, believe it or not, organizational communication. Lyotard, Foucault, Jameson -- all of the "heroes" of '68. I found myself enthralled by the power of that critique -- deconstruction yielding insights into embedded structure/power dynamics, etc. I also found myself appalled that the postmodernists seemed to have nothing to DO with the theory in terms of developing anything -- just some musings about empowering the individual in some kind of "it will all be so freeing" anarcho-socialism. From what Horetore summarizes in the OP, there apparently hasn't been a lot of movement forward. I presume that most of them got tenure writing a deconstruction of things, got comfortable with the coffee-house life and worshipful grad students, and went into lather, rinse, repeat mode. Understandable that Horetore should retreat from educators who have become intellectually moribund.
Intellectually, I think there is a lot more promise in Habermas and his decades long arguments with Derrida. Both accept the idea of a discursive reality and the value of deconstruction in uncovering deep structure/power dynamics, but taken together it is clear that both view the need to enact something better in the public sphere is worthwhile. I also enjoy Habermas' frequent efforts to center the discussion of discourse on the everyday interaction of people living their lives and NOT on an exclusive focus on the hidden power of the bourgeoisie.
As to individual rights, I myself have long been a Lockean -- Life, Liberty, Property -- and (as did Locke) view these as deriving from our spiritual connection to a higher power (still a practicing Catholic me). For those who reject the existence/relevance of such a higher power, however, there really is no other source for these rights than the basic social contract of society itself. Nevertheless, I believe that such rights are so integral to an effective society that I deem any social contract that does not promote them to be, on some level, flawed.
Academe can embody all of the greatness that is the quest for knowledge and all of the self-enacted irrelevance that is its downfall. I am an academic -- sheepskin from the University of Texas to prove it -- but not enamored of the ivory tower for its own sake. I have also mediated in a small claims court and sold life insurance on commission -- and I assure you that those experiences of having to go out and do were vital to making the theory I teach to students relevant (and allowing me to call bull excrement where the call is warranted).
Intellectually, I think there is a lot more promise in Habermas and his decades long arguments with Derrida. Both accept the idea of a discursive reality and the value of deconstruction in uncovering deep structure/power dynamics, but taken together it is clear that both view the need to enact something better in the public sphere is worthwhile. I also enjoy Habermas' frequent efforts to center the discussion of discourse on the everyday interaction of people living their lives and NOT on an exclusive focus on the hidden power of the bourgeoisie.
As to individual rights, I myself have long been a Lockean -- Life, Liberty, Property -- and (as did Locke) view these as deriving from our spiritual connection to a higher power (still a practicing Catholic me). For those who reject the existence/relevance of such a higher power, however, there really is no other source for these rights than the basic social contract of society itself. Nevertheless, I believe that such rights are so integral to an effective society that I deem any social contract that does not promote them to be, on some level, flawed.
Academe can embody all of the greatness that is the quest for knowledge and all of the self-enacted irrelevance that is its downfall. I am an academic -- sheepskin from the University of Texas to prove it -- but not enamored of the ivory tower for its own sake. I have also mediated in a small claims court and sold life insurance on commission -- and I assure you that those experiences of having to go out and do were vital to making the theory I teach to students relevant (and allowing me to call bull excrement where the call is warranted).
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO