[NeedKarma]

Who wants what is not my point. It is happening so the ones in charge of the school curriculum for half a century must be the ones who desire it.

My sister has all three of her kids in school in Boston and they all have science classes. Where is it that science has been taken off the curriculum?

[Catsmine]

My sister has all three of her kids in school in Boston and they all have science classes. Where is it that science has been taken off the curriculum?

Are they being taught both Darwin's Theory and Human caused Climate Change? Are they being taught that both are theories? Are they being taught the difference between the scientific method and the scholastic method? In many public school systems the only "yes" answer is to the first question.

[NeedKarma]

Wait a minute, you talked about science being taking out of the classroom and suddenly you changed the conversation to evolution and climate change. How did that happen?

I didn't know what the scholastic method was so I looked it up (Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) it sounds horrible, more like preaching.

[tomder55]

What's the difference between that and the Socratic method ?

[NeedKarma]

Don't know.

[TUT317]

what's the difference between that and the Socratic method ?

Hi Tom,

Difficult question to answer in limited space.

The Socratic method can be seen as a dialectic method of reasoning. Socrates showed that when we have opposing points of view the 'reality' is that little progress can be made. I guess this is fairly evident in this type of forum. I suppose Socrates would want to say that when we are subject to close questioning we don't really know about the subject matter at hand. Hence, the lack of progress.

The Christian Schoolmen wanted to show that opposing points of view could be synthesized to produce a reasonable interpretation and thus progress. The 'reasonable interpretation' could be seen as more of a realization within individual minds.

Dialectical reasoning got a bad name during the modern era with Hegel and Marx. It was seen as a type of 'progress' or synthesis operating 'outside' of the mind.

Scholasticism lost a lot of appeal in the modern era possibly through the efforts of Marx and Hegel. No doubt many saw a link to totalitarianism.The other reason was that this type of thinking was regarded as a type of Idealism and largely an European phenomenon.As such it didn't receive much credibility especially in light of the rapid development of the scientific method.

Much criticism may come of such a brief summary.


Regards

Tut

[tomder55]

40 years of leftist Gramscian indoctrination* hits a bit of a speed bump in Texas and look at the reaction. I don't think it a coincidence that during the same time the US public education system has devolved into one of the worse in the world .
*

Gramsci believed that if Communism achieved "mastery of human consciousness," then labor camps and mass murder would be unnecessary. How does an ideology gain such mastery over patterns of thought inculcated by cultures for hundreds of years? Mastery over the consciousness of the great mass of people would be attained, Gramsci contended, if Communists or their sympathizers gained control of the organs of culture — churches, education, newspapers, magazines, the electronic media, serious literature, music, the visual arts, and so on. By winning "cultural hegemony," to use Gramsci's own term, Communism would control the deepest wellsprings of human thought and imagination. One need not even control all of the information itself if one can gain control over the minds that assimilate that information. Under such conditions, serious opposition disappears since men are no longer capable of grasping the arguments of Marxism's opponents. Men will indeed "love their servitude," and will not even realize that it is servitude.

Antonio Gramsci

[tomder55]

hi tom,

difficult question to answer in limited space.

The socratic method can be seen as a dialectic method of reasoning. Socrates showed that when we have opposing points of view the 'reality' is that little progress can be made. I guess this is fairly evident in this type of forum. I suppose socrates would want to say that when we are subject to close questioning we don't really know about the subject matter at hand. Hence, the lack of progress.

The christian schoolmen wanted to show that opposing points of view could be synthesized to produce a reasonable interpretation and thus progress. The 'reasonable interpretation' could be seen as more of a realization within individual minds.

Dialectical reasoning got a bad name during the modern era with hegel and marx. It was seen as a type of 'progress' or synthesis operating 'outside' of the mind.

Scholasticism lost a lot of appeal in the modern era possibly through the efforts of marx and hegel. No doubt many saw a link to totalitarianism.the other reason was that this type of thinking was regarded as a type of idealism and largely an european phenomenon.as such it didn't receive much credibility especially in light of the rapid development of the scientific method.

Much criticism may come of such a brief summary.


Regards

tut

Thanks .that was a fantastic summary !

[excon]

the US public education system has devolved into one of the worse in the world .

Hello tom:

We agree. We disagree, however, on whose causing it. You think it's liberals, but liberals don't benefit from a dumbed down population - conservatives do.

If everybody was educated, the GOP would be toast.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello tom:

We agree. We disagree, however, on whose causing it. You think it's liberals, but liberals don't benefit from a dumbed down population - conservatives do.

So liberals, who overwhelmingly control the public school and university systems aren't actually educating our kids and controlling the agenda, conservatives are. You certainly aren't going to win the argument with that 'logic.'

So tell me how conservatives benefit more from a dumbed down populace because I don't see how that would be possible. What I do see is many, many of my conservative friends and family members that opted - through great sacrifice for many of them - to send their kids to private schools or home schooled them. Both regularly outperform their public school educated counterparts.

[excon]

So tell me how conservatives benefit more from a dumbed down populace because I don't see how that would be possible.

Are they being taught both Darwin's Theory and Human caused Climate Change? Are they being taught that both are theories?

Hello again, Steve:

Case in point. If the kids you mentioned are being home schooled the way Cats would have them home schooled, they're going to wind up DUMB!

You say you don't know WHAT benefit conservatives receive from a dumbed down population, but I can tell you one. DUMB people vote overwhelmingly for the GOP. SMART people vote for the other guys.

Booya!

excon

[speechlesstx]

DUMB people vote overwhelmingly for the GOP. SMART people vote for the other guys.

Citations needed.

[excon]

Citations needed.

Hello again, steve:

Turn on your TV, and watch the stupid dummies who the oil industry hired to influence the public. They're certainly not trying to influence SMART people. THAT is all the citation you need.

excon

[speechlesstx]

That's not evidence at all, ex. When faced with the facts here you're just making stuff up.

[Catsmine]

the stupid dummies who the oil industry hired

The ones with the Ph.D's?

By the way, the education I prefer teaches the scientific method where the data is questioned, rather than the authority of the people interpreting the data. When you test the data, you get facts. When you test the authorities, you get opinions.

[TUT317]

40 years of leftist Gramscian indoctrination* hits a bit of a speed bump in Texas and look at the reaction. I don't think it a coincidence that during the same time period the US public education system has devolved into one of the worse in the world .
*
Antonio Gramsci

Hi Tom,

Sounds a lot like Orwell's 1984.

I am not sure to what extent (if any) Orwell was influenced by Gramsci . He was no doubt influenced by the Spanish Civil War and the events taking place in Russia.

I think the idea of 'indoctrination' is more of a totalitarian phenomenon( battle for the mind) rather than being particular in terms of Communism or Fascism

Regards

Tut

[tomder55]

In the context of the class room indoctination is the method ,Marxism is the dogma. Gramsci was perhaps more subtle than the use of the Gulag ;but his desired result was the same .He probably is the godfather of the Fabians and the American revolutionary progressives like Alinsky .
They want the "slaves "... sheeple whatever to believe they are still loyal to the old system while they are systematically stripped of that loyalty.
In both government and the education system ,and sprinkled throughout the society , you find increasingly that the bureaucrats are the power . That is because the already indoctinated have begun the "long march through the institutions before socialism and relativism would be victorious."
These bureaucrats are the "elites " referenced in this op.

[TUT317]

In the context of the class room indoctination is the method ,Marxism is the dogma. Gramsci was perhaps more subtle than the use of the Gulag ;but his desired end result was the same .He probably is the godfather of the Fabians and the American revolutionary progressives like Alinsky .
They want the "slaves " ...sheeple whatever to believe they are still loyal to the old system while they are systematically stripped of that loyalty.
In both government and the education system ,and sprinkled throughout the society , you find increasingly that the bureaucrats are the power . That is because the already indoctinated have begun the "long march through the institutions before socialism and relativism would be victorious."
These bureaucrats are the "elites " referenced in this op.

Hi again Tom,

I can see you line of reasoning here but I have a few problems with a couple of terms used.

From my point of view Marxism is a very misunderstood . As you probably know there has never been the revolution that Marx wanted. There are and have been governments that call and have called themselves Marxist, but that doesn't make them them Marxist. Strictly speaking there can't be a Marxist bureaucracy. Because according to Marx; the state will wither away.

"long March through institutions before socialism and relativism would be victorious"

I am not sure how to understand 'relativism' in the context of this sentence.


Regards

Tut

[tomder55]

Tut ,utopia is never achieved . The conflict among the faithful has been the means to the end.

Relativism... The means to erode the values of a society is to teach values are subjective ,relative .Once that is done, it becomes easier to replace a set of values with another set. The process is to deconstruct (or as Gramsci called it "demystify") and then reconstruct. This is to be done primarily in the class room where what he called "organic intellectuals "replaces "traditional intellectuals " . What is taught to the student is that traditional democratic ideals are the same as the goals of Marx .

[TUT317]

Tut ,utopia is never achieved . The conflict among the faithful has been the means to the end.

Relativism ... The means to erode the values of a society is to teach values are subjective ,relative .Once that is done, it becomes easier to replace a set of values with another set. The process is to deconstruct (or as Gramsci called it "demystify") and then reconstruct. This is to be done primarily in the class room where what he called "organic intellectuals "replaces "traditional intellectuals " . What is taught to the student is that traditional democratic ideals are the same as the goals of Marx .

Hi Tom,

Yes, Marxism is an utopian theory.

Gramsci might have though he was a Marxist, but he wasn't.

Marx did not have a goal as such. The goals that were to be achieved were the goals of history. In other words, the inevitable movement towards an end was seen as 'a natural process' of history.

Gramsci may have been a relativist but as to whether Marx himself was a relativist? Highly debatable.


Regards

Tut