Reasons you left the LDS church.

[babe]

1) High-school kids are not prepared for the mathematics involved.
2) It is never a good a idea to teach someone somethying that is false, deliberately.
3) An exercise like that would teach them that teachers are deliberately misleading them.

mathematics is an abtract formalism that TRIES to comprehend real stuff. . . . . like gravity. . . . but often fails, until we contruct an equation that has all the right mathematical features that are needed. Probably you didn't think of this necessary exercise of learning to contruct a formula, and computing theoretical results, and then comparing the results to some objective sort of experiment. Probably you consider "education" to consist of passing out "truth" like candy to kids, that's why it just looks cruel to make them learn to think. I'd say the objective of education should be the development of students' inate abilities to creatively conceive concepts, and to check them out constructively for their usefulness. If you set kids out on a quest that requires some mathematical skills, you will possibly motivate them and teach them how math can be useful.

second. . . . while we have no real need to deliberately teach anything we know is just rubbish, trying to make the students dissatisfied with us and angry enough to try to prove how wrong we are. . . . . it is the fact that everything we teach needs to be questioned, and will one day yield to some future concept that explains things more satisfactorily. . . . so in effect there is the likelihood that what we do teach could be called "false" and produce the same result, no matter how diligent and concerned we are to teach what's right. I'd even say that it is the important truth we should thoroughly teach, that the quest for understanding is a systematic progression through ideas towards a goal we might not have satisfactoriy comprehended yet. And yes, there are ideas we can teach that are for practical purposes useful enough. . . . but there is no "State Interest" in closing the discussion.

There is no "State Interest" in limiting the human mind, or establishing norms or acceptable beliefs in "Science" or "Religion", or even in "Game Theory". I disagree with John Dewey in the claim that there is any "State Interest" in training workers to meet the requirements of corporate "clients" with hiring needs. . . . training plumbers, carpenters, electricians, architects, engineers, doctors, nurses, schoolteachers, computer programmers, chemists or physicists, or in licensing professionals in any way.

Teaching kids that these are legitimate concerns of the State is exactly what you wish to avoid, teaching them that teachers are deliberately misleading them.


The "State" is us. Every time we set some 'standard' for a profession, we do so at a cost, to "us", of limiting the range of acceptable creativity. While we might gain something in establishing standards for, say building codes or zoning ordinances, there is a creativity cost as well as an administrative cost. The belief fostered by public education that "The State" has any authority/interest in managing "us" is THE LIE. The reason we are not a pure democracy is that we once had people in the formation of our government who feared the dictatorship of a simple majority as much as they feared the tyrrany of financial/commercial interests. They tried to construct a system of balanced, limited powers, but realized it could only work so long as the people were willing to claim their inate rights. Among those inate rights is the right to question authority. . . . and in the environment of cartel/corporate/commercial interests with motive to cultivate connections to government, to lawmakers, administrators, it becomes a civic duty for people to closely regulate their "State" and it's claimed "interests'.

The failure of a state-operated "Public Education System" to resist the claim of "State interest" is diagnostic of education gone amok. The failure of any professional line of service to resist the claim of "needed regulations" backed by the police power of the State, is diagnostic of a profession that has itself yielded to a fascist mechanism of enforcing restrictions against competition. It always has a practical cost in terms of products made available to the people, as well as a cost in terms of human liberty.

The result will surely be people becoming convinced "that teachers are deliberately misleading them."

The alternative is simply allowing private education to compete. . . . . if the "State" got entirely out of the way, you might think some people will not be trained to useful tasks, and indeed that might happen. . . . but the reality of liberty and the consequences of liberty is actually compelling. While the state-run education system we have has produced millions of citizens incarcerated for say personal abuse of psycoactive substances, and a very large rate of illiterate survivors of the public school regime, you fear the possibility of some people refusing to learn marketable skills that corporates need. In my view, people would do better on their own self-interest, and the so-called "State Interest" is not nearly as efficient at addressing the "needs" of people. It's been about a hundred years in our country now, and we can see the results. What's the unemployment rate now. . . . . higher than ever. . . . . poverty, unenployment, millions of displaced workers abandoned by corporates who just relocated their plants in labor markets abroad. The whole "train to the task" concept has been breached by the corporates who demanded it in the first place.

 

[One Brow]

mathematics is an abtract formalism that TRIES to comprehend real stuff. . . . . like gravity. . . . but often fails, until we contruct an equation that has all the right mathematical features that are needed. Probably you didn't think of this necessary exercise of learning to contruct a formula, and computing theoretical results, and then comparing the results to some objective sort of experiment.

Don't teach your grandmother to chew cheese. This goes double when you confuse an objection to using multivariate calculus and differential equations in a high-school math class with an objection to the teaching of the process of mathematical modeling.

Probably you consider "education" to consist of passing out "truth" like candy to kids, that's why it just looks cruel to make them learn to think.

I consider you to "probably" be a condescending, ignorant jerk ranting about a topic he doesn't understand and about a person's teaching style that he has never witnessed. What about your background indicates you have any expertise in teaching techniques, knowledge of the necessary foundatons for developing critical thinking skills, or or awareness of the concerns and focus of the typical community college faculty? I ask this because of your displayed ignorance regarding these three things is remarkably juxtaposed to your consistantly inaccurate declarations upon them.

I'd say the objective of education should be the development of students' inate abilities to creatively conceive concepts, and to check them out constructively for their usefulness. If you set kids out on a quest that requires some mathematical skills, you will possibly motivate them and teach them how math can be useful.

Duh.

The "State" is us. Every time we set some 'standard' for a profession, we do so at a cost, to "us", of limiting the range of acceptable creativity. While we might gain something in establishing standards for, say building codes or zoning ordinances, there is a creativity cost as well as an administrative cost.

How typical of you that you ignore the costs of not having standards, the very real costs of worsened infrastructure for lax/missing zoning codes, increased emergency response need for poorly built buildings, people who nedlessly die where quacks have equal legitimacy to doctors. Standards are what set acce3ptable creativity, and prevent unacceptable creativity.

The alternative is simply allowing private education to compete. . .

Every mid-sized city in the USA has private schools. Nothing stops them from competing. By the time you get to t6he secondary level, their sylibi resemble those of the public schools for a reason: it's ultimately the syllibi that will best prepare the student for a variety of tasks, including critical thinking.

 

[babe]

Not probably, nor certainly. . . . nor objectively.

What people think, or teach, is always a human idea. . . . something that occurs inside a human skull. Certainty, or the claim of "objectivity" is also one of those purely human concepts within human skulls. The whole process of thinking involves imagination, and the whole idea of representing the world outside, whether it is "God" or "Science" is an art of perception/cognition, and in humans usually is applied to some purpose. Again, a human purpose. States cannot rise above what is human, cannot create anything more durable or beneficial or reliable, any more than an "organized" man-direction religious organization can.

The hate and frustration I see in your retorts just supports my generalization of the ills of authoritarianism in governance and in education molded to government purpose.

Your teaching style is heavily evident in what you write in here.

folks with less abstract takes on it just call it bull.

 

[babe]

I'm quite familiar with higher mathematics, but not unduly impressed. Engineers resort to empirical fudge factors in the field to solve problems all the time. Mathematical models from all disciplines degenerate in practice for achieving acceptable meaning at minimal bother. In theoretical physics there are elaborate sets of assumptions about the universe which are taken to achieve cost-effective results. You assume that "multivariate caluculus/differential equations" are involved in a purely imaginary concept called a "warp drive", whatever that means. It's pretty certain that we will have to imagine some features of the universe we can't directly observe or measure along the path towards a higher sort of power to draw upon and use some fundamentally different form of propulsion, and maybe even invent an entirely different "calculus" to apply to it.

I had a lot of trouble learning the high school calculus teachers were satisfied to teach me in high school, only to encounter another approach later on in graduate-level mathematics courses in college that was easier to understand. The fact that nature is better described by curves than straight lines might be the reason.

 

[One Brow]

The hate and frustration I see in your retorts just supports my generalization of the ills of authoritarianism in governance and in education molded to government purpose.

Of course it does. If you were a critical thinker, it would cause you to wonder why I make the claims I do, what data you might be missing, and what basis I have to support my statements. After all, critical thinkers don't just assume people are wrong they follow the evidence. However, based on past experience, anything I write will confirm to you what you already believe. If I agree, your beliefs will be confirmed. If I disagree, your beliefs will be confirmed. When all observations serve to confirm your beliefs, that is a sign you are not engaging in critical thinking.

Critical thinking is not to be confused with revolutionary thinking, nor anti-authoritarian thinking. It is not about rejecting a party line. It requires deciding what is or is n ot true regardless of who says or how accepted the truth is, based on objective standards of evidence.

Your teaching style is heavily evident in what you write in here.

Can you justify that statement in any way? Or, does this post already confirm that statement for you, so you don't need to justify it?

folks with less abstract takes on it just call it bull.

My takes on these issues seem to be far more concrete than yours.

 

[babe]

why do you make the claims you do? Seriously?

You live and breathe the culture of an educational establishment, and you are fine with it. You think the way you want to think. Am I assuming something not in evidence? You are satisfied with your set of firm convictions, and if someone else tries to rattle those things, you reply "My takes on these issues seems to be far more concrete than yours."

The evidence of my statement consists in your replies within the forums I've seen, and it's a generalization not entirely in accord with every example, rather the remark is meant as a reminder of things you probably have sometimes realized, but forget when you get emotional about your objectivity.

Critical thinking is theoretically useful on more levels than one. Evaluating the cost/benefit relation of say a city building code requires a lot of detailed analysis of several known alternatives, which I'm not going to do in a one hundred word comment here. The belief of authoritarian government officials that nobody should be permitted to do anything without their authorization is something anyone might imagine could be a problem, who has dealt with contradictory code enforcement officers who will just sit on a construction project until you slip them some cash. The fact that cities will not or can not police their officials is in my view worthy of a summary dismissal of their whole claim to authority.

Like everything else that goes on inside human skulls in the way of neuronic feel-good notions, our definitions of "critical thinking" are plastic to our purposes.

 

[One Brow]

why do you make the claims you do? Seriously?

You live and breathe the culture of an educational establishment, and you are fine with it. You think the way you want to think. Am I assuming something not in evidence? You are satisfied with your set of firm convictions, and if someone else tries to rattle those things, you reply "My takes on these issues seems to be far more concrete than yours."

The evidence of my statement consists in your replies within the forums I've seen, and it's a generalization not entirely in accord with every example, rather the remark is meant as a reminder of things you probably have sometimes realized, but forget when you get emotional about your objectivity.

Critical thinking is theoretically useful on more levels than one. Evaluating the cost/benefit relation of say a city building code requires a lot of detailed analysis of several known alternatives, which I'm not going to do in a one hundred word comment here. The belief of authoritarian government officials that nobody should be permitted to do anything without their authorization is something anyone might imagine could be a problem, who has dealt with contradictory code enforcement officers who will just sit on a construction project until you slip them some cash. The fact that cities will not or can not police their officials is in my view worthy of a summary dismissal of their whole claim to authority.

Like everything else that goes on inside human skulls in the way of neuronic feel-good notions, our definitions of "critical thinking" are plastic to our purposes.

I make most of the claims I do based on study, and some on an internal sense of right and wrong. For example, I've actually studied upon learning methods and their effectiveness.

Anyone who teaches is in the culture of education, just like anyone who goes to the Roman Catholic church is in the culture of Catholicism. Like any other culture, people participate in different ways, to different degrees. I'm reading my fourth book on educational techniques in the last four years. Care to guess how many of them positively mention rote learning and the factory model you rail against?

You apparently would see the content of my replies as evidence of your positions, regardless of their content. That's just the kind of thinker you seem to be. No matter what the evidence is, it supports you.

Corruption is bad. A lack of any standard is often worse, in no small part because the corruption persists, but we rename it "fraud".

I have no doubt you find concepts plastic to your purposes. Some people have standards for their concepts.

 

[babe]

I make most of the claims I do based on study, and some on an internal sense of right and wrong. For example, I've actually studied upon learning methods and their effectiveness.

Anyone who teaches is in the culture of education, just like anyone who goes to the Roman Catholic church is in the culture of Catholicism. Like any other culture, people participate in different ways, to different degrees. I'm reading my fourth book on educational techniques in the last four years. Care to guess how many of them positively mention rote learning and the factory model you rail against?

You apparently would see the content of my replies as evidence of your positions, regardless of their content. That's just the kind of thinker you seem to be. No matter what the evidence is, it supports you.

Corruption is bad. A lack of any standard is often worse, in no small part because the corruption persists, but we rename it "fraud".

I have no doubt you find concepts plastic to your purposes. Some people have standards for their concepts.

Of course there is even internal backlash against the prevalent norms in education. It wouldn't make a book worth reading if there were no improvements that could be held forth. Which is exactly my basic thesis.

In education, there are "good" and "bad" teachers. Again, it is plastic in the hands of whoever is making the judgment. You have to be very very bad before nearly everyone will make that judgment, or very very good in order to stand out in the students mind and cause them to think it remarkable.

The saving grace in even government-run schools in tyrannical, propagandistic countries, is that people are still people, and some humanity persists. . . . despite every intention on the part of authority to wipe it out. A good example would be China over the past sixty years. Wanna know how many people look back to the little red book of Chairman Mao for instruction? Nobody. Absolutely nobody. Not even an absolute top-down government can really stand it, for very long.

No matter what you teach, or how you teach it, you are establishing a reference point in the memory and experience of the people involved, which teacher and students alike will likely try to improve upon somehow.

Yah, I know people who have probably read those same books you read, and pride themselves on applying the masterful techniques. . . . . with sometimes rather poor skills of evaluating how they are doing, really. It is just amazing, astounding to see the plasticity in other people's minds, and the apparent gaps between self-appraisals and the opinions of others. I even know a few passionate advocates of human liberty who for whatever reason just look to me like absolute tyrants.

Some can do OK as long as the students are smiling and in general acting appreciative of the wonderful stuff being taught, you could almost think there is a real human bond, a lasting guru/master//accolyte/servant relation and that the students when they are in their fifties will be practically idolizing the teacher still. But as wonderful as it all seems, sometimes even such a beloved teacher cracks when someone responds in some impudent way, and all that niceness is just out the window. "You're an Idiot" the teacher rants.

Wonderful.

IMO, a more sensible teacher will just a priori accept that the people in his/her classroom are on an extended tour. They have been themselves for a long time, and will go on being themselves long after. The only things they will choose to keep from your offerings are the ones they choose to. Whether that comes to a large slice of the pie, or merely a crumb, you offered them what you have, and they made their choice. Shouldn't particularly bother you if other people don't think what you do.

OK, same should hold true for me and my little rants in here.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

More anti-religious than anti-LDS. But it holds a special place in my heart and a much larger relevance in my day-to-day.

People are free to believe what they will, I have no intrinsic issue with that. When those beliefs seek to take rights away from others then I have a real problem. That happens to be most religions a fair percentage of the time.

Actually that happens to be most ORGANIZED religions. People that just believe what they want to believe, tend to not care what anyone else does with there lives.
These things go hand in hand with the government trying to protect yourself from yourself. AKA the drug war.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk

 

[bigb]

Let's see...One Brow and babe going back and forth. Yep, this thread dropped a deuce.

 

[TroutBum]

Let's see...One Brow and babe going back and forth. Yep, this thread dropped a deuce.

It seems so familiar though...








Weird.

 

[babe]

It seems so familiar though...








Weird.

Yah, it is, isn't it.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TroutBum again.

According to

The Maverick Philosopheer

, the subject of one of OB's longer threads over at his blog,

What would Hitch lose by believing? Of course, he can't bring himself to believe, it is not a Jamesian live option, but suppose he could. Would he lose 'the truth'? But nobody knows what the truth is about death and the hereafter. People only think they do. Well, suppose 'the truth' is that we are nothing but complex physical systems slated for annihilation. Why would knowing this 'truth' be a value? Even if one is facing reality by believing that death is the utter end of the self, what is the good of facing reality in a situation in which one is but a material system?

If materialism is true, then I think Nietzsche is right: truth is not a value; life-enhancing illusions are to be preferred. If truth is out of all relation to human flourishing, why should we value it?

One of the most compelling "life-enhancing illusions" is that of "understanding the universe" somehow, others are that of actually believing you are reasonable, educated, productive, spiritual, rational, wise. . . . in short, "right".

While I can hardly escape these sorts of compelling illusions myself, I think there is more to it than anything I can know or say. I am not simply a materialist because I think the material, observable world is only part of it all. Certainly, even in the "material world" the extent of the Universe begs sentient life to resist the illusion that we know it all.

I think I was once in some sort of comparable state as I think OB is now. I used to take myself seriously. Sometimes I fall to the temptation to just make fun of those I think are like I used to be, and make fun of them. . . . . or worse yet, try to reason with them. . . . . which strikes me as something of joke, too. . . .but I think I will just accept your rebuke here, and just laugh at myself for what I wrote above.

 

[franklin]

I just want to remind this thread that Sinomar called Trout a cute retarded neighbor's dog or something close before sobering up and editing it out to look cool in his own mind, and stuff.

Going the sober route was wrong Sinomar. Pure WRONG

 

[The Black Swordsman]

While I am a Muslim, sadly I must say that I am not 100% religious and have a little bit of agnostic in me just like almost everyone else in the world does.

If people were 100% religious and had no doubts no one would ever sin, no one would ever waste time with things like entertainment and dedicate all their life to their religion and helping others, would donate their kidney, and act as good as all these prophets and saints and such did or claimed to have done. Also they wouldn't have any fear of death, or at least less fear of death.

Everyone just hopes that there is something else after this life.

It's just too gloomy thinking otherwise.

The only guarantee in life is a life worth dying for.

 

[bigb]

I just want to remind this thread that Sinomar called Trout a cute retarded neighbor's dog or something close before sobering up and editing it out to look cool in his own mind, and stuff.

Going the sober route was wrong Sinomar. Pure WRONG

It's good to have you back baby.

 

[franklin]

@jazzspazz: I realize you're not into doctrine and all, but you're an excellent job trying to defend the faith anyway. Cheers!

I have numerous friends and mission buddies leaving the LDS church. Most of it ranges from polygamy, issues with Joseph Smith, or blacks in the priesthood, etc. Just curious on what other people's experiences were like.

Have you ever showed up to church with a hangover? Never mix church and headaches.