welcome to the cultural revolution (aka what the FUCK is wrong with the florida legislature?)

The article I linked to above outlines the situation much better than I can paraphrase here. Simply put, much of the current US economic policy is driven by ideas like supply side economics and slavish devotion to the mythical "free market." Economics is not a science and yet some of these theories which in real world practice have proven to be disasterous are taught as though they are scientific laws. For example, the article I linked above discussed the Harvard intro Econ class which has been taught by one man for 18 years, is based completely on conservative ideology, and is the only economics class that many Harvard graduates end up taking.

(i) i don't like the idea of left-wing (or moderate, or any label) "cultural revolutionists" running amok in the university.

So as the right continues to attack actual science, the left shouldn't challenge their pseudo-scientific economic dogma and church of the free market? I see the war against science and reason being driven primarily by right wing economics (with religion merely serving as a useful tool) and I don't think that recognizing and attempting to change this has anything to do with a "cultural revolution." Of course I'm not confident that anything will really change, particularly since the left will continue to be labelled communists, as you have done.

and drew: while i generally agree pretty strongly w/ everything you've posted, (a) you may want to be a bit more clear when defending socratic method -- it isn't the end-all and be-all of classroom teaching (ask any law student!), and in the hands of an AWFUL professor it can easily devolve into pointless "hide-the-ball" BS; and (b) whenever students have used the "i'm paying for this!" line, my experience has been that this has been used to criticize the overall administration of the university and not so much the content of classroom instruction.

The problem is that you're forcing them to think at all which is totally incompatible with their concept of faith.

Sure, the "guess what I'm thinking" gambit is bad because it's dishonest- I try to be careful about asking rhetorical questions, though I admit to asking questions of the "did anybody notice anything odd about that third paragraph?" sort from time to time. Pushing people to defend their positions does make them better at arguing- but also, let me point out that classes in which X amount of historical or legal information needs to get covered aren't the time/place for a long knock down, drag out "debate" on an issue. Sometimes you just want to do justice to the course material, esp. when there's a lot of it (as I assume happens all the time in case law or topical law classes). I do find that the huffy "I pay YOU, so you'd better make me feel good about myself" dynamic has intruded from time to time. Honestly, I have no problem with the consumer model being invoked when the issue is a debate about services/tuition/class size- it is appropriate there. But it's not appropriate as a stick with which to coerce your instructor into changing your grade, for example. Presumably what is being paid for is the chance to be assessed in a competitive, meritocratic environment. That's the part where irrirtated faculty ask questions like . . . if everybody already knows everything then why are they in school in the first place? But then again, so many people are only in college because their parents want them to be. I find that sad, when I see smart, bored kids wasting my time and their money.

where are you getting this process from? What if you were to already know the conclusion as told by GOD?

And academia is a hugely leftist preserve, not become "all the smart people are leftists" but because the whole idea of devoting yr whole megasmart and potentially lucrative life to study and pedagogy is some sense a leftist idea. So I can do some degree understand the impulse that this comes from, because right now if you're a rightist parent with a smart kid in the states your kid's college tutors probably will push vaguely leftist ideas on that kid, to some extent?

Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe

uh, it's called the scientific method. If GOD already told you everything, what do you need school/science/other people for? altho now I'm convinced yr just a troll.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1581344589/qid=1111707246/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-1914772-5809435

maybe while I'm looking into that you could read "Origin of the Species".

My idea I offer up is that there are certain fundamentals in place in academia which maybe should not be as blindly followed as they are. Getting lawyers involved is a bad way to do this.

x-post

"Christianity is not a series of truths in the plural, but rather truth spelled with a capital 'T.' Truth about total reality, not just about religious things. Biblical Christianity is Truth concerning total reality - and the intellectual holding of the total Truth and then living in the light of that Truth" Francis Schaeffer's Address at University of Notre Dame, April 1981

x-post

(maybe not but i think this is standard thomist catholicism) (if so it's not anti-science or anti-rationalism or anti-education, and it IS kinda circular but not in a way that's difft from the programme of education as we already understand it)

("you attacked reason," said father brown. "it's bad theology.")

The results of seeking Truth.

(I'm typing quickly because this is a fast moving thread)