RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

brainiacsub -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:11:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Further, what makes college the determinant of judging the qualifications of a scientist?

Does a Ph.D. in poetry know more about science than a tradesman?

I would not expect someone who is not college educated to know what a scientist is or how they are classified. But I would expect that someone who has a Ph.D in peotry wouldn't make such ludicrous statements about scientists that Icarys did. I was trying to point out that a formal education means something, regardless of the field of study.



cloudboy -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:11:29 PM)


Lacan is tough reading.



Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:14:46 PM)

quote:

But I would expect that someone who has a Ph.D in peotry wouldn't make such ludicrous statements about scientists that Icarys did.


For the third time, it was a joke, as the phrasing struck him as reminiscent of the "twue dom" debates we see so often.

It's you making a fool of yourself for insisting and insisting otherwise, continually missing the joke.



brainiacsub -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:16:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

But the bigger issue hear is that once again your lack of "critical thinking" has allowed you to post sources that refute much of what you hope to prove.


Then you aren't using your critical thinking skills, domi.

You specifically said:  "There is no way you can possess the ability for critical thinking and then talk about religious beliefs and the impact of God on one's life. The two are not synonymous."

I gave you several links of people who were religious and were scientist, then I gave you a link to an article which says that (as of 1997), 40% of scientist believe in God.

I think this is sufficient to refute that a belief in God/religion is exclusive of the ability to think critically.

Firm


And I directly quoted the study in bold that contradicted your claim.

btw...the National Academy of Sciences in their poll of qualified scientists last year stated that 94% of scientists are declared atheists (I will try to find the poll data)



Icarys -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:16:35 PM)

quote:

I would not expect someone who is not college educated to know what a scientist is or how they are classified. But I would expect that someone who has a Ph.D in peotry wouldn't make such ludicrous statements about scientists that Icarys did. I was trying to point out that a formal education means something, regardless of the field of study.


Lol





brainiacsub -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:21:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

But I would expect that someone who has a Ph.D in peotry wouldn't make such ludicrous statements about scientists that Icarys did.


For the third time, it was a joke, as the phrasing struck him as reminiscent of the "twue dom" debates we see so often.

It's you making a fool of yourself for insisting and insisting otherwise, continually missing the joke.

Read all of his posts, Tim. He is not joking. He is ignorant, and you've never come to the defense of the ignorant before unless they are in a discussion with me. I wonder why that is...



domiguy -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:23:03 PM)

Firm since you don't take the time to validate anything let me pull up the article....have a nice read.

Leading scientists still reject God

Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.


The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].

In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among "greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience" [3]. Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge." [4] Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of "greater" and "lesser" scientists.

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.

Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8
Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
Figures are percentages.
Repeating Leuba's methods presented challenges. For his general surveys, he randomly polled scientists listed in the standard reference work, American Men of Science (AMS). We used the current edition. In Leuba's day, AMS editors designated the "great scientists" among their entries, and Leuba used these to identify his "greater" scientists [1,2]. The AMS no longer makes these designations, so we chose as our "greater" scientists members of the NAS, a status that once assured designation as "great scientists" in the early AMS. Our method surely generated a more elite sample than Leuba's method, which (if the quoted comments by Leuba and Atkins are correct) may explain the extremely low level of belief among our respondents.

For the 1914 survey, Leuba mailed his brief questionnaire to a random sample of 400 AMS "great scientists". It asked about the respondent's belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Respondents had the options of affirming belief, disbelief or agnosticism on each question [1]. Our survey contained precisely the same questions and also asked for anonymous responses.

Leuba sent the 1914 survey to 400 "biological and physical scientists", with the latter group including mathematicians as well as physicists and astronomers [1]. Because of the relatively small size of NAS membership, we sent our survey to all 517 NAS members in those core disciplines. Leuba obtained a return rate of about 70% in 1914 and more than 75% in 1933 whereas our returns stood at about 60% for the 1996 survey and slightly over 50% from NAS members [1,2].

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral"[5]. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: "There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." Our survey suggests otherwise.



Icarys -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:23:36 PM)

quote:

Read all of his posts, Tim. He is not joking. He is ignorant, and you've never come to the defense of the ignorant before unless they are in a discussion with me. I wonder why that is...

It was a joke, genius.

Holy cow what an egotistical  self-inflating arrogant person you are.

I forgot to add self-inflating..:> I'm so uneducated!



domiguy -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:24:06 PM)

Firm I want to thank you for pulling up this article to prove my point.

Have you tried the random stupidity section?



Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:24:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Then you aren't using your critical thinking skills, domi.

You specifically said:  "There is no way you can possess the ability for critical thinking and then talk about religious beliefs and the impact of God on one's life. The two are not synonymous."

I gave you several links of people who were religious and were scientist, then I gave you a link to an article which says that (as of 1997), 40% of scientist believe in God.

I think this is sufficient to refute that a belief in God/religion is exclusive of the ability to think critically.

Firm


And I directly quoted the study in bold that contradicted your claim.

btw...the National Academy of Sciences in their poll of qualified scientists last year stated that 94% of scientists are declared atheists (I will try to find the poll data)

And I pointed out the problems with your counterargument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among "greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience"

Here's the problem though--this is speculation, not a conclusion drawn from the methodology of the study.

quote:

You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge."

This is nonsense. Music and science are alien categories of knowledge too, yet some scientists are fine musicians.

That they are different merely speaks to the earlier point that there are different ways of knowing.

This is going in circles.



Silence8 -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:25:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Freud, for instance, repeatedly states that the only prerequisite to becoming a successful psychoanalyst is a thorough reading of classical literature.

Unfortunately the school of thought built upon his thought seems selectively to neglect this reality.

Freud also claimed that not accepting his theories constituted denial, thereby proving them---textbook circular reasoning.


That's the whole point of psychology, though -- that these puffed-up logical rules that work on mathematical statements and material objects don't fully apply to the structure of the human psyche.

quote:

Same for music. That's why punk music will never really have a place in the academy. It requires of its performers some adequacy in instrumentation mixed with a degree social consciousness that irrevocably sheltered specialist will likely never achieve.
quote:


You're wrong--as I can assure you from the inside.


I studied music at a fairly liberal institution, and can assure you that, although there have been some advances, it's still mostly a place for so-called technical music, both classical and jazz, and more emphasis on classical. Basically the older and whiter your style, the more funding there is going to be, the more jobs available, and on and on. This maybe is what John Cooper Clarke refers to as the 'chronic breath of the dead.'






domiguy -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:31:38 PM)

Tim, from the article it is apparent they tried to reach a level of highly educated scientists. Upon reaching these scientists the results dramatically show an absence of faith.

You are being a dick.



tigreetsa -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:36:42 PM)

I kind of agree with the OP about critical thinking and lack of it, but I disagree that the key to theology and spirituality is teaching logical deduction skills. In fact I think it's pointless.

Deductive reasoning is useful in science and law which is based on established principles, or mathematics. This only relates to the material, concrete, things we see and know to be true.

Religion is to do with God as you like, or affairs of spirituality and morality. Using deductive thinking doesn't solve the problem, but in fact is part of the problem.

I don't believe in an external God. The only external figure is a central one, Jesus Christ, who serves as an example and who taught that affairs of spirituality and morality are individual, which to me suggests an internal God. Every single religious figure conforms to the pattern of Jesus Christ as a central example figure.

Here is where deductive reasoning leads us astray. Let's take the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. They are based on mosaic law, or general principles which require conformity and adherence to specific principles.

Deductive thinking relies on principles which can be expressed in devices known as syllogisms:

General principle: Christians observe the Ten Commandments
Specific application: Thou shalt not kill.
Conclusion: To be a Christian I cannot kill another person.

If deductive reasoning was useful to religion, it would also be useful to politics. The structure and hierarchy of the Catholic Church is the same as communism as a political system - an unelected leader or head, set principles which everyone must conform to.

Now explain to me someone why so many people have rejected communism as a political system, but still willingly attend Mass in a Catholic church? Why reject the principles in communism but accept the exact same principles in Catholicism? Or Islam for that matter?

In the early part of the 20th century Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner developed anthroposophy, or 'spiritual science'. Steiner opined that you cannot study theology (religion) or spiritual science like any other science, because it is based on belief and not facts - as are other established sciences, such as biology, chemistry, physics. He thus developed the Waldorf education system, which is a highly successful education system and Waldorf schools in many countries achieve the same, if not better results as other more conventional education systems.

The basis of the Waldorf education methods are based on individuality and creativity, meditation and equal importance attached to teaching inductive reasoning - forming principles from experience and examples. Art, drama, music are all taught and treated as equally important as sciences, reading and writing.

This is where the problem I feel is - children are not taught enough critical thinking skills through inductive reasoning, or even 'lateral thinking'. In fact modern religions discourage individuality and inductive reasoning.

Each and every one of us is an individual. We are born in individual circumstances.

The problem with people and religion I feel is that very few work hard enough on their own spiritual development, they do not try and develop critical thinking skills via inductive reasoning, but take much of what is taught by religion literally. They form fixed beliefs which they adhere to right through life. They believe in a Judgement Day, that they will die, somehow magically appear somewhere in the sky on a cloud as an angel in heaven, provided they have stuck to the principles enough and haven't sinned too much. But it doesn't matter if they have, because they will be forgiven.

This is why you're getting Islamic terrorists willing to blow themselves up because they seriously believe they're going to end up in heaven fucking a crowd of virgins. They've somehow been told that if they take part in jihad and sacrifice their lives they're going to end up in heaven with lots of jiggy jiggy. Deductive reasoning.

Jesus Christ is a metaphor. So is the entire text of the Bible. It's based on astrology - sun worship. The sun passes through twelve signs of the zodiac. Jesus had twelve disciples. The astrological sign of Virgo - the sixth sign of the zodiac, has the letter 'M' forming a the basis for its symbol, it is personified by The Virgin, it occurs in September, the time of harvest when the land produces food. Hence the mother of Jesus Christ is Mary, the Virgin Mary.

Let's take the crucifixion, where Christ was crucified on a cross and rose up after three days in the Resurrection. This is a story based on pure astrology and astronomy. This relates to Christmas, the Winter Solstice when the Sun reaches the lowest point in the sky on Dec 22 under the Southern Cross. This is at a point on the horizon indicated by the brightest star in the sky Sirius, pointed out by three stars in alignment, the Three Kings. On December 25 the Sun moves one degree north. This is why thr Three Kings came to Jesus bearing gifts.

This is why we celebrate Easter after the Spring Solstice, when the days become longer than the night - a metaphor for good triumphing over evil. Many Christians actually believe that three kings did actually look for Jesus bearing gifts. That Jesus was actually conceived by a virgin, and rose from the dead after three days.

Many overlook the telling parts. Jesus hung out with people rejected from society, the poor, the homeless, prostitutes, perverts, gays - the sort of people not very welcome in any church. He was persecuted and eventually executed without trial after being made an example of. Why?

He went against the established religious (Jews) and political order (Romans) basically as a sect leader engaging in subversive activities. Why? He was preaching individuality in morality and spirituality.

Now if you put to one side the concept of an external God, the teachings of modern religion, and you actually sit down and study the Bible as a work of literature, such as the complete works of Shakespeare, and try and interpret everything in the Bible through inductive reasoning and look for matching examples around you in life and apply the same teachings of Christ to the concept of an internal God everything should make perfect sense.

Furthermore, if you did the exact same to the Torah and the Koran, taking Moses or Mohammed as the example figure, understanding that G-d or Allah is internal, that you are individual and making your own interpretation to your own life and circumstances then too both Judaism and Islam make perfect sense.

What's more, if you accept that everyone has their own individual interpretation and belief and their own moral hierarchy and belief system then there should be no conflict whatsoever between Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

The reason we have conflicts between all three is because of deductive reasoning and all three claiming to be right. Observe that the exact same situation exists in politics.

Applying deductive reasoning and literal thinking to the biblical quote 'an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth' has brought the death penalty. This contradicts basic Christianity - Thou Shalt Not Kill.

However if you look at life interpreting 'an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth' as karma it makes sense.

An external God we are told - if you take it literally - is all seeing, all powerful, in our image, and we come face to face with God when we die. An old white man on a cloud?

And you wonder why some people struggle with this concept? Or even disbelieve it all together?

Okay, simple exercise. You have a soul. You  the spiritual world which you might not be able to perceive, but some people can and they can prove it. You are here in the material world in a physical body called life only for a short time.

Multiply that part of you which you call a soul into two. Use the same dichotomy of night and day, light and darkness, life and death. Half your soul exists within you, the other half of your soul is in the spiritual world. We can call that hidden half God. If spirituality is individual, and God is internal, it's quite possible that what is taught in religion that God is all powerful, all seeing, all knowing in relation to you.

Think about reincarnation, you have a previous life. What if the soul from that previous life became God when you were born? And when you die you come together with God and again the soul divides and you are reborn? Think about what Jesus said, referring to himself as an example.

'I am the way, the light. the path, nobody enters heaven except through me.'

Would not a belief in reincarnation, an internal God and individuality in spirituality and morality mean that after death you are reborn and thus overcome death and achieve eternal life?

This is just a hypothesis, developed using specific examples and lateral thinking.

It will not apply to you, simply because deductive reasoning and logic doesn't apply. 

You have to develop your own hypothesis, your own beliefs.



TreasureKY -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:37:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

TreasureKY, I am not suggesting any of that. What you posted to me in an interrogatory manner was your spin on bits of information and I'm not really sure how you come to such conclusions. Do you mind walking me through your deductive process?

Others, like SeekingOwnertoo, seem to have understood mu OP very clearly. You might read it again if you want to understand what discussion I am trying to encourage.

If you want to know what assumption I have and that I'm openly willing to discuss, you might want to read this post.

- LA

edited a lot...



My reading comprehension skills are quite high, thank you very much.  While I might otherwise have commented directly on your preferred subject, I found myself initially much more confused by what appeared to be your inductive reasoning and critical thinking skills.

You asked that I walk you through my deductive process.  Very well, let us look at portions of your original post and subsequent comment, inserting my thoughts where appropriate.  Let me say right now that I neither support nor sanction the ideas presented in the video.  As you pointed out, this is not about evolution vs. religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

I have absolutely no problem accepting other people's opinions, but they really need to make arguments that are logically deduced and derive from critical thinking.


My first thought here was to question your knowledge of just how critical thinking is defined.   John Dewey, oft referred to as the "father" of the modern critical thinking tradition, described it as "active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds which support it and the further conclusions to which it tends."

In other words, actively thinking through things for yourself, raising questions, and seeking information.

While not commenting on the specific topic presented in the video, I don't see how the instructional method used varies much from any other rote type of learning that children are exposed to.  I agree that drilling information isn't the best way to encourage critical thinking, however, I do think that it isn't exactly discouraging it, either.

From what little was actually contained in the video, I certainly wouldn't agree with the conclusions made by the presenter, but was he actively encouraging the children to not think critically?  It would seem to me that, intended or not, he's actually teaching the children to reason. 

How do you teach someone to think critically?  One of the most effective methods is by demonstration... walking them through your own critical thinking process.  While we may not agree with the presenter's information and conclusions, he is showing them how he examined his beliefs, considered questions, sought information, and came to his decision.

Faulty, I agree.  But an introduction to the process, nonetheless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

The opinions shared in the video I present have no grounding in any deductive logic. The logic that evolution doesn't exist because there are no dinosaurs in the Bible? Really? Come on!


Here it begins to look as if you're having more of an emotional reaction to the conclusions, rather than to whether or not children are being taught to think critically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

You'd think, but there are adults in the video that believe this as well. I can respect that you don't want to watch the video, so let me share a stat in the video with you: Approximately 54 million Americans over the age of 18 do not believe in evolution.. They don't state the source of that statistic, but it isn't surprising to me.


It sounds as if you are twisting this statistic as proof that lack of belief in evolution is evidence of lack of critical thinking skill.  This is why I asked the questions I did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Are you suggesting that the 54 million Americans who don't believe in evolution are all like the adults in the video who don't believe dinosaurs existed because they aren't mentioned in the Bible?

Or are you saying that 54 million Americans lack critical thinking and logical deduction skills because they don't believe in evolution?


You see, understanding your position helps me to come to better decision on whether or not I agree with your original premise.  I wasn't, and am still not entirely sure why you felt that statistic was of any importance.  It doesn't seem directly related to the idea that children are not being taught to think for themselves.  Unless, of course, your own inductive reasoning is (in syllogism form):
  • I am educated, smart and think critically.
  • I believe in evolution.
  • Therefore, people who believe in evolution are educated, smart and think critically.
And... those who don't, aren't.
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Are you suggesting that the evidence of dinosaurs proves the theory of evolution?


My bad on the way this question was worded.  I'd actually gone back and edited it once, but probably should have left it off all together.  I realize that it would appear to be a challenge related to the discussion of evolution vs. creation.  It wasn't intended that way... more a segue into the notion that there are individuals who have reasonable critical thinking skills, recognize the existence of dinosaurs, yet don't believe in the theory of evolution.

Of course, if you are convinced that belief in the theory of evolution is a necessary criteria for having critical thinking skills, then I doubt you'd be open to the idea.

And by the way, my comments were posted in an interrogatory manner because they were questions.  That's what that little squiggly thing at the end of a sentence implies; that I'm requesting further information.  Had I been expounding upon my conclusions, they would have been presented in the form of a statement.  Perhaps I cannot brag about possessing a higher education, I do generally know how to express myself in written form.



Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:41:39 PM)

quote:

Read all of his posts, Tim. He is not joking. He is ignorant, and you've never come to the defense of the ignorant before unless they are in a discussion with me. I wonder why that is...


Oh good grief. Trust me, I don't care enough about you to even begin to think in that direction.

Finish the wine and get some sleep.



Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:43:12 PM)

quote:

I studied music at a fairly liberal institution, and can assure you that, although there have been some advances, it's still mostly a place for so-called technical music, both classical and jazz, and more emphasis on classical. Basically the older and whiter your style, the more funding there is going to be, the more jobs available, and on and on. This maybe is what John Cooper Clarke refers to as the 'chronic breath of the dead.'


This is a silly game. I've attended on performance scholarships, undergrad and grad, and teach at them.

I see everyday how you are mistaken.



Icarys -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:47:45 PM)

Is rational thought synonymous with critical and analytical thinkers?



Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:47:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Tim, from the article it is apparent they tried to reach a level of highly educated scientists. Upon reaching these scientists the results dramatically show an absence of faith.

You are being a dick.

No, I'm pointing out that you are working in absolutes as much as the flawed study.

Unless disagreeing with you is enough of a standard for dick.

Now, if you want to draw a correlation between high levels of education and atheism, you could make a case for that probably, statistically. If you want to conclude that this proves only the uneducated turn to religion and hold that up as science, you are being a dick, as there's nothing scientific about that speculation at all. Many factors could account for it.

If you want to find studies that isolate methodology to test these various possibilities, then you're on to something.



Silence8 -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:49:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

I studied music at a fairly liberal institution, and can assure you that, although there have been some advances, it's still mostly a place for so-called technical music, both classical and jazz, and more emphasis on classical. Basically the older and whiter your style, the more funding there is going to be, the more jobs available, and on and on. This maybe is what John Cooper Clarke refers to as the 'chronic breath of the dead.'


This is a silly game. I've attended on performance scholarships, undergrad and grad, and teach at them.

I see everyday how you are mistaken.


What's silly is arguing that magically music at the academy doesn't possess these types of biases that I've mentioned.

The academy is unbalanced, through and through, just like the rest of society. That doesn't mean that one can't make a place in it, and feel some sense of personal accomplishment. Good for you; I'm too young still to give a fuck.

But to deny the biases that ostensibly benefit you demonstrates a lack of an intellectual conscience. I'm thinking precisely of Nietzsche's formulation in 'The Gay Science' (somewhere toward the beginning) which not surprisingly has a lot to say on this thread.



Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/1/2010 10:52:05 PM)

You claim it isn't part of the academy. It is. I see it everyday.

How much clearer can I be?

If it's cloudy where you live, that doesn't mean there is no sun.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875