 |
| |
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
This is an interesting read as are the two articles it links to on the right of the page.
http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i23/23a01801.htm
I think it is hilarious that conservatives are now arguing along the lines of "political quotas" because most university academics are liberal. What happened to the "free marketplace of ideas"? 
For the record I have never graded a student's paper lower because it contained conservative views; but to the extent that most conservatism is a grab bag of ill-defined prejudices I can see why that might happen.
Presumably this only concerns the humanities and social sciences (and probably excludes economics departments and business schools which are much more right wing). An interesting comparison would be the sciences. Why is it that the sciences are prejudiced against Christian views on the creation of the universe and evolutionary theory? Isn't this a terrible thing? Christian students should righteously agitate for Creationist views to be equally represented in the university!!!
Of course this is not going to happen for the obvious reason that Creationism is not intellectually respectable.
Why must this be different in other subjects like English, Philosophy and History? I'm guessing it's because people believe that these subjects are matters of mere opinion rather than factual investigations, primarily because they deal with values. The problem is that values are as real as anything else - you try to imagine a world without any kinds of value at all.
Moreover the sciences are not value free either - they are supposed to be valuable, so that presupposes a clear conception of value to begin with. Nor is it the case that subjects in the humanities do not deal with facts. Subjects like history and political science are awash in facts (the relationship of philosophy with facts is more complicated since the notion factuality is one of the most important things that is investigated in the subject). More to the point, apart from a few postmodernist cretins, these subjects no less than the sciences are practised in a way that raises logic and argument to the status of holy writ.
So why are the conservatives doing so badly. Well, for one thing it isn't clear that they are across the board. Economics departments have a profoundly right wing bias because the general trend in economics has been towards an increased role for markets and a decreased role for the state (I think that's currently on the turn though). In short, for some time the right have been winning the war of ideas in this discipline.
On the other hand, with the notable exclusion of religious studies, religion has basically been expunged from the curriculum. Perhaps 150 years ago a student could make an argument based on scripture and be taken seriously, that is no longer the case because appeals to religion have been largely discredited in the academic community. And without their religious basis most conservative beliefs on social matters are reduced to the status of unsupported prejudices. One need only consider contemporary studies in punishment. Conservative writers on punishment are largely confined to theoretical justifications of retributivism because all the facts swing the other way. Disciplines like evolutionary psychology are providing us with new ways of thinking about crime and new prospects for effective crime prevention. In the face of such mountainous research, conservative attitudes to punishment are simply seen as irrelevant.
In subjects like history, conservatives are also on the back foot. Since conservatives have historically tended to support established power, the first discovery that most students make on studying history (that the establishment tends to be Machiavellian) tends to lead students with a conscience to move to the left. For example, someone who knows that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fake, or that the government spies on legitimate protests, is not going to view Bush's excuses with much enthusiasm. This is what accounts for the antiestablishment trend among academics. Conservatism is generally speaking indefensible from a moral point of view. I remember reading about the conservative campaigns against universal suffrage, women's rights, and racial equality. When I see current conservative campaigns against gay rights, it is hard not to remember the lessons of history.
So to some up, the reason that conservative views fare badly at university is mainly because they are not intellectually respectable. In any number of disciplines the facts speak against conservatism. People often complain that those academic brainiacs have their head in the clouds, but what does it say when institutions dedicated to intellectual excellence largely support liberalism? If you don't think it's because the liberals are largely right, then you are putting forth a conspiracy theory. The simplest explanation is that when a general viewpoint is produced by vigorous research and criticism, that viewpoint is more likely to be right (or should I say left ).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
Interesting subject, Agathon.
quote:
On the other hand, with the notable exclusion of religious studies, religion has basically been expunged from the curriculum.
Perhaps 150 years ago a student could make an argument based on scripture and be taken seriously, that is no longer the case because appeals to religion have been largely discredited in the academic community.
|
This is the real tragedy. I'm an artsie, and I have had many many communist profs who get to include the communist manifesto in their history classes, regardless of the actual topic at hand.
There is no good reason to expunge religion from the 'free marketplace of ideas.' I have had to do research on my own, and find my own classes to learn more about religion.
Does it benefit me in my real courses? Very much so. How can I understand the writing of Shakespeare, without some knowledge of Catholicism, and of Anglicanism, and the conflicts between the two in the Elizabethan period?
If I did not know that Catholicism was the religion of England at the time of most of the history plays, how could I possibly understand the motivations between the various characters?
I have also taken a Milton class, with the same problems. How do you understand the author while at the same time expunging religion?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Interesting subject, Agathon.
This is the real tragedy. I'm an artsie, and I have had many many communist profs who get to include the communist manifesto in their history classes, regardless of the actual topic at hand.
There is no good reason to expunge religion from the 'free marketplace of ideas.' I have had to do research on my own, and find my own classes to learn more about religion.
Does it benefit me in my real courses? Very much so. How can I understand the writing of Shakespeare, without some knowledge of Catholicism, and of Anglicanism, and the conflicts between the two in the Elizabethan period?
If I did not know that Catholicism was the religion of England at the time of most of the history plays, how could I possibly understand the motivations between the various characters?
I have also taken a Milton class, with the same problems. How do you understand the author while at the same time expunging religion? |
It seems to me that you are arguing that religious history and/or religion's role in society is valuable knowledge, and I don't think that is in dispute. What appears to be in question is using religious dogma as supporting evidence for a position.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Asher is too dumb to see the obvious.
Responsibility requires free will, free will is at root a religious concept not a scientific one, ergo people who argue about responsibility all the time, the way the conservatives do are, wittingly or no, basing their belief on relgious doctrine.
There - even an ape could understand that - although I don't hold out much hope for you. |
Your problem is you're a pretentious **** who argues the most inane things that have no purpose.
What is the point of arguing if "free will" is of "religious" or "scientific" origin? As far as I'm concerned it's a basic human desire that predates religion.
And not all conservatives argue about "responsibility" all the time. In fact, I hear talk of "responsibility" on both sides of the fence. We need to put safety devices on guns, we need to ban gay marriage...
Perhaps I'm too "dumb" to see this all, or perhaps you're just hopelessly warped by years of bullshit study that you fail to see the most obvious.
Your position is as intellectually irresponsible as bible-thumping Christians, because being intellectual is about being able to see both sides of the argument. Your argument that liberalism is absolutely "correct" and that you can't seem to distinguish fact from opinion bodes well with my argument about the uselessness of Philosophers such as yourself in Universities. You haven't a clue how the world works.
At least, as a scientist, I understand the meaning of "perma-ignore" and also know how to use it. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
University is a pretty cool place to be. hot women, job security, intellectual stimulation. I might be liberal if I lived in a nice enuff place.
get thrown to the wolves and the liberal genes just kinda sieve out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Both your side and BK's side in this argument is intellectually irresponsible as far as I'm concerned.
|
Why? Society is inseperable from teachings of religious dogma, at least in medieval and Renaissance Europe. Nowadays, the influence is less apparent, but still important.
How could someone understand the major conflicts of our time, without understanding religion, and what religion teaches?
In order to understand an author one must immerse onself in the period in which she writes.
I don't like Margaret Atwood, but in order to understand her, I must be knowledgeable about the late seventies, and her life in the seventies.
quote:
What appears to be in question is using religious dogma as supporting evidence for a position.
|
Why is religious dogma unacceptable in a class on morality? Surely religion provides adequate justification for a moral position, at least as adequate as the more trendy moral theories of utilitarianism, or Kantianism.
To reject one, and accept the other, implies a bias, against religion, that cannot and should not be accepted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why? Society is inseperable from teachings of religious dogma, at least in medieval and Renaissance Europe. Nowadays, the influence is less apparent, but still important.
How could someone understand the major conflicts of our time, without understanding religion, and what religion teaches?
In order to understand an author one must immerse onself in the period in which she writes.
I don't like Margaret Atwood, but in order to understand her, I must be knowledgeable about the late seventies, and her life in the seventies.
Why is religious dogma unacceptable in a class on morality? Surely religion provides adequate justification for a moral position, at least as adequate as the more trendy moral theories of utilitarianism, or Kantianism.
To reject one, and accept the other, implies a bias, against religion, that cannot and should not be accepted. |
Again, you're missing the point. Knowledge of religion certainly has its place, especially when considering social/historical context. And you're right about it being a justification for a moral position, certainly equal to the "more trendy" theories you list. I think the jist of the statement is that you'd no longer be taken seriously if you were to argue something along the lines of "Of course there was a great flood. The Bible says so!" Or "Homosexuality is indefensible - it's in the Bible!".
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-02-2004 01:00
Group think is dangerous. I wouldn't know that more liberal policies are correct if I can't compare them to policies that are silly, stupid, inane, and failing. 
|