Liberal academia at it again :|

[AFB]

Science! The word is thrown about nowa- days as if it were a miracle of our Age. To hear its fanatical, wide eyed supporters talk, one would think that Science could explain every- thing in all Creation, and that these "Scientists" were privy to the very secrets of the universe. They say that this century will be ruled by Science, and that the nation's might depends on its adaptation and comprehension by every man. They claim that, if we are to be a great civilization, we must even teach this Science to our school children.

As a man who holds that the welfare of this country takes precedence over any other human concern, I must stand firmly against the teach- ing of Science in our schools. This Science has already caused turmoil among God-fearing folk who did not wish to learn that they, as human creatures, may have descended from apes. What if Science were to champion other truths, provable and real, which people do not want to hear? Should we allow our citizens to become aware of facts which go against their chosen beliefs, it would cause untold turmoil and strife among our people! The people's reaction would cause division and conflict in our nation that would doubtless outweigh any benefits of the actual Scientific discovery.

Should we teach our children facts? No, I say, a thousand times no! As they grow into tomorrow's farmers, housewives, mill workers, and coal miners, facts are the last things they will need. Manners! Subservience! Above all, obedience! To speak only when spoken to, and not to cause trouble! These are the principles upon which our educational system was grounded. Why in the name of God should we replace it with a system that actually encourages an ignorant man to ask questions? A good citizen does nothing of the sort. He is content with the reasons he is given by his betters.

Humanity's noblest heroes were not men
who cared about facts. They were men who stood up for what they believed in, and to Hell with facts! To hell with any truth not their own! Our most cherished heroes would fight to the death, bludgeoning their enemies repeatedly, wholly uninterested in whether they were right or wrong.

Once something is accepted as true, it should be true forever. This noble ideal, with its emphasis on unquestioning acceptance of and obedience to authority, is what we should teach our children. It is the rock upon which we have built our government, our religion, and our American way of life, and it is the very ideal which Science seeks to thwart with its new "discoveries" and impersonal ledgers of "facts"

Learning! Why should we provide our citizens with learning? Does learning math- ematics aid a man who will spend the rest of his life smelting iron in a foundry? Does knowing that Man comes from apes --if he indeed does, which seems to be a subject of some debate-- change the lot of the farmwife who lives out her years shuttling between the birthing-bed and the milking-stool? I say it does not. Furthermore, it fills the brains of children with useless facts which do not help them to become good citizens. Does a fact have any inherent moral value? Does Science? We know that Science allowed the Germans to develop the mustard gas and the motor-gun. Has religion ever been used in so evil a fashion? Of course not.

It is possible that we, with our motorcars and aeroplanes powered by the new internal- combustion engines, have already started down a slippery slope of destruction. We were not content to stay with time-honored steam, to travel in our dignified trains and coach-and- fours. But we can take action now, before ape-worshiping scientists turn us one against the other. We must cease our deadly march of Progress now, and there is no better way to achieve this than to keep the hellborn demon Science, and his diabolical Facts, from coming into contact with our dear children.

:|:|:|:|

 

[nakedfrog]

???

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
???

 

[sandorski]

Who? When?

I think tongue is firmly planted in cheek here.

 

[Cobalt]

Granted it can be hard to pick up sarcasm in writing. . . I just don't know how anyone can believe he is speaking seriously.

 

[Yomicron]

Should Children be Exposed to Facts?

The Opinion of Edward Tillich,
The Onion's Crime and Science Editor

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Yomicron
Should Children be Exposed to Facts?

The Opinion of Edward Tillich,
The Onion's Crime and Science Editor

Yeah, I didn't want to post think link for that reason 😛

 

[Mo0o]

Be careful, people dont take kindly to jokes here in P&N

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Be careful, people dont take kindly to jokes here in P&N

Originally posted by: _________
Hmmm, the forum is Politics and News, not retarded bullshit "humor", you must have taken a wrong turn there, pardner.

CsG

 

[DealMonkey]

I guess if you can't hang with liberals, don't go to college. Stay stupid for all we care.

😉 😛

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess if you can't hang with liberals, don't go to college. Stay stupid for all we care.

😉 😛

The problem with liberals is that they never LEAVE the college. Can't make it in the real world so they teach. 😀

 

[joshw10]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess if you can't hang with liberals, don't go to college. Stay stupid for all we care.

😉 😛

The problem with liberals is that they never LEAVE the college. Can't make it in the real world so they teach. 😀

Wouldn't teaching be part of the "real world", moron?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: AndrewR
The problem with liberals is that they never LEAVE the college. Can't make it in the real world so they teach. 😀

Wouldn't teaching be part of the "real world", moron?

I think it's rather obvious that if you progress straight from learning in academia to teaching in academia, you likely have a skewed interpretation of how things really work, how people really think, etc.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess if you can't hang with liberals, don't go to college. Stay stupid for all we care.

😉 😛

The problem with liberals is that they never LEAVE the college. Can't make it in the real world so they teach. 😀

LOL. We see this kind of crap until we get another posted letter from a rich Democrat lawyer in NYC then the conservatives starting whining about liberals working too much and being high and mighty and elitist...

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess if you can't hang with liberals, don't go to college. Stay stupid for all we care.

😉 😛

rofl

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: AndrewR
The problem with liberals is that they never LEAVE the college. Can't make it in the real world so they teach. 😀

Wouldn't teaching be part of the "real world", moron?

I think it's rather obvious that if you progress straight from learning in academia to teaching in academia, you likely have a skewed interpretation of how things really work, how people really think, etc.

It's not "obvious" to many here as you can see.😛

CsG

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: AndrewR
The problem with liberals is that they never LEAVE the college. Can't make it in the real world so they teach. 😀

Wouldn't teaching be part of the "real world", moron?

I think it's rather obvious that if you progress straight from learning in academia to teaching in academia, you likely have a skewed interpretation of how things really work, how people really think, etc.

It's not "obvious" to many here as you can see.😛

CsG

What's not "obvious" to many people, myself included, is how academia is more isolated and skewed than any other area people spend their whole lives in. In other words, what about being, say, a pig farmer makes a person's view of the world any less skewed than that of a professor? It's pretty much "explained" with an everybody-knows-it anwer, but I have yet to see a logical explanation.

Now I realize that academia tends to be more liberal...and people conjecture that means there is something "wrong" with it. On the other hand, rural areas tend to be very conservative...and the same people think it's just because "they know how the world really works". No offense intended, but your bias is clouding your thinking. You feel that conservatives are better than liberals, so when there are groups of people that are mostly liberal, there is something wrong with them, and when there are groups of conservatives, they must just be smarter.

But maybe I'm wrong and there is a good, logical explanation about what makes academia so special. Personally I think it's yet aother manifestation the lack of respect our culture shows to education. But I've been wrong before...

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What's not "obvious" to many people, myself included, is how academia is more isolated and skewed than any other area people spend their whole lives in. In other words, what about being, say, a pig farmer makes a person's view of the world any less skewed than that of a professor? It's pretty much "explained" with an everybody-knows-it anwer, but I have yet to see a logical explanation.

But maybe I'm wrong and there is a good, logical explanation about what makes academia so special. Personally I think it's yet aother manifestation the lack of respect our culture shows to education. But I've been wrong before...

Eh, you're not following correctly IMO. As an example, you have software engineers who work in development teams in the real world. Then you have computer science academics like a professor of mine, whose ideas of dev strategies and team management are idealistic in the extreme. His views are skewed towards the unrealistic, while those who've been-there and actually done-that know what works and what does not. You can apply this example to any area of study.

Edit: I should also add that while it's plain to anyone who's met my professor that he would never make it in business, he somehow manages to stay employed by my university and work his way towards tenure. He may be bright, but he's also rather hopeless when presented with non-abstract problems.

We've all been wrong before. Once upon a time, I mistook Red Dawn as a polite young man of impeccable stock. :shocked:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What's not "obvious" to many people, myself included, is how academia is more isolated and skewed than any other area people spend their whole lives in. In other words, what about being, say, a pig farmer makes a person's view of the world any less skewed than that of a professor? It's pretty much "explained" with an everybody-knows-it anwer, but I have yet to see a logical explanation.

But maybe I'm wrong and there is a good, logical explanation about what makes academia so special. Personally I think it's yet aother manifestation the lack of respect our culture shows to education. But I've been wrong before...

Eh, you're not following correctly IMO. As an example, you have software engineers who work in development teams in the real world. Then you have computer science academics like a professor of mine, whose ideas of dev strategies and team management are idealistic in the extreme. His views are skewed towards the unrealistic, while those who've been-there and actually done-that know what works and what does not. You can apply this example to any area of study.

Edit: I should also add that while it's plain to anyone who's met my professor that he would never make it in business, he somehow manages to stay employed by my university and work his way towards tenure. He may be bright, but he's also rather hopeless when presented with non-abstract problems.

We've all been wrong before. Once upon a time, I mistook Red Dawn as a polite young man of impeccable stock. :shocked:

I see what you're saying, and as someone who is currently finishing up a computer engineering degree after having worked in several different internships, I certainly can agree that many professors know more of the academics than what works and what doesn't in the workplace.

But I don't feel right treating the academic world as some skewed place that doesn't count in the "real world". It just seems arrogant to call what I do and what I've experienced "real" and what someone else has done "not real". Sure, I wouldn't want to work for most of my professors...but I don't trust a lot of the "real world" people I've worked with to think too far outside the box, something I've noticed academics can be quite good at. It's not a coincidence that many (if not most) big advances come from academia first. We all play a part in the "real world", I don't think it's smart to disregard any person's part.

I kind of view it as many parts of the same puzzle. And at the end of the day, professors have families and houses and pets and bills just like everyone else, and their job doesn't give them all the answers, just like everyone else. And I'm still not convinced I should listen to a bus driver any more seriously than a professor when it comes to politics.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: yllus
Edit: I should also add that while it's plain to anyone who's met my professor that he would never make it in business, he somehow manages to stay employed by my university and work his way towards tenure. He may be bright, but he's also rather hopeless when presented with non-abstract problems.

To be fair, we should ask the reverse as well: could you make it as a professor? The competition for positions, grants, and publications in the best journals is tremendous. A large majority of PhDs who attempt to get a full time academic position fail to do so. Having worked at both a research university and one of the most competitve environments in the computing industry, I found the university a much tougher environment to succeed in.

 

[AndrewR]

I see what you're saying, and as someone who is currently finishing up a computer engineering degree after having worked in several different internships, I certainly can agree that many professors know more of the academics than what works and what doesn't in the workplace.

But I don't feel right treating the academic world as some skewed place that doesn't count in the "real world". It just seems arrogant to call what I do and what I've experienced "real" and what someone else has done "not real". Sure, I wouldn't want to work for most of my professors...but I don't trust a lot of the "real world" people I've worked with to think too far outside the box, something I've noticed academics can be quite good at. It's not a coincidence that many (if not most) big advances come from academia first. We all play a part in the "real world", I don't think it's smart to disregard any person's part.

I kind of view it as many parts of the same puzzle. And at the end of the day, professors have families and houses and pets and bills just like everyone else, and their job doesn't give them all the answers, just like everyone else. And I'm still not convinced I should listen to a bus driver any more seriously than a professor when it comes to politics.

It seems your problem is simply with the term "real world", which really means nothing. The main point is that academicians are fixed on the theoretical while those in the commercial sector (or, rather, non-academic since that encompasses more) are concerned with the practical -- what works or succeeds. Semantics aside, the adage "do as I say, not as I do" is appropriate here.

I am not trying to denigrate the teaching profession, as much as it might appear that I am. I've even contemplated becoming an instructor at some point. However, the phrase the "ivory tower" of academia wasn't created because someone felt that academicians were in touch with the rest of the world.

And, you are correct in stating that many big advances come from the academic world, but don't forget that many of the worst failures come from there, too. Where are those ideas proven? In the real world. 😉