On the media...

[trillionaire]

Excerpt from here.

Definitely worth the read:

By: John Walcott

"Relying on The Times, or McClatchy or any other news source, for all the truth is dumb, but it''s infinitely preferable to the pernicious philosophical notions that there is no such thing as truth, that truth is relative, or that, as some journalists seem to believe, it can be found midway between the two opposing poles of any argument."

...

"Does the truth lie halfway between say, slavery and abolition, or between segregation and civil rights, or between communism and democracy? If you quote Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Winston Churchill, in other words, must you then give equal time and credence to Hitler and Joseph Goebbels? If you write an article that''s critical of John McCain, are you then obligated to devote an identical number of words to criticism of Barack Obama, and vice versa?

The idea that truth is merely a social construct, that it''s subjective, in other words, first appeared in academia as a corruption of post-modernism, but it’s taken root in our culture without our really realizing it or understanding its implications.

It began with liberal academics arguing, for example, that some Southwestern Indians'' belief that humans are descended from a subterranean world of supernatural spirits is, as one archaeologist put it, "just as valid as archaeology." As NYU philosophy professor Paul Boghossian puts it in a wonderful little book, "Fear of Knowledge": " ... the idea that there are many equally valid ways of knowing the world, with science being just one of them, has taken very deep root."

Although this kind of thinking, relativism and constructivism, started on the left, many conservatives now feel empowered by it, too, and some of them have embraced it with a vengeance on issues ranging from global warming and evolution to the war in Iraq.

"Journalists live in the reality-based world," a White House official told Ron Suskind, writing for The New York Times Magazine back in the headier days of 2004. "The world doesn''t really work that way any more. We''re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."

I respectfully disagree.

The Church was wrong, and Copernicus and Galileo were right.

There is not one truth for Fox News and another for The Nation. Fair is not always balanced, and balanced is not always fair.

No matter how devoutly they may have believed their own propaganda, Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were wrong about Enron, and a whole lot of very smart, very rich people were very wrong about mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps.

President Bush was wrong to think that it would be a simple matter to make Iraq the mother of all Mideast democracy.

Or, as the French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau said when he was asked what he thought historians might say about the First World War: "They will not say that Belgium invaded Germany."

I''m not talking here about matters of taste or of partisan politics or, heaven help us, of faith: Whether Monet or Manet was a better painter or whether Jesus was the Messiah, a prophet or a fraud. Those are personal matters, beliefs, opinions and preferences of which we all must learn to be more tolerant.

Harry G. Frankfurt, an emeritus professor of philosophy at Princeton, puts it this way in a marvelous little book called, "On Truth" (which is the sequel to "On Bullshit"): "It seems ever more clear to me that higher levels of civilization must depend even more heavily on a conscientious respect for the importance of honesty and clarity in reporting the facts, and on a stubborn concern for accuracy in determining what the facts are." "

*******************

 

[LaraOnline]

Thank you so much for posting this article!
I feel reassured, somehow, that what I see around me every day - principally in the media - has not gone unnoticed by others.
I have probably gone the full gamut of these ideas myself...

The idea that truth is merely a social construct

Gad, it seems so undergraduate now... but I guess its raison d''etre is great: cultivating a kind of ''diversity of the mind''... you can see why such a concept - truth as social reality - would be good for cultural diversity.

However, science, and a kind of higher good, is best served by ''truth''.

Problem is, truth - outside of cold hard science, perhaps - is best served by accurate history. And so much of historical analytic writing is now seems heavily skewed by left-wing social theory, or perhaps because of funding opportunities.
Modern history,it seems to me, seems to have moved almost to an alarmist position on the actions of institutions in the past, in relation to individuals of the time.

A large part of this would be academic fashion. There is a strong modern interest in the position of the individual, and effects of institutions on individuals (with an emphasis perhaps on the reduction of free choices). There is probably strong academic pressure not to create a history that is ''conservative'' or pro-institutional in political tone, for example. I don''t know too much about ''the history wars'', but I do know that Australian history professors have been arguing furiously about the truth of Aboriginal experience in colonial Australia, for example. The conservatives say they offer proof that the left-wingers have wildly exaggerated claims of Aboriginal deaths and experiences, padded out records to further their ''cause'' and basically propped up their arguments by inventing stuff for which there is no genuine historical record.
Of course, the left-wing authors, who in themselves came into fashion as a refreshingly ''real'', humanistic alternative to the stuffed shirt histories, are incredibly offended by such claims.

So, how to divine truth?

 

[trillionaire]

I was recently exploring Kohlberg's stages of moral development, and noticed that they mapped nearly perfectly to teaching philosophy and the phases of active critical thinking and learning. (I would have to dig up some old course material to cite it properly) It seems to me that we have a fundemental problem of underdeveloping peoples capacities to think in a critical manner. We live in spoon-fed cultures. It's quite sad.

Truth is not relative, though much of our understanding of the social world can be. I think people learn relavist thinking, and stay there. This doesn't really challenge you to think at all, just allows you to think that you are right, too, or that everyone can be right.

Americans, as it is, are rather incurious about history, which doesn't bode well for not repeating it, learning from it, or anything constructive. People also don't want to read or listen to anything that challenges what they belief. In my graduate school department, we were distinctly isolated from any type of conservative thoughts and arguments, for the most part. There should be better appreciation for the fact that ALL writing has an agenda. The writer decided what to include AND exclude, what gets thorough treatment versus a cursory glance. Basically, everything should be read with an critical view. Funny how that is so easy to do with things you don't agree with, and how hard it is with things that you do agree with.

It is an interesting issue, glad you liked the post Lara!

 

[LaraOnline]

OMG this is such an interesting conversation!

So are you saying that there is exploration of people's actual learned ability to think critically... and that we are sadly lacking in the ability?
I agree that fundamentally, it is very difficult to teach students the ability to critically think to a deep degree. Experience is the greatest teacher, and it is not until our assumptions are challenged that we even recognise another way of experiencing truth... which may, in fact, be a greater truth, which holds our previous truth within. It's like we live in an onion!

My politics have changed rather dramatically since becoming involved in small business.
Everything about my life had led me to form a pretty left way of looking at life... the problems in life were to some extent caused by government neglect, or funding shortfalls...education was the central means of self-improvement, retailers and real estate agents were a completely different breed of human, and art, when it got proper funding, would save the world.

It seemed self-evident to me that environmental issues, welfare and living standards were all important parts of government responsibility, and that 'big pharma' and 'big business' were pretty responsible for lots of evils in the world.

Working in small business has changed me, because my experiences have changed. I have worked harder than ever before in my life, with none of the protection I grew up thinking was a worker's 'right'. There are no guarantees anymore... and lots of responsibilities and expectations! The ordinary people I work for - heroes before - can be very demanding and difficult clients... and some even try to overlook their accounts! I have none of the easy answers now, compared to when my world was smaller, and life was more black and white. I feel that in terms of economic understanding, I have grown up a bit.

I agree that people tend to learn 'relativist thinking', and stay there. It could partly be a reflection of a relatively unvaried or even protected life, without change. Change in itself is the key, I think, as it provides a variety of experiences to process.

Education - depending on the faculty and subject you are studying - tends to be filtered through a particular political mindset... it's as if like minds flock together, and the 'wild cards' are filtered out. We do love to have our opinions validated by the agreement of our peers, after all.

Yet, relativist thinking, having a flexible perspective is seen as a shortcut to being an intellectual, no? For only the dull and ignorant are intolerant to another's opinion.

I agree it's very, very difficult to actually recognise the attitudinal structures upon which your perception rests. That's one reason why I have more respect for the attitudes of older people now... they've had more opportunities to have their in-built assumptions challenged through life.

 

[ksinger]

Sniff! I LOVE you guys!! *** Group hug *** To find a group of true intellectuals anywhere is like finding gold on the beach. Other than the husband I don't have them here. Without the interplay of ideas I find I get dull and lazy, so you guys keep my game "up".

And challenge my preconceptions about the world. THANK YOU!!

It's early for me so coherent, deep thought is elusive. All I will say is, the beginning of wisdom is knowing that you're biased. It is not an inherently bad thing - it is part of the personal mental construct that allows a person to relate to the world in a coherent way. At some point we have to make choices - I think THIS, or THAT. The bad part comes in when the bias is never checked, is ignored, or is never up for subsequent revision.

On critical thinking: The husband tries incredibly hard daily to get his kids to THINK, not to accept, but to THINK, for themselves. It is an uphill battle every day. As an aside, we were talking yesterday and he said one class began to speculate openly as to who the history teacher would vote for. He played along and would throw out something in one direction and then the other. He takes it as a point of great pride that his kids can't pidgeonhole him politically, and they couldn't.

Anyway, maybe more later. The first cup hasn't quite kicked in yet, but this is a GREAT thread!!!

 

[MoonWater]

trillionaire, I sure wish you would post more often!

I''m suddenly motivated to order Frankfurt''s On BS off my amazon.com wishlist and add On Truth!


this is a drive by as I should be heading out the door soon...I''m going to read the full article and rest of the posts later...

 

[LaraOnline]

I think the main-stream acceptance of post-modern theory really pushed relativism to the forefront of popular thought. I mean, post-modern theory is now taught in high schools, and is also a structural basis of many high school syllabii.

For example, when I was doing high school teacher training *insert eye roll here* the whole subject of English was based on the concept that all 'texts' are basically formats, to be manipulated according to the communication needs of the author.

The attitude, and the need to convince, were at the heart of the study of the texts.
TBH, I found it a little disheartening... for me, the creative experience of writing comes through as a single expression... it is not so easy to write a little list, deciding first on format, then on style within that format, then on the writing devices to use within each line of the work. It is more a singular movement, like a dance.
Approaching the syllabus like that seemed to take the music out, somewhat.

Also, and this is back on topic, the syllabus encouraged basically an aggressive leftist reading of texts... I guess that is where a parent would be justified in asking what the hidden assumptions of the teachers are...
That is the downfall of this current post-modern approach - a denial that a legitimate truth can even be reached. In some ways, it is a nihilistic approach.
I think young people need hope, and probably a little clarity and hope as well.
It's hard work, having to re-invent the wheel from scratch (social, sexual, moralistic) - as an individual alone ('your own truth') - each and every generation!

Australia has a high rate of youth suicide.

I wonder whether the lack of meaning we invest into our social institutions/connections /roles, such as marriage, might have something to do with this high rate of suicide. Post-modernism isn't really helping in this regard, IMHO. I mean, so many of the conclusions drawn by the post-modern student are, in themselves, prescribed in the attitudes around them, and passed on by their teachers. I think the relativist pre-occupation with self can be unhelpfully nihilistic and unsupportive for the young.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/11/2008 10:00:34 AM
Author: LaraOnline
I think the main-stream acceptance of post-modern theory really pushed relativism to the forefront of popular thought. I mean, post-modern theory is now taught in high schools, and is also a structural basis of many high school syllabii.

For example, when I was doing high school teacher training *insert eye roll here* the whole subject of English was based on the concept that all ''texts'' are basically formats, to be manipulated according to the communication needs of the author.

The attitude, and the need to convince, were at the heart of the study of the texts.
TBH, I found it a little disheartening... for me, the creative experience of writing comes through as a single expression... it is not so easy to write a little list, deciding first on format, then on style within that format, then on the writing devices to use within each line of the work. It is more a singular movement, like a dance.
Approaching the syllabus like that seemed to take the music out, somewhat.

Also, and this is back on topic, the syllabus encouraged basically an aggressive leftist reading of texts... I guess that is where a parent would be justified in asking what the hidden assumptions of the teachers are...
That is the downfall of this current post-modern approach - a denial that a legitimate truth can even be reached. In some ways, it is a nihilistic approach.
I think young people need hope, and probably a little clarity and hope as well.
It''s hard work, having to re-invent the wheel from scratch (social, sexual, moralistic) - as an individual alone (''your own truth'') - each and every generation!

Australia has a high rate of youth suicide.

I wonder whether the lack of meaning we invest into our social institutions/connections /roles, such as marriage, might have something to do with this high rate of suicide. Post-modernism isn''t really helping in this regard, IMHO. I mean, so many of the conclusions drawn by the post-modern student are, in themselves, prescribed in the attitudes around them, and passed on by their teachers. I think the relativist pre-occupation with self can be unhelpfully nihilistic and unsupportive for the young.

1) (as she uncreatively uses numbering for her responses...) Yes, as you say, even creativity can fall prey to a reductionist mindset gone mad. Creativity IS a holistic process, as anyone who engages in it will tell you. You come to it with a set of beliefs and ways of relating to the world intact, and to some degree that will color your work, but the actual process is "mind"less. FYI - I don''t write, I sing, but the process of interpretation of the music is not thought out at the time of delivery. It may be colored beforehand, but in the throes of the process, your "state" and something else takes hold.

2) I think that young minds need to be protected from too much relativistic thinking too young. That seems to me to be the culmination of a life, not something for the beginning. It is too chaotic...does that make sense? for a young mind to make sense of. To be given structure and more "absolutes" early, is better I think. Done correctly, you can change your mind later. Just from personal "micro" experience, my mother made sure my world was quite circumscribed...there were things that are right, and things that are wrong. I only found out later that some of those things were only her personal preference, and that there are many ways of being in the world. But growing up, it served me pretty well. The trick here is balance...between giving a structure so rigid it fetters the mind, or having no structure at all so the mind can''t properly function.
And I''m just not making much sense here.....hmm.....

 

[LaraOnline]

I'm not saying that we should rush back to the days of standing to salute the flag every day at school, singing the national anthem like it's some kind of hymn, and going to Church, blindly, and rejecting the findings of hard science.

I find the concept of teaching creationism as a school science subject to be morally corrupt... and the concept of abstinence-only sex education (it would never happen here) is wilfully ignorant. But so much more could be made of our relationship/sex education classes... for example, the context of sexual relating within a woman's lifetime of motherhood experiences... but as a group we now shy away from indicating 'value' and 'responsibility' within experience. Any value assigned to an experience is a deeply personal reaction, that has not objective reality, and is not connected with other aspects of life.

Except perhaps for the example of travel. We all agree that travel is a good consumer experience, and signifies personal growth. Oh, and motherhood, within itself, remains loaded with value judgements. I guess that's because society (we) expect so much from our mums.

But, as humans, so much of our experience is so embedded in who we are, that it becomes perhaps a little dehumanising to pull it apart too much.
Is our society an organism, or are we individuals acting rationally?

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/11/2008 8:35:04 PM
Author: LaraOnline
I''m not saying that we should rush back to the days of standing to salute the flag every day at school, singing the national anthem like it''s some kind of hymn, and going to Church, blindly, and rejecting the findings of hard science.

I find the concept of teaching creationism as a school science subject to be morally corrupt... and the concept of abstinence-only sex education (it would never happen here) is wilfully ignorant. But so much more could be made of our relationship/sex education classes... for example, the context of sexual relating within a woman''s lifetime of motherhood experiences... but as a group we now shy away from indicating ''value'' and ''responsibility'' within experience. Any value assigned to an experience is a deeply personal reaction, that has not objective reality, and is not connected with other aspects of life.

Except perhaps for the example of travel. We all agree that travel is a good consumer experience, and signifies personal growth. Oh, and motherhood, within itself, remains loaded with value judgements. I guess that''s because society (we) expect so much from our mums.

But, as humans, so much of our experience is so embedded in who we are, that it becomes perhaps a little dehumanising to pull it apart too much.
Is our society an organism, or are we individuals acting rationally?

I don''t know that teaching creationism or ID is "morally corrupt", but it certainly is intellectually bankrupt, that''s for sure. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, (I don''t recall the name of the person who I lifted that from, but it matters not, it''s true). Just like I don''t want the bridges I go over daily to be built on the concept of "God is holding it up", I don''t think biology has any place for, "We don''t know that yet...so.....the only explanation that makes sense is some supernatural force did it". "Teaching the controversy" is just about the stupidest thing I''ve ever heard, since the theory of evolution is not only the key underpinning of modern biology, but has made testable predictions (as any good scientific theory will) whose predicted outcomes square with the experimental data and subsequent discoveries in the fossil record. The problem usually arises from people stubbornly refusing to understand that "theory" in science means something quite different from the common meaning of theory as "personal CONJECTURE".

I don''t think that offering "value" with education is a bad thing. There really is no other way to find out how you fit into the spectrum of human experience if you are never told of human, ie - value-laden and personal - experience. There truly IS nothing new under the sun, and human reactions to things tend to be the same from age to age, no matter the face of the situation. I would ask how much of your "experience" is yours and yours alone, how much of it is culturally conditioned, or how it is similar to the vast majority, especially when the experience is universal, as in motherhood...

The question about society as organism versus individuals acting rationally, is a discussion that could lead us far and wide into the realms of religion, free will, and evolutionary biological thought. I''m not up to much of that today....my back is messed up.

 

[LaraOnline]

Yeah...heh heh. ''intellectually bankrupt'', that''s a better description

The interesting thing is that ''deep science'' could actually lead us to a more profound appreciation of ''value-laden'' experiences, (such as, possibly, motherhood) by examining the biological responses that are triggered when a woman begins a longer-term relationship.

The process of relationship pairing, and bonding, is something that has been pretty much taken for granted by science, but now is of quite personal intellectual interest to me, because the system has been co-opted by mass acceptance / social expectations regarding birth control.

Also, physics gets pretty interesting when scientists discover that tiny particles can apparently ''communicate'' or, mirror actions, over a distance... lots of people think physics will eventually lead to some fairly value-laden findings, perhaps uncovering the physics of psychic communication (I can hear my husband laughing in the background), which, in turn, would lead to an increased social responsibility to ''think good thoughts''. God may, in fact, be turn out to be the joining up of our individual mental energy fields! Lots of people already firmly believe in the power of prayer.

Also, science will hopefully uncover more on the effects of the brain (attitude and life approach) on perceptions of well being. This might lead to a stronger, more prescriptive approach to attitude in future medical treatments. The ''placebo effect'' can, in itself, account for a good proportion of apparent medical effects, which is why pharmacy companies must account for placebo effect while testing new medicines...this will probably lead to increased public support for a restrained, more ''Godly'' life.

DNA may in also reveal while some people are more ''Godly'' than others. So, while the truth remains subjective in that not all will see the same point of view, it holds that our biological origins suggest certain limits, or ways of living, that can encourage a more rested and peaceful perspective. I''m raving.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

YEAH!!! other modernists. I ama bioarchaeology grad student and as such a fairly staunch modernist but most of the others in my dept are post modernists and they drive me nuts. I always want to ask them why bother if there is no answer.

Lara, as to your thing about history, while I see a lot of post modernism in history overr here, I do not see the same leftist leaning. I went to a very liberal undergrad and only one of my profs ever even used history books written by marxists even though Foucoult and Christopher Hill wrote the definitive works on the topics were went over, most profs wouldn''t use them. Same thing with my graduate anthropology theory class. One of our texts is written by a marxist and I was one of only 3 students in 50 that knew what that meant. When I took history in Europe, it was much more present.

In my fairly liberal private high school, I was required to take US history and I took AP European History and world history. US history barely covered the native groups and we spent one day out of 4 1/2 months on Africa in world history and other than European history nothing was taught that covered any other part of the world. In college I was required to take western civilization, but nothing about any other part of the world and to me, those things are pretty conservitive.

 

[LaraOnline]

Yes, I do get the impression that US history is presented to US students from a more right-wing perspective. There seems a lot more flag waving in general.

It is interesting that Africa got short shrift in your high school history class. It would get short shrift in Australian general history classes as well, although the population base of African-origin immigrants is rising from a very small base.

I would say that generally, much of Australia''s popular culture and general day-to-day is (or has been since the late 70s) progressively left-wing.

This culture has had a few challenges recently, though.
The continued failure of Aboriginal communities to reach very basic levels of health, education or even law and order has really shocked the general population, to the point where left-wing assumptions just don''t seem to be really politically acceptable any more.
There is community confusion about where to go next, as levels of sexual violence against women and children are unacceptably high. An aboriginal friend of mine from primary school is just one example of a beautiful girl, bashed to death by a boyfriend.

Self determinism, through self managed collectives such as land councils, has not really given the Australian communities the outcomes it has been hoping for. The Aboriginal community itself is divided over whether to push on with more of the same, or go for a conservative-style old fashioned intervention, with welfare money quarantined to encourage individuals to look after their children properly. Several very important Aboriginal commentators are now pushing for greater ABoriginal integration into the wider community, including boarding school for young people, possibly the reduction of unqualified welfare payment, and increased accountability to ''white man''s law'', which would see Aboriginal men tried for murder, not manslaughter, when they kill their girlfriends.

I think post-modernism is an interesting theory, and helps the mind exercise. But...IMO it is essentially a pit-stop on the way towards developing a greater over-arching truth regarding the essential ''human-ness'' of us all. Biological determinism, anyone? But I guess any theory, taken as the ONLY way to think, is kind of too prescriptive, too deadening to the spirit. My biological wisdom tells me that NOVELTY and the sense of discovery - of experience, environment and mental landscape - is a prime need of the human animal.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 10/11/2008 10:29:08 AM
Author: ksinger

1) (as she uncreatively uses numbering for her responses...) Yes, as you say, even creativity can fall prey to a reductionist mindset gone mad. Creativity IS a holistic process, as anyone who engages in it will tell you. You come to it with a set of beliefs and ways of relating to the world intact, and to some degree that will color your work, but the actual process is ''mind''less. FYI - I don''t write, I sing, but the process of interpretation of the music is not thought out at the time of delivery. It may be colored beforehand, but in the throes of the process, your ''state'' and something else takes hold.


2) I think that young minds need to be protected from too much relativistic thinking too young. That seems to me to be the culmination of a life, not something for the beginning. It is too chaotic...does that make sense? for a young mind to make sense of. To be given structure and more ''absolutes'' early, is better I think. Done correctly, you can change your mind later. Just from personal ''micro'' experience, my mother made sure my world was quite circumscribed...there were things that are right, and things that are wrong. I only found out later that some of those things were only her personal preference, and that there are many ways of being in the world. But growing up, it served me pretty well. The trick here is balance...between giving a structure so rigid it fetters the mind, or having no structure at all so the mind can''t properly function.

And I''m just not making much sense here.....hmm.....

Your second point is interesting. I have read (see: The Power of Mindful Learning) that teaching kids based on clear absolutes stifles their creativity and ability to imagine broader solutions to problems that they are presented. The author suggests that if information is present conditionally (not that same as relativism), that it does not circumscribe the possibilities for young thinkers, and they are therefore more free of constraints. Generally speaking, those given facts were more likely to seek solutions and answers based on the small set of facts that they were given.

For example:

Non conditional: The american economy went into recession, and banks lost money while homeowners lost their homes. (young thinkers are encouraged to stop their thinking at banks and homeowners)

Conditional: The american economy went into recession, and some effects included banks losing money and homeowners losing their homes. (this ''supposedly'' would leave room for ''other effects'')

I don''t even know if I am making sense at this point, lol. The book is about 140 pages, so it''s a quick and easy read. I''ll have to come back tomorrow during reasonable hours so that I can be coherent

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/13/2008 1:34:40 AM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 10/11/2008 10:29:08 AM
Author: ksinger

1) (as she uncreatively uses numbering for her responses...) Yes, as you say, even creativity can fall prey to a reductionist mindset gone mad. Creativity IS a holistic process, as anyone who engages in it will tell you. You come to it with a set of beliefs and ways of relating to the world intact, and to some degree that will color your work, but the actual process is 'mind'less. FYI - I don't write, I sing, but the process of interpretation of the music is not thought out at the time of delivery. It may be colored beforehand, but in the throes of the process, your 'state' and something else takes hold.


2) I think that young minds need to be protected from too much relativistic thinking too young. That seems to me to be the culmination of a life, not something for the beginning. It is too chaotic...does that make sense? for a young mind to make sense of. To be given structure and more 'absolutes' early, is better I think. Done correctly, you can change your mind later. Just from personal 'micro' experience, my mother made sure my world was quite circumscribed...there were things that are right, and things that are wrong. I only found out later that some of those things were only her personal preference, and that there are many ways of being in the world. But growing up, it served me pretty well. The trick here is balance...between giving a structure so rigid it fetters the mind, or having no structure at all so the mind can't properly function.

And I'm just not making much sense here.....hmm.....

Your second point is interesting. I have read (see: The Power of Mindful Learning) that teaching kids based on clear absolutes stifles their creativity and ability to imagine broader solutions to problems that they are presented. The author suggests that if information is present conditionally (not that same as relativism), that it does not circumscribe the possibilities for young thinkers, and they are therefore more free of constraints. Generally speaking, those given facts were more likely to seek solutions and answers based on the small set of facts that they were given.

For example:

Non conditional: The american economy went into recession, and banks lost money while homeowners lost their homes. (young thinkers are encouraged to stop their thinking at banks and homeowners)

Conditional: The american economy went into recession, and some effects included banks losing money and homeowners losing their homes. (this 'supposedly' would leave room for 'other effects')

I don't even know if I am making sense at this point, lol. The book is about 140 pages, so it's a quick and easy read. I'll have to come back tomorrow during reasonable hours so that I can be coherent

LOL! Well it's clear that none of us in this thread can stay on topic. But hey! Who cares?? This is FUN!! I love it when an online conversation meanders like real ones do!

OK...I think there was clearly a danger in using the word 'absolutes', which is why I quoted it. For the record, I don't personally believe in ANY absolutes, neither from a religious nor a societal standpoint. (I can hear the howls of "Situational ethics !! Ssssss!!! Boo!" starting. LOL) Rather than use that word, say perhaps, firm guidelines versus dogmatic decree. One will circumscribe a young person's world until they are ready to think larger, while the other has the effect of stifling critical thought. And since the conversation has gotten a bit esoteric I feel - either that or we are all posting before or after sleep, I'll bring it back to ground.

Yes, I believe truth is relative. But as a practical matter for raising kids, or teaching them, a discussion of the options, and "whys" all the time is as counterproductive as dogmatically telling them that an honest thought that doesn't toe a particular line - ideological or religious - is wrong or stupid or will displease God. (Geez, after that sentence, someone is undoubtedly going to acuse me of Palinesque verbiage! LOL)

There is also in society, and by extension, the schools, the misguided attitude that "equal time" is necessary to be "fair". Sorry. As one author noted, (I save quotes I like but right now I can't find the one I'm looking for), equal time is a political imperative; in the academy it's almost always a bad idea. And you see that in the creationism/ID battle with evolution. These topics are not on the same playing field. They aren't even in the same intellectual universe. From a good science standpoint, one of those views deserves the same time and attention given to the claims of flat earth proponents, that is to say none at all. To encourage children to conflate the two and consider them worthy of "equal time" is hardly teaching them "critical thinking". All ideas are not equal, and at some point we all make a choice to choose one, out of the vast sea of ideas. I think that sometimes people get caught up in opposing the truths that a society - or the entire globe for the most part - has accepted as true - as something heroic. Bravely going against the mainstream, that sort of thing.

My personal background: (it might explain a bit)
One one early outing to church, my friend's church showed us a film about The Rapture - for those who don't know about that, it's a phrase used to describe the scenario from Revelations where the elect are taken into Heaven before the tribulation and the rest are left here to suffer through the reign of the Antichrist. Well, at 6, when I saw the film, you might imagine how that affected me. It scared the bejeezus out of me. I was absolutely terrified that my mother would be taken, and I, being a naughty girl at times, would be left without a mother. So my normally sunny disposition went south. My mom finally pried it out of me, what I was thinking, and she told me this - at 6. "First, I'm not going anywhere, so you don't need to worry about that. I promise I'll be here. Second, I don't approve of people who try to scare children. You don't have to believe something an adult tells you just because they're an adult. If you think it sounds funny, or you have a question, you come to me, and I'll tell you the truth. You have a good mind, and it's OK to use it." It may be something of a paraphrase - it was 40 years ago after all, but that's close enough. In any case, that's a pretty amazing thing to be told at 6, and it gave me an intellectual permission that most of my friends never got, to see through the devices that the churches, or authorities, frequently use to scare the groups into lockstepping conformity of belief and behavior. It has served me pretty well throughout my life. My passion for history is relatively recent - within the last 10 years mostly. I've been slanted more to an interest in the sociological/psychological/philosophical side of things.

Now understand that with the permission to think, did NOT come the permission to act outside of the behavioral "guidelines" I was given. Those were absolute and not discussed. You don't lie, etc. You weren't even allowed to even LOOK pissed off if Mom told you to do something you didn't want to do, that sort of thing. I was alllowed to think anything I liked, but I was not told in the next breath, that every thought that went through my mind was welcome to be expressed or totally worthy of "equal time". My mom was really good though, at all ages, but especially when I got to my teen years, of asking me what I thought on an issue, and then actually letting me tell her with no judgement. It was truly a discussion. She would tell me what she thought and why, but never dogmatically told me that I had to come to her conclusion. So I was unfettered mentally, but circumscribed in my behavior and in any pretensions that everyone was going to hang and dote on every thought I had. I was an inexperienced kid, and I was quite aware of it.

FYI - husband is a highschool history teacher. And one of these days I just KNOW I can get him on here to hold forth on teaching in the trenches and the vast differences he sees in kids today versus kids from just 10 years ago.

OK...more coffee.... I could type more, but my fingers are tired!

and my brain is taxed.

 

[ksinger]

Hey! Was it something I said?? (sniff sniff) No....I showered. Hmmmm.....

Hey Lara! I wanted to ask if you''d ever found The Age of American Unreason by Jacoby. I was perusing it again last night and was struck yet again at how interesting her analysis is about why American is SO religious. I''ll recommend it again. After all, you probably don''t have a life or anything right?