Re:Professor Who Helped Expose Crisis in Flint Says Public S...
by kafkaesq on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @06:16PM
(#11030703)
My favorite part:
Q: How exactly does one teach heroism to college students?
A. We teach aspirational ethics. What I teach my students is, You’re born heroic. I go into these animal studies, and heroism is actually in our nature. What you have to do is make sure that the system doesn’t change you, that our educational system doesn’t teach you to be willfully blind and to forget your aspirations, because that’s the default position. ... The main thing is, Do not let our educational institutions make you into something that you will be ashamed of.
Q. And you sort of warn them that you’re preparing them for a life of possible sadness and alienation?
Re:Professor Who Helped Expose Crisis in Flint Says Public S...
by bpchaps on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @08:58PM
(#11031472)
Probably something along the lines of, "If you call them fools, you probably deserve the alienation."
Edit: Read that wrong, but I'll change my answer:
I feel that a large amount of the issues in science and "exclusive knowledge groups" stem from alienation at its root. Exclusivity, obfuscation, lack of publishing, "no true Scotsman", "othering", etc. By calling them fools, you're only contributing to the sorts of alienation that causes these issues to exist.
Re:Professor Who Helped Expose Crisis in Flint Says Public S...
by progressive_dad on Friday February 05, 2016 @04:57PM
(#11044952)
There are so many issues here I hardly know where to begin. I've made similar arguments myself in the past and you have to be very careful to compartmentalize what you hope to say and accomplish when debating someone directly affected by these issues.
What do you want to accomplish? Do you believe that all the world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations?
Do you believe that the complexity of modern science and the scale of the problems inherently requires increasing specialization and an inherent detachment for modern scientists from the impact of the work in a cultural context? Does that lead us toward a specialization in being a spokesperson for science? Should large institutions feel obligated to create such positions?
Because if you're simply pining for the days of natural philosophers who were statesmen, lawyers, political figures, and leading minds embodied in one person you're at a dead end.
Whatever you do, don't bring up ethics. A required college course wraps up any and all debate on that front!
Re:Professor Who Helped Expose Crisis in Flint Says Public S...
by harry8 on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @10:42PM
(#11031839)
We are all fools to some extent - to be totally alienated from fools is to be alone.
I'm not sure that when problems are systemic that everyone swayed by that system, knowingly or unknowingly, is a fool by the definition you mean. Not being foolish in this regard is only something you can be constantly vigilant about, you can't master it. You can never say "I am not such a fool." If you do, you increase your chances of being what you despise.
Re:Professor Who Helped Expose Crisis in Flint Says Public S...
by kafkaesq on Thursday February 04, 2016 @01:53PM
(#11036235)
I wouldn't call them "fools".
They're just vested in a system which (seem to) promise some semblance of security and (a feeling of) group belonging, in exchange keeping their heads down, and their nose to the grindstone -- and not rocking the boat, generally.
It's a trap that's very, very easy to fall in. Especially if you have people who depend on you -- you know, kids, older family members -- that sort of thing.
Re:Professor Who Helped Expose Crisis in Flint Says Public S...
by progressive_dad on Friday February 05, 2016 @04:42PM
(#11044869)
I was quoting Richard Dawkins quoting an editor of New Scientist magazine. I even linked the debate. Its not a new issue, its a very divisive issue, and I think that sums up the opposition quite succinctly.
For further context this discussion was between Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson at the "Beyond Belief" panel discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
Re:Professor Who Helped Expose Crisis in Flint Says Public S...
by dang on Friday February 05, 2016 @04:44PM
(#11044877)
I know, but quoting the most inflammatory thing an inflammatory figure has said is unconducive to substantive discussion. The last thing we want on HN is binary ragewars between people who identify one way and people who identify the other.
Q: How exactly does one teach heroism to college students?
A. We teach aspirational ethics. What I teach my students is, You’re born heroic. I go into these animal studies, and heroism is actually in our nature. What you have to do is make sure that the system doesn’t change you, that our educational system doesn’t teach you to be willfully blind and to forget your aspirations, because that’s the default position. ... The main thing is, Do not let our educational institutions make you into something that you will be ashamed of.
Q. And you sort of warn them that you’re preparing them for a life of possible sadness and alienation?
A. Well, yeah. There’s a price to be paid.
Edit: Read that wrong, but I'll change my answer:
I feel that a large amount of the issues in science and "exclusive knowledge groups" stem from alienation at its root. Exclusivity, obfuscation, lack of publishing, "no true Scotsman", "othering", etc. By calling them fools, you're only contributing to the sorts of alienation that causes these issues to exist.
What do you want to accomplish? Do you believe that all the world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations?
Do you believe that the complexity of modern science and the scale of the problems inherently requires increasing specialization and an inherent detachment for modern scientists from the impact of the work in a cultural context? Does that lead us toward a specialization in being a spokesperson for science? Should large institutions feel obligated to create such positions?
Because if you're simply pining for the days of natural philosophers who were statesmen, lawyers, political figures, and leading minds embodied in one person you're at a dead end.
Whatever you do, don't bring up ethics. A required college course wraps up any and all debate on that front!
I'm not sure that when problems are systemic that everyone swayed by that system, knowingly or unknowingly, is a fool by the definition you mean. Not being foolish in this regard is only something you can be constantly vigilant about, you can't master it. You can never say "I am not such a fool." If you do, you increase your chances of being what you despise.
They're just vested in a system which (seem to) promise some semblance of security and (a feeling of) group belonging, in exchange keeping their heads down, and their nose to the grindstone -- and not rocking the boat, generally.
It's a trap that's very, very easy to fall in. Especially if you have people who depend on you -- you know, kids, older family members -- that sort of thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fh_liyhIH8
For further context this discussion was between Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson at the "Beyond Belief" panel discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11031472 and marked it off-topic.