Broad ranging background knowledge...it's what you got from reading a high percentage of the encyclopedia sitting on your shelves at home during your grade school years...those very same books that your teacher denigrated as being unworthy of citation in your topical reports.
They are the books that give you the hint that the world is filled with more interesting stuff than will be mentioned in your classroom, and your first hint that there's something ~missing~.
Thanks for posting this, Kevin. I found it fascinating not only because of my interest in education, but it's also extremely relevant to my artificial intelligence research (essentially, reading comprehension by machines).
We might summarize this by saying schools are teaching students to parse syntax without appreciating semantics.
Rand might have identified Hirsch's approach as "integration."
Well, it appears to me that after seven or eight decades of our "Education system" that isn't, what we're turning out is young minds that can't pass a Turing Test.
"the deliberate, systematic training of our young not to embrace the culture that brought us greatness."
That's a complete load of shit, Kevin, and you know it. Certainly we can both agree that there are problems with our education system but its goal is not to destroy our culture. Good Lord...
But your mention of "culture" is the crux of the problem. What is our culture? Is it manifest destiny, the doctrine that you clearly still follow? Or has our culture changed quite a bit and, for whatever reason, you feel threatened by this...threatened by an examination of historical facts that don't jibe with the fierce sense of nationalism that you have?
Since I didn't see snark in the label (just education), upon what "logical and reasoned scientific thought" are you basing your assertion that we should "nuke the site from orbit." In addition to making yet another turn to violence to destroy something you fear (see: AQ), I find it quite hypocritical that you (and others here) scream about "feelings" when clearly that's all this post was about.
Oh, and Bezmenov again? Dude, ever use your critical thinking skills to realize what HIS goals clearly are? The John Birch Society? Sheesh, Kevin...
What is Marky Mark's insistence that Manifest Destiny drives KB's thought?
Manifest Destiny is the belief that America should spread from East to West Coast, right? Pioneers and wagon trains? Little houses on the prairie? So what exactly does the belief that the USA should cover a wide geographical area have to do with the degradation and destruction of American education. Where's the connection?
I think Marky is actually 14 years old, and he just throws out words he hears in class, hoping that they will be relevant to the topic at hand.
"I think Marky is actually 14 years old, and he just throws out words he hears in class, hoping that they will be relevant to the topic at hand."
Then the possibility that he's honest when he tells us he's a school teacher (though how he expects us to believe he's honest even about that is beyond me, given his track record in even admitting the color of the sky) and is the one throwing out the words should TERRIFY you.
And also pretty much entirely validate Kevin's post.
How the fuck do you not know how to use the scroll function on your mouse?
"Where's the connection?"
Manifest Destiny is more than just a concept that resides in our borders. It's a concept that can bee seen in our foreign policy as well. It carries over into Loewen's heroification theory as well.
"But your mention of "culture" is the crux of the problem. What is our culture? Is it manifest destiny, the doctrine that you clearly still follow? Or has our culture changed quite a bit and, for whatever reason, you feel threatened by this...threatened by an examination of historical facts that don't jibe with the fierce sense of nationalism that you have?"
Our culture is one of independent thought, of thinkers who knows history, science, math, arts and can understand the future based on that knowledge. A culture who understands that government is dangerous, that liberty is the best way to run a society.
The educational system is setup to destroy that. To promote non-thinking, to promote dependence on government. To eliminate the knowledge of the good things that have happened in the past.
"The educational system is setup to destroy that. To promote non-thinking, to promote dependence on government. To eliminate the knowledge of the good things that have happened in the past."
Have to agree with that.
"You can't make Socialists out of individualists - children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent."
-John Dewey, one of the founders of the modern education system
Manifest Destiny is more than just a concept that resides in our borders. It's a concept that can bee seen in our foreign policy as well. It carries over into Loewen's heroification theory as well.
_____________
Oh yay, Marxist pseudo scientific bullshit. What number do we file that under?
You, as usual, ascribe to me motivations and beliefs that I have never espoused.
More importantly, the topic at hand is the continuing decline in quality of the American educational system. Kevin holds it is intentional, and you enter, spout some outraged statement, compare him to a terrorist, and then claim that there is nothing wrong and that the real problem is something that has not been an issue in American politics since about 1880. When called on your non sequitur, you pull out some nonsense psychobabble about "heroification", despite the fact that no one is talking about the heroism or villainy of a particular person, but rather the systemic failure of the educational system to actually educate people.
Gramsci and Lukács argued that Western culture had blinded the working class to its true Marxist class interests.
There is an irony in that statement that only the blindly Romantic would fail to see. Naturally a Marxist would miss it.
And dammit Kevin, don't make me agree with Markadaffya by bringing up Bezmenov. We've been through that and I thought you agreed that a at least a few grains of salt were in order. (I do, but I cannot disagree with the quotation cited - period. Ed.)
The problem for Markadaffya is that he is a product of the miseducation system, and of course has a vested interest in preserving the status quo. Notice that he doesn't address ANY of the points of someone more thoroughly grounded in the subject (i.e. the academic Kevin is talking about). Not surprising of course for someone that is a first order Romantic himself.
And then proceeds to answer as you would expect from a liberal - it is everything horrid in our history as he perceives it. No wonder this must be expunged. The problem of course is that in this narrow Manichean view, he has missed a much broader perspective.
I read the Britannica, from circa 1954, and it was interesting to find errors in it when you're only in 5th grade.
To a deconstructionist relativist, Culture is what foreigners do.
What interested me most about becoming an Anthropologist (and a question which Teh University failed to answer) was that same one - what is "our" culture? Having grown up overseas and outside it, returning to occupy a place within it was to experience the strange/er-ness. I think that question is an attempt to address that, but he's like a fish asking about water - or a bit of code asking about C++.
That's the big problem among the Left in general which he exhibits so well, immersion in a doctrine. They deconstruct and tear apart with all the vigor of a Victorian attempting to classify isotopes with a magnifying glass, while coloring in the spaces between people with a confection of projection.
What I meant about circa '54 (if even) was it was an old Britannica that was in the Mission house. There were other books too, much older. One had pictures of a beheading - a guy had killed his wife's lover and brought the head to show the District Superintendent proof of being sorely wronged. He got jail time, maybe a hanging. The Colonials were rather strict about that aspect of their Culture, the Judiciary was fairly inflexible. The notion of our culture actively expressed as the political concept of Manifest Destiny is really...uh... still incubating - a deformed notion, it's a homunculus of culture.
"To a deconstructionist relativist, Culture is what foreigners do."
I've noticed that, too, though my girlfriend's anthropology class attempts very heavy-handed brainwashing in the way of, "Everything you think or do is part of your culture so your observations of any other culture are biased an invalid."
I've never had trouble identifying American culture, though. Just imagine opening a restaurant in Britain and try and think of what foods you'd serve.
Food is a big component, to subsume that under political philosophy is an even bigger mistake.
The other part about your observations of any other culture, is that your Guide to Teh OotherKulture is likely NOT to be a full subscribed member of that culture and is often an equally erroneous observer. So it goes back to problems of observation - and maybe observation isn't the point...
"Food is a big component, to subsume that under political philosophy is an even bigger mistake."
I was being facetious but forgot halfway through my post and just went with it.
"...it goes back to problems of observation..."
Y'know, I've always had some trouble accepting the "implicit bias in observation of culture due to one's own culture" maxim. There are some things which I absolutely do not find cultural, and I've resented being told in print or in person by those in the anthropology profession that just about any conclusion I draw is implicitly flawed.
Then again, the ones who tell me that are the same ones who tell me that female logic is different from male.. so.. perhaps their opinions out to be taken out and shot as a whole.
I meant that food is really an important cultural aspect/artifact, more important than "Manifest Destiny." How people use food to differentiate between groups is a really big cultural lever. People sharing the same geography and local fauna still do entirely different things - totally on purpose. Just consider ritual purity among Hindus and the differentiators for Islam.
The whole "bias in observation" is just euro-Heisenbergism imported and writ large. As a matter of perspective and establishing status, it's also the Professoriat making their own Appeal to Authority. Pay no attention to that man bonking the NativeGurlz behind the curtain, or Schrödinger's cat-in-the-box. The Humanities really doesn't do Science worth a shit, so when it imports scientific rhetoric and attempts to manipulate it you get a Chomsky-Crapsicle - it's more amusing than accurate.
A bigger problem is that someone exploring (not observing) a different culture will be lead by a local guide who doesn't know the inside-out very well, or who is a peripheral person committed to their own bias. Biases are everywhere. (Substantive people neck deep in their own stuff don't go around leading marginal strangers.) Or they're a big fat sexy liars - like some (most?) of the early Anthropologists: Meade who fabricated most of her sexy-details, Malinowsky who just like to get laid by native girls as often as a reasearch grant would send him frolicking. In a culture of Publish or Perish who do you think gets published - the girl from Cosmo or the one from Audubon?
What sells? The Left has been getting laid by Marx for years so of course they worship him. Moreover in the Comintern, the boy who denounces his wicked and counterrevolutionary Parents (and mean sister) gets a reward - how much bigger a reward it must be to denounce your entire wicked counterrevolutionary Kulture!
Certainly we can both agree that there are problems with our education system
Yet when we do you shriek, deny the problems, and attack our characters.
but its goal is not to destroy our culture. Good Lord...
Based on all that you've missed here, which gets right back to the passage Kevin quotes:
Hirsch proposed that Romanticized, anti-knowledge theories of education prevalent in America are not only the cause of America's lackluster educational performance, but also a cause of widening inequalities in class and race. Hirsch portrays the focus of American educational theory as one which attempts to give students intellectual tools such as "critical thinking skills", but which denigrates teaching any actual content, labeling it "mere rote learning".
Where you've called the mortgage market "unregulated", you've called us gun owners "Nazis", you've said "Verbatim" means "Somewhat similar"... Every time we examine a topic in detail you are lacking in basic background that most of the rest of us have and understand.
You aren't defending the educational system, you're Exhibit 1) for the Prosecution!
Exhibit 1a): Or has our culture changed quite a bit and, for whatever reason, you feel threatened by this...threatened by an examination of historical facts that don't jibe with the fierce sense of nationalism that you have?
but which denigrates teaching any actual content, labeling it "mere rote learning".
Yes, As you can see, Kevin already dealt with that.
Exhibit 1b): Manifest Destiny is more than just a concept that resides in our borders. It's a concept that can bee seen in our foreign policy as well.
but which denigrates teaching any actual content, labeling it "mere rote learning".
Adam: So I'm supposed to pretend that you didn't ignore and dance away from hundreds of other discussions because you JUST posted a response.
Yes, he'd prefer if you did just that. That's part of the special "rules" he insists on. If we hold him to the same conduct as us, he screams that it's "Different rules."
"The educational system is setup to destroy that. To promote non-thinking, to promote dependence on government. To eliminate the knowledge of the good things that have happened in the past."
Matt, this statement has unfortunately caused me to realize that people who FEEL this way need to go to the equivalent of a rest home. It's so inherently wrong on a number of levels that to call it insane would be a compliment. But, please, continue to propagate your fear and paranoia and prove Bill Maher correct yet again.
Juris, wrong. It's admitting fault and taking responsibility for our actions. This is anathema to the current conservative thought process. Climate change? Can't be our fault...and all the data is lies. Dead civilians in Iraq? Saddam's fault...terrorist's fault. Vietnam? Liberal media's fault. Every other "problem." Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...schools run by communists...Nancy Pelosi=Bitch...hate Barney Frank...eep blurp squonk...
They're not even teaching any kind of critical thinking. Otherwise there'd be a lot more people asking 'Yeah, why do we need to bail the stupid people out again?'. Asimov's baloney detection kit is NOT in the curriculum.
"Climate change? Can't be our fault... and all the data is lies."
Actually, all the data which supports "global warming" or "climate change" is lies -- or at best, faulty or insufficient -- and therefore does not prove that climate change IS our fault.
But how would I expect an actual knowledge of debate and applied logic from a Lefty?
Climate change? Can't be our fault...and all the data is lies.
Four words: "The science is settled."
Those four words tell you exactly from whence the bullshit comes and who is doing the slinging. If you had any tiniest knowledge of the history of science this would be glaringly obvious to you, just from the existence of those four words.
Why?
Theory of Plate Tectonics: Been around since the 60s, and in embryonic form since the early 20th century. There is not a single bit of modern volcanology or earthquake studies that is not dependent on it. But you won't find a single reputable geologist or volcanologist who'll tell you it's "settled".
Theory of Relativity: Been around since 1915, engineers have used it to successfully build both the most destructive devices and the most efficient power plants the world has ever known. But ask any nuclear physicist: No, the science is not "settled".
Theory of Evolution: Been around since 1859, has been refined ever since. Accepted by basically everyone in all of the life sciences and natural sciences. But the science is not "settled".
Theory of Gravitation: Been around since 1687. The entirety of modern transportation and communications are dependent on its acceptance as an eminently workable approximation. But the science is not settled.
It doesn't matter what branch of any science you're involved in, the moment you claim there is no more room for debate you have thrown away your credibility. Because real scientists know that the science is never settled, in any science.
The very fact that those four words were uttered at all proclaims loudly that the subject is no longer science of any kind, it's politics.
And that's all climate change "science" is.
Try convincing a real scientist, like, say.... Freeman Dyson.
Ok, I'm cheating by not reading the whole post and not reading all the comments. I stopped at the 2nd paragraph, because I just have to get this off my chest. The simplest explanation for why kids at UVA did better on a test than kids at community college is: the UVA kids were smarter.
How people use food to differentiate between groups is a really big cultural lever. People sharing the same geography and local fauna still do entirely different things - totally on purpose.
There is a lovely illustration of this principle in The Fatal Shore, where the PoME's (pommies) eat salted fish from England while the "currency of the colony" (children of the transported) eat fresh lobster, etc. The latter grow into the tall, healthy lads & lasses of Australia, while the former are the stunted flowers of England.
But, please, continue to propagate your fear and paranoia and prove Bill Maher correct yet again.
The next time Bill Maher is correct will be the first time. Aren't you getting tired of the taste of his member?
And Markadaffya, virtually everything you cite in response to me is susceptible to damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.
We rolled into Somalia with the best of intentions, and we were damned for doing so. We did NOT roll into Darfur and were damned for that. That's the beauty of the liberal/conservative dichotomy you insist on - you can each blame the other for half of the failure, never bothering to examine the part YOU played.
You are the spitting mirror image of a ditto-head.
"Matt, this statement has unfortunately caused me to realize that people who FEEL this way need to go to the equivalent of a rest home. It's so inherently wrong on a number of levels that to call it insane would be a compliment."
I was exploring the category of genetic fallacies this morning. It's interesting that Marky used one I hadn't really paid attention to before:
An appeal to intellectual and mental stability or capability, or a reduction to the opposite (also known as an appeal to psychology), is an informal fallacy which asserts that the opposing party's argument is wrong or discreditable based upon an assumption, proven or unproven, of the opposing party's intelligence or mental stability.
Example: That's crazy. You need to get your head checked.
The article is really poor. It is apparently just a wikipedia variant of the Ad hominem fallacy. (I didn't find any other references to the Appeal to mental stability anywhere else.)
It's nice to know that Marky's branching out a little.
Of course, it wouldn't have been a fallacy, but a mere opinion if he had actually then followed up with a legitimate argument.
What I found fascinating about his followup is that he didn't mention a single good thing the U.S. has done, only evil thing our country is supposedly guilty of. Thus proving that the "eliminat[ion of] the knowledge of the good things that have happened in the past" has succeeded in him.
Bilgeman, I am reminded of the scene from A Fish Called Wanda:
Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.
It's so inherently wrong on a number of levels that to call it insane would be a compliment.
Then (notice how this destroys your statement) it should be trivial for you to demonstrate that.
But you don't. You instead project:
But, please, continue to propagate your fear and paranoia and prove Bill Maher correct yet again.
Right. Maher.
Hirsch portrays the focus of American educational theory as one which attempts to give students intellectual tools such as "critical thinking skills", but which denigrates teaching any actual content, labeling it "mere rote learning".
Any. Actual. Content. Which your statement is devoid of.
...
Hmmmm.
It's admitting fault
That comment of yours has so much irony it's magnetic.
and taking responsibility for our actions. This is anathema to the current conservative thought process.
Ah, yes. So are you ready to step up and take responsibility for the CRA and the state of Mortgage Company Regulation? Oh, no, huh?
Climate change? Can't be our fault...and all the data is lies.
denigrates teaching any actual content, labeling it "mere rote learning".
Dead civilians in Iraq? Saddam's fault...terrorist's fault. Vietnam? Liberal media's fault. Every other "problem." Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...schools run by communists...Nancy Pelosi=Bitch...hate Barney Frank...eep blurp squonk...
denigrates teaching any actual content, labeling it "mere rote learning".
Actual Content of your posts: 0.
Strawmen: too many to count.
And you do this to defend the current education system, which is performing at lower and lower levels, despite funding levels per student above that of almost all private schools. 40x increase since 1970.
And all you can do is recite strawmen quasi-arguments, project poorly and fail to take responsibility for your own actions, your own credibility, and your own mistakes.
As I was reading the post, the thought came: aha! Murkydelphia very clearly defined. Along with a few people I know.
Also, the quote "methinks thou dost protest too much" would apply.
HS '66-'70. Teachers didn't know what to do with a student that read beyond the textbooks. They disliked me, as I could embarrass them if called on during class. I knew something was not right about school. It took a while before I concluded that textbooks couldn't be trusted for accuracy. Too much was missing, or altered to show a conclusion that didn't make sense to me. It took me a long time to decide that it was deliberate, and not just sloppy work on the writers part. At first, I thought I was the problem. That I was mis-remembering what I had read elsewhere. But, I could return to the library, find the book I had in mind, and accurately remember whether the passage I was looking for was on the left or right page. And where on the page. Wish my memory still worked...
Absolutely, y'know, clever light comedy is a genre that has been sorely missed in the last few years.
I can remember "My Cousin Vinny", and "Sweet Home Alabama", but beyond that, I can't really recall any movies that were funny from the plot and the dialogue, rather than than what was expelled from someone's body.
Pity, that.
One quibble:
"You are the spitting mirror image of a ditto-head."
Politically, that may be so, but ditto-heads, once you get to know them, are usually a pretty decent sort.
Prigs of Mark's ilk, in my experience, turn something as mundane as taking a crap into an opportunity for some kind of vocal moralizing political statement.
2 hours spent bowling with dittoheads can be enjoyable.
2 hours spent with Mark's kind, and you start praying for the Earth to swallow up either him or yourself.
(And not being too particular about which party it is that disappears, so long as one of you is GONE).
"You are the spitting mirror image of a ditto-head."
Actually. No.
Of the few times I heard Rush, one was where he explained the genesis of Rush's "ditto-heads". If you've ever listened to any talk radio, it's fairly common for callers to compliment the host. As Rush explained it, one day he had a caller who was apparently quite good with his compliments. It seems that he was so good with his complements that the next caller, instead of giving Rush his own compliments, simply dittoed the previous caller's compliments. Subsequent callers did the same, with one guy taking it further with "Mega dittos". Plus it saved time and got to the meat of the call more quickly. Thus "ditto-heads" was born.
In Rush's case, it is not lockstep acceptance of dogma from on high — though it should be obvious that some listeners do think that way — it is an expression of respect for Rush.
Redefining any word or phrase to mean anything he wants.
So your explanation of the genesis or meaning is irrelevant once Verbatim Boy has picked a new definition. (Remember, VB sez: voluntary contract = slavery! The literal tons of Mortgage rules = unregulated!)
Okay, that's weird. I thought I had replied to UJ's comment, but it's not here. Hmmm…
UJ,
True. But juris and Bilgeman seemed to be using Marky's definition instead of the actual one. And that concerned me.
I also realized that I didn't summarize the definition: Ditto-heads are simply Rush Limbaugh fans, much like Browncoats are Firefly fans. That's not the same thing as brain-dead zombies obeying Rush's every whim.
Well, I'm too late for anybody to read this, but Kevin, I think you're wrong about the New Criticism. The New Criticism, far from being Marxist or left-wing, tried to keep the focus on the text, and to hell with politics, or the author's childhood, or what the author thought he was trying to say. The book is the words on the page; that's plenty. If Shakespeare's plays were actually written by Bacon, so what? Hamlet is still the same words in the same order.
It's the kind of literary criticism an engineer would come up with. Appropriately, at times it was an exercise in reductionism[1], but it was an honest and sensible attempt to address literature for the sake of literature. This is very distinct from Marxist criticism, where literature (like anything at all, to a Marxist) is just another means to gaining power and/or abusing whatever power he's got.
On that "Critical Theory" wiki page you link to, see "Within literary theory": In the 1960s, the lefty political types rejected the New Criticism precisely because it pointed the reader at the text, rather than using the text as a flimsy excuse to point the reader on "social justice" or some crap.
[1] Now that I've read your post about cultural literacy, the reductionism, where and how they went wrong, is a lot more clear to me than it used to be.
The New Criticism was, if not the product of The Frankfurt School, co-opted by its adherents. And it was false on its face - you cannot detach the author from the author's work.
I was merely turning his pettiness back on him. I wouldn't know a ditto-head if one came up and kissed me.
I do like to imagine that Markadaffya isn't a bad person in person. Perhaps only annoying when talking politics. I could be very wrong about that, but in the absence of evidence (and evidence is usually absent when dealing with M) I choose to think the best.
I have to agree with you in principle. Data (presumably factual data, not made up "data") do not lie. The problem the global warming people have is that the data do not support their conclusion, so they alter either the methods of interpretation or alter the data. This is easily, if somewhat imprecisely, summarized as "lies."
Global warming is predicted through models, acting upon data. When these models have been fed existing historical data, they have completely failed to predict actual historical trends or events. This proves that the model is wrong. Yet the global warming people (note the lack of the term "scientists") insist that the model is correct. The entire hypothesis then becomes not science, but religion - based not on facts, but mere belief.
A similar, more real world, event recently occurred in northern Virginia. A reviled coal fired power plant was accused of emitting too many pollutants. When the owners provided the data from the many sensors stationed in and surrounding (up to miles away) the power plant, their accusers ignored the real world data, in preference to a model that "proved" the power plant MUST be polluting.
denigrates teaching any actual content, labeling it "mere rote learning".
Data CAN "lie". It's all in how you (*improperly) select teh data to begin with.
For ewxample, claiming tomeasure global average increases by setting out temperature sensors where they will record tmeperatures not immeidately affected by direct man-made heating (i.e., you isolate them from local man made heat sources), and then continuing to use that data when the sensor is now surrounded by nice black asphalt.
Perhaps a better way to phrase it is "data can be manipulated to lie."
Like pretty much ALL of the so called data for man-made global warming.
Which, when combined with a bitter and willful refusal to admit the existance of all the data which establishes OTHER, non-man-made, causes for global climate change, as well as willfully ignoring all teh data that indicates that even with more severe global warming than is currently predicted, man and nature can get along just hummingly (such as when Greenland was capable of supporting an Iron Age European farming community quite handily) makes for a pretty convincing lie, especially when you cna convieniently label anyone who questions The Dogma as being in the same vein as Holocaust deniers.
Rick pretty much nailed it, but I would like to state it another way.
"Data" does not lie, but ONLY if it's not mishandled. Furthermore, it is easy to mishandle data, even by accident.
There are three ways of mishandling data that show up in the global warming claims:
1) Errors in measurment: In order for data to usable, it must first be measured accurately and consistently. It should be obvious that inaccurate measurements produce useless data. Carpenters have known this fact for centuries, which is why they live by the adage, "Measure twice, cut once." Without this care in measurements, carpenters would wind up producing something like the crooked little house built by the crooked little man.
In the case of measuring temperatures, it's critical to take all the variables which could affect the measurements into account to ensure that the same relative techniques are used over time. Rick pointed out one of these major variables, which is local changes surrounding a thermometer which cause local changes in air temperature. There are a huge number of instances where poor sensor placement produces inaccurate measurements.
2) Not taking ALL the data into account: One of the most common methods of manipulating data is cherry picking which data to accept and which to ignore. While there are legitimate reasons to disregard data — such as known inaccuracies in measurement and irrelevant data — accurate and relevant data is sometimes ignored in order to "make the data fit the theory".
Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is a prime example of cherry picking the data. He shows a chart comparing carbon-dioxide concentrations to temperature variations. There is a clear correlation between the two. However, he ignores one crucial part of the data: that CO2 concentrations follow temperature variations by about 400-800 years; which means that CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming, even though it likely has some effect. Just by ignoring that one little data point, he completely changed the conclusion suggested by the data.
3) Invalid data manipulation: In order to convert raw data into useful information, it's necessary to analyze and summarize the data. This involves applying statistical analysis to the raw data. When done properly, this process converts row upon row of meaningless numbers into something a human can easily understand and use to make well informed decisions. However, when done wrong, it leads to the type of situations which caused Mark Twain to quip, "There are three types of lies — lies, damn lies, and statistics."
There are a number of ways that the analysis can be done incorrectly. The wrong type of analysis can be used. The correct type can be applied incorrectly. Math errors can be made. Deliberate distortions can also be buried in such analysis.
The infamous "hockey stick" graph is an example of such invalid manipulation. The program used to analyze the raw temperature data turns out to always produce a hockey stick graph, even in test data with no trends whatsoever. Whether this is a mistake or a deliberate manipulation is unclear. Either way, the "data" on this graph is invalid.
In short, accurate data doesn't lie. But it is so easy to destroy the validity of data either through error or deliberate manipulation that it's critical to confirm the validity of that data whenever possible.
Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of "continental drift" in 1915. He was laughed at. The reason plate tectonics is accepted today is because his data was gone over not just by his supporters, but by his opponents. Ideas were tried and discarded, theories that seemed to work were refined to work better.
On the other hand, Mann and Briffa refused to allow anyone to see their raw data for right around a decade. No one was allowed to run the data and come to their own conclusions, they were expected to simply accept the conclusions of Mann, Briffa et al.
That's not science. And anyone with any kind of grounding in science, even a high school student in the "science club", knows that isn't science.
That's politics. That's propaganda. And that's all it is.
I realize that this is a late addition, but on the off chance that other newcomers to the site will read it...
Shortly after I married in 1990, my wife expressed the opinion that the public school system in the USA was designed not to educate, but to produce interchangeable adults for factory work (which doesn't require much in the way of either critical thinking skills OR basic knowledge). As she put it: School teaches you to get up at the same time Monday-Friday, go someplace at the same time Mon-Fri where you do what some authority figure (teachers) tell you to do, and then leave every day Mon-Fri with the rest of the day yours to do as you wish.
I was skeptical. Then in about 2005 I saw a show about the genesis of our public school system. The public school system was created as a result of lobbying by early industrialists like Rockefeller and Carnegie. Prior to their lobbying effort, they examined the various school systems then in existence around the world. They decided to lobby for a school system that mirrored the Prussian school system.
What was the Prussian School System's primary virtue in the opinion of these early industrialists? It taught conformity and obedience to authority. In other words, it turned out a uniform class of serfs amenable to being directed by the nobility.
Sound familiar?
And just like the Prussian Nobility did, our leaders (politicians and industrialists) send their children to private educational institutions that actually educate rather than indoctrinate.
I know Mark will disagree, but then he's almost certainly a product of such indoctrination as well. Also, how could anyone face knowing that they had been a willing participant in the damaging of so many young minds when they intended to help them? What act of atonement could possibly make up for such malignancy, even if done unknowingly? What would a person do if they discovered that they were the opposite of what their self image was? Indeed, how could someone even consider such a thing? Hence those like Mark will continue to think they are developing young minds with the best of intentions, because they cannot even conceive the idea that what they are actually doing is damaging them.
You need to read John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education. He makes the very same argument you do, and he was inside the system. It is my argument that you are correct as to its original intent, but that the system was co-opted by the True Believers in Marxist philosophy to do other than make good little worker/consumers. Where their grip was loose, the system did as originally designed. Where their grip was stronger, they made socialist inroads into the minds of youths. No grand conspiracy was necessary - True Believers do what they do out of a sense of righteousness. And the end result is what we have today: a conflict of ideologies between two groups, call them "the children of the Prussian Nobility" and "the children of the True Believers," with the "interchangeable adults for factory work" largely disconnected from the conflict.
And yet, the "interchangeable adults for factory work" still retain some vestiges of the history of this nation, and they remain the majority of the population.
And they're pissed.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/10/i-say-we-take-off-and-nuke-site-from.html (67 comments)
Broad ranging background knowledge...it's what you got from reading a high percentage of the encyclopedia sitting on your shelves at home during your grade school years...those very same books that your teacher denigrated as being unworthy of citation in your topical reports.
They are the books that give you the hint that the world is filled with more interesting stuff than will be mentioned in your classroom, and your first hint that there's something ~missing~.
Thanks for posting this, Kevin. I found it fascinating not only because of my interest in education, but it's also extremely relevant to my artificial intelligence research (essentially, reading comprehension by machines).
We might summarize this by saying schools are teaching students to parse syntax without appreciating semantics.
Rand might have identified Hirsch's approach as "integration."
Well, it appears to me that after seven or eight decades of our "Education system" that isn't, what we're turning out is young minds that can't pass a Turing Test.
Well, it is what it is.
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-03-30/
"... it's what you got from reading a high percentage of the encyclopedia sitting on your shelves at home during your grade school years ..."
You mean I'm not alone? It was Comptons, and I read it all.
I read The World Book Encyclopedia set.
I wonder that the Geeks, Dorks and Nerds of the future will read instead... Wikipedia?
"the deliberate, systematic training of our young not to embrace the culture that brought us greatness."
That's a complete load of shit, Kevin, and you know it. Certainly we can both agree that there are problems with our education system but its goal is not to destroy our culture. Good Lord...
But your mention of "culture" is the crux of the problem. What is our culture? Is it manifest destiny, the doctrine that you clearly still follow? Or has our culture changed quite a bit and, for whatever reason, you feel threatened by this...threatened by an examination of historical facts that don't jibe with the fierce sense of nationalism that you have?
Since I didn't see snark in the label (just education), upon what "logical and reasoned scientific thought" are you basing your assertion that we should "nuke the site from orbit." In addition to making yet another turn to violence to destroy something you fear (see: AQ), I find it quite hypocritical that you (and others here) scream about "feelings" when clearly that's all this post was about.
Oh, and Bezmenov again? Dude, ever use your critical thinking skills to realize what HIS goals clearly are? The John Birch Society? Sheesh, Kevin...
Oh, look. Mark is back pretending he didn't abandon one hundred or so other discussions.
How the fuck do you take yourself seriously?
Ah, so that explains it. Marky is "programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern."
He, indeed, is a script.
Well, he does fail the Turing Test. And he exemplifies Bezmenov's description of the "demoralized."
What is Marky Mark's insistence that Manifest Destiny drives KB's thought?
Manifest Destiny is the belief that America should spread from East to West Coast, right? Pioneers and wagon trains? Little houses on the prairie? So what exactly does the belief that the USA should cover a wide geographical area have to do with the degradation and destruction of American education. Where's the connection?
I think Marky is actually 14 years old, and he just throws out words he hears in class, hoping that they will be relevant to the topic at hand.
"I think Marky is actually 14 years old, and he just throws out words he hears in class, hoping that they will be relevant to the topic at hand."
Then the possibility that he's honest when he tells us he's a school teacher (though how he expects us to believe he's honest even about that is beyond me, given his track record in even admitting the color of the sky) and is the one throwing out the words should TERRIFY you.
And also pretty much entirely validate Kevin's post.
"How the fuck do you take yourself seriously?"
How the fuck do you not know how to use the scroll function on your mouse?
"Where's the connection?"
Manifest Destiny is more than just a concept that resides in our borders. It's a concept that can bee seen in our foreign policy as well. It carries over into Loewen's heroification theory as well.
"How the fuck do you not know how to use the scroll function on your mouse?"
What, you mean the post you made at 8:52am, 3 minutes before mine?
Ohhh, I see. So I'm supposed to pretend that you didn't ignore and dance away from hundreds of other discussions because you JUST posted a response.
"But your mention of "culture" is the crux of the problem. What is our culture? Is it manifest destiny, the doctrine that you clearly still follow? Or has our culture changed quite a bit and, for whatever reason, you feel threatened by this...threatened by an examination of historical facts that don't jibe with the fierce sense of nationalism that you have?"
Our culture is one of independent thought, of thinkers who knows history, science, math, arts and can understand the future based on that knowledge. A culture who understands that government is dangerous, that liberty is the best way to run a society.
The educational system is setup to destroy that. To promote non-thinking, to promote dependence on government. To eliminate the knowledge of the good things that have happened in the past.
"The educational system is setup to destroy that. To promote non-thinking, to promote dependence on government. To eliminate the knowledge of the good things that have happened in the past."
Have to agree with that.
"You can't make Socialists out of individualists - children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent."
-John Dewey, one of the founders of the modern education system
Manifest Destiny is more than just a concept that resides in our borders. It's a concept that can bee seen in our foreign policy as well. It carries over into Loewen's heroification theory as well.
_____________
Oh yay, Marxist pseudo scientific bullshit. What number do we file that under?
You, as usual, ascribe to me motivations and beliefs that I have never espoused.
More importantly, the topic at hand is the continuing decline in quality of the American educational system. Kevin holds it is intentional, and you enter, spout some outraged statement, compare him to a terrorist, and then claim that there is nothing wrong and that the real problem is something that has not been an issue in American politics since about 1880. When called on your non sequitur, you pull out some nonsense psychobabble about "heroification", despite the fact that no one is talking about the heroism or villainy of a particular person, but rather the systemic failure of the educational system to actually educate people.
Classic Marky.
Gramsci and Lukács argued that Western culture had blinded the working class to its true Marxist class interests.
There is an irony in that statement that only the blindly Romantic would fail to see. Naturally a Marxist would miss it.
And dammit Kevin, don't make me agree with Markadaffya by bringing up Bezmenov. We've been through that and I thought you agreed that a at least a few grains of salt were in order. (I do, but I cannot disagree with the quotation cited - period. Ed.)
The problem for Markadaffya is that he is a product of the miseducation system, and of course has a vested interest in preserving the status quo. Notice that he doesn't address ANY of the points of someone more thoroughly grounded in the subject (i.e. the academic Kevin is talking about). Not surprising of course for someone that is a first order Romantic himself.
Markadaffya asks What is our culture?
And then proceeds to answer as you would expect from a liberal - it is everything horrid in our history as he perceives it. No wonder this must be expunged. The problem of course is that in this narrow Manichean view, he has missed a much broader perspective.
I read the Britannica, from circa 1954, and it was interesting to find errors in it when you're only in 5th grade.
To a deconstructionist relativist, Culture is what foreigners do.
What interested me most about becoming an Anthropologist (and a question which Teh University failed to answer) was that same one - what is "our" culture? Having grown up overseas and outside it, returning to occupy a place within it was to experience the strange/er-ness. I think that question is an attempt to address that, but he's like a fish asking about water - or a bit of code asking about C++.
That's the big problem among the Left in general which he exhibits so well, immersion in a doctrine. They deconstruct and tear apart with all the vigor of a Victorian attempting to classify isotopes with a magnifying glass, while coloring in the spaces between people with a confection of projection.
What I meant about circa '54 (if even) was it was an old Britannica that was in the Mission house. There were other books too, much older. One had pictures of a beheading - a guy had killed his wife's lover and brought the head to show the District Superintendent proof of being sorely wronged. He got jail time, maybe a hanging. The Colonials were rather strict about that aspect of their Culture, the Judiciary was fairly inflexible. The notion of our culture actively expressed as the political concept of Manifest Destiny is really...uh... still incubating - a deformed notion, it's a homunculus of culture.
"To a deconstructionist relativist, Culture is what foreigners do."
I've noticed that, too, though my girlfriend's anthropology class attempts very heavy-handed brainwashing in the way of, "Everything you think or do is part of your culture so your observations of any other culture are biased an invalid."
I've never had trouble identifying American culture, though. Just imagine opening a restaurant in Britain and try and think of what foods you'd serve.
Meatloaf. Mashed potatoes. Apple pie.
American.
It all comes down to food.
Food is a big component, to subsume that under political philosophy is an even bigger mistake.
The other part about your observations of any other culture, is that your Guide to Teh OotherKulture is likely NOT to be a full subscribed member of that culture and is often an equally erroneous observer. So it goes back to problems of observation - and maybe observation isn't the point...
"Food is a big component, to subsume that under political philosophy is an even bigger mistake."
I was being facetious but forgot halfway through my post and just went with it.
"...it goes back to problems of observation..."
Y'know, I've always had some trouble accepting the "implicit bias in observation of culture due to one's own culture" maxim. There are some things which I absolutely do not find cultural, and I've resented being told in print or in person by those in the anthropology profession that just about any conclusion I draw is implicitly flawed.
Then again, the ones who tell me that are the same ones who tell me that female logic is different from male.. so.. perhaps their opinions out to be taken out and shot as a whole.
I meant that food is really an important cultural aspect/artifact, more important than "Manifest Destiny." How people use food to differentiate between groups is a really big cultural lever. People sharing the same geography and local fauna still do entirely different things - totally on purpose. Just consider ritual purity among Hindus and the differentiators for Islam.
The whole "bias in observation" is just euro-Heisenbergism imported and writ large. As a matter of perspective and establishing status, it's also the Professoriat making their own Appeal to Authority. Pay no attention to that man bonking the NativeGurlz behind the curtain, or Schrödinger's cat-in-the-box. The Humanities really doesn't do Science worth a shit, so when it imports scientific rhetoric and attempts to manipulate it you get a Chomsky-Crapsicle - it's more amusing than accurate.
A bigger problem is that someone exploring (not observing) a different culture will be lead by a local guide who doesn't know the inside-out very well, or who is a peripheral person committed to their own bias. Biases are everywhere. (Substantive people neck deep in their own stuff don't go around leading marginal strangers.) Or they're a big fat sexy liars - like some (most?) of the early Anthropologists: Meade who fabricated most of her sexy-details, Malinowsky who just like to get laid by native girls as often as a reasearch grant would send him frolicking. In a culture of Publish or Perish who do you think gets published - the girl from Cosmo or the one from Audubon?
What sells? The Left has been getting laid by Marx for years so of course they worship him. Moreover in the Comintern, the boy who denounces his wicked and counterrevolutionary Parents (and mean sister) gets a reward - how much bigger a reward it must be to denounce your entire wicked counterrevolutionary Kulture!
Marky just cannot accept that we have tried HIS method for over 50 years, and we HAVE the evidence.
His ideal educational system failed -- where previous ones suceeded.
Therefor, any defense of the failed system at teh expence of teh previously effective system indicate a subordination of reality to idealogy.
Certainly we can both agree that there are problems with our education system
Yet when we do you shriek, deny the problems, and attack our characters.
but its goal is not to destroy our culture. Good Lord...
Based on all that you've missed here, which gets right back to the passage Kevin quotes:
Where you've called the mortgage market "unregulated", you've called us gun owners "Nazis", you've said "Verbatim" means "Somewhat similar"... Every time we examine a topic in detail you are lacking in basic background that most of the rest of us have and understand.
You aren't defending the educational system, you're Exhibit 1) for the Prosecution!
Exhibit 1a):
Or has our culture changed quite a bit and, for whatever reason, you feel threatened by this...threatened by an examination of historical facts that don't jibe with the fierce sense of nationalism that you have?
Yes, As you can see, Kevin already dealt with that.
Exhibit 1b):
Manifest Destiny is more than just a concept that resides in our borders. It's a concept that can bee seen in our foreign policy as well.
Adam:
So I'm supposed to pretend that you didn't ignore and dance away from hundreds of other discussions because you JUST posted a response.
Yes, he'd prefer if you did just that. That's part of the special "rules" he insists on. If we hold him to the same conduct as us, he screams that it's "Different rules."
Verbatim and all, you know.
"There is a tide."
:-)
"The educational system is setup to destroy that. To promote non-thinking, to promote dependence on government. To eliminate the knowledge of the good things that have happened in the past."
Matt, this statement has unfortunately caused me to realize that people who FEEL this way need to go to the equivalent of a rest home. It's so inherently wrong on a number of levels that to call it insane would be a compliment. But, please, continue to propagate your fear and paranoia and prove Bill Maher correct yet again.
Juris, wrong. It's admitting fault and taking responsibility for our actions. This is anathema to the current conservative thought process. Climate change? Can't be our fault...and all the data is lies. Dead civilians in Iraq? Saddam's fault...terrorist's fault. Vietnam? Liberal media's fault. Every other "problem." Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...schools run by communists...Nancy Pelosi=Bitch...hate Barney Frank...eep blurp squonk...
They're not even teaching any kind of critical thinking. Otherwise there'd be a lot more people asking 'Yeah, why do we need to bail the stupid people out again?'. Asimov's baloney detection kit is NOT in the curriculum.
Bill Maher??? An appeal to his authority???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
"Climate change? Can't be our fault... and all the data is lies."
Actually, all the data which supports "global warming" or "climate change" is lies -- or at best, faulty or insufficient -- and therefore does not prove that climate change IS our fault.
But how would I expect an actual knowledge of debate and applied logic from a Lefty?
Climate change? Can't be our fault...and all the data is lies.
Four words: "The science is settled."
Those four words tell you exactly from whence the bullshit comes and who is doing the slinging. If you had any tiniest knowledge of the history of science this would be glaringly obvious to you, just from the existence of those four words.
Why?
Theory of Plate Tectonics: Been around since the 60s, and in embryonic form since the early 20th century. There is not a single bit of modern volcanology or earthquake studies that is not dependent on it. But you won't find a single reputable geologist or volcanologist who'll tell you it's "settled".
Theory of Relativity: Been around since 1915, engineers have used it to successfully build both the most destructive devices and the most efficient power plants the world has ever known. But ask any nuclear physicist: No, the science is not "settled".
Theory of Evolution: Been around since 1859, has been refined ever since. Accepted by basically everyone in all of the life sciences and natural sciences. But the science is not "settled".
Theory of Gravitation: Been around since 1687. The entirety of modern transportation and communications are dependent on its acceptance as an eminently workable approximation. But the science is not settled.
It doesn't matter what branch of any science you're involved in, the moment you claim there is no more room for debate you have thrown away your credibility. Because real scientists know that the science is never settled, in any science.
The very fact that those four words were uttered at all proclaims loudly that the subject is no longer science of any kind, it's politics.
And that's all climate change "science" is.
Try convincing a real scientist, like, say.... Freeman Dyson.
Ok, I'm cheating by not reading the whole post and not reading all the comments. I stopped at the 2nd paragraph, because I just have to get this off my chest. The simplest explanation for why kids at UVA did better on a test than kids at community college is: the UVA kids were smarter.
Thib, that was a given. Let me rephrase. Not necessarily "smarter," but "better educated."
The question was "WHY?" The secondary question was "HOW?"
Heh...
Mine was the 1969 edition of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Book_Encyclopedia#cite_ref-1
You geeks!
I kind of envy Mark. It must be nice to be completely unattractive to zombies.
perl:
"I kind of envy Mark. It must be nice to be completely unattractive to zombies."
Oh is that another reason?
I thought it was because he's a parrot that was taught to recite Socrates, and then tasked to teach other parrots to do likewise.
None of them actually appreciate it or begin to understand it, but it's what gets them their crackers.
No, Kevin, I know the difference between "smarter" and "better educated." And I meant "smarter."
That's the simplest explanation: that the kids at UVA were smarter. Higher IQs. Better working brains.
And the answer to why is: it's genetic. So the answer to how: choose your parents wisely.
How people use food to differentiate between groups is a really big cultural lever. People sharing the same geography and local fauna still do entirely different things - totally on purpose.
There is a lovely illustration of this principle in The Fatal Shore, where the PoME's (pommies) eat salted fish from England while the "currency of the colony" (children of the transported) eat fresh lobster, etc. The latter grow into the tall, healthy lads & lasses of Australia, while the former are the stunted flowers of England.
But, please, continue to propagate your fear and paranoia and prove Bill Maher correct yet again.
The next time Bill Maher is correct will be the first time. Aren't you getting tired of the taste of his member?
And Markadaffya, virtually everything you cite in response to me is susceptible to damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.
We rolled into Somalia with the best of intentions, and we were damned for doing so. We did NOT roll into Darfur and were damned for that. That's the beauty of the liberal/conservative dichotomy you insist on - you can each blame the other for half of the failure, never bothering to examine the part YOU played.
You are the spitting mirror image of a ditto-head.
"Matt, this statement has unfortunately caused me to realize that people who FEEL this way need to go to the equivalent of a rest home. It's so inherently wrong on a number of levels that to call it insane would be a compliment."
I was exploring the category of genetic fallacies this morning. It's interesting that Marky used one I hadn't really paid attention to before:
Appeal to intellectual and mental stability or capability:
An appeal to intellectual and mental stability or capability, or a reduction to the opposite (also known as an appeal to psychology), is an informal fallacy which asserts that the opposing party's argument is wrong or discreditable based upon an assumption, proven or unproven, of the opposing party's intelligence or mental stability.
Example: That's crazy. You need to get your head checked.
The article is really poor. It is apparently just a wikipedia variant of the Ad hominem fallacy. (I didn't find any other references to the Appeal to mental stability anywhere else.)
It's nice to know that Marky's branching out a little.
Of course, it wouldn't have been a fallacy, but a mere opinion if he had actually then followed up with a legitimate argument.
What I found fascinating about his followup is that he didn't mention a single good thing the U.S. has done, only evil thing our country is supposedly guilty of. Thus proving that the "eliminat[ion of] the knowledge of the good things that have happened in the past" has succeeded in him.
Bilgeman, I am reminded of the scene from A Fish Called Wanda:
Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.
Classic, isn't it?
I kind of envy Mark. It must be nice to be completely unattractive to zombies.
It so happens I have that t-shirt and my wife challenged me to wear it to work next week.
(The zombies are looking for brains, you're safe)
I'm not as reckless as my wife likes to think sometimes.
It's so inherently wrong on a number of levels that to call it insane would be a compliment.
Any. Actual. Content. Which your statement is devoid of.Then (notice how this destroys your statement) it should be trivial for you to demonstrate that.
But you don't. You instead project:
But, please, continue to propagate your fear and paranoia and prove Bill Maher correct yet again.
Right. Maher.
...
Hmmmm.
It's admitting fault
That comment of yours has so much irony it's magnetic.
and taking responsibility for our actions. This is anathema to the current conservative thought process.
Ah, yes. So are you ready to step up and take responsibility for the CRA and the state of Mortgage Company Regulation? Oh, no, huh?
Climate change? Can't be our fault...and all the data is lies.Dead civilians in Iraq? Saddam's fault...terrorist's fault. Vietnam? Liberal media's fault. Every other "problem." Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...Liberal media's fault...schools run by communists...Nancy Pelosi=Bitch...hate Barney Frank...eep blurp squonk...Actual Content of your posts: 0.
Strawmen: too many to count.
And you do this to defend the current education system, which is performing at lower and lower levels, despite funding levels per student above that of almost all private schools. 40x increase since 1970.
And all you can do is recite strawmen quasi-arguments, project poorly and fail to take responsibility for your own actions, your own credibility, and your own mistakes.
Beep. Oop. Beep.
Evening, Ralph. Have a good night.
As I was reading the post, the thought came: aha! Murkydelphia very clearly defined. Along with a few people I know.
Also, the quote "methinks thou dost protest too much" would apply.
HS '66-'70. Teachers didn't know what to do with a student that read beyond the textbooks. They disliked me, as I could embarrass them if called on during class. I knew something was not right about school. It took a while before I concluded that textbooks couldn't be trusted for accuracy. Too much was missing, or altered to show a conclusion that didn't make sense to me. It took me a long time to decide that it was deliberate, and not just sloppy work on the writers part. At first, I thought I was the problem. That I was mis-remembering what I had read elsewhere. But, I could return to the library, find the book I had in mind, and accurately remember whether the passage I was looking for was on the left or right page. And where on the page. Wish my memory still worked...
It's nice to know that Marky's branching out a little.
The script has an automatic update feature? Sweet.
juris-imprudent:
"Classic, isn't it?"
Absolutely, y'know, clever light comedy is a genre that has been sorely missed in the last few years.
I can remember "My Cousin Vinny", and "Sweet Home Alabama", but beyond that, I can't really recall any movies that were funny from the plot and the dialogue, rather than than what was expelled from someone's body.
Pity, that.
One quibble:
"You are the spitting mirror image of a ditto-head."
Politically, that may be so, but ditto-heads, once you get to know them, are usually a pretty decent sort.
Prigs of Mark's ilk, in my experience, turn something as mundane as taking a crap into an opportunity for some kind of vocal moralizing political statement.
2 hours spent bowling with dittoheads can be enjoyable.
2 hours spent with Mark's kind, and you start praying for the Earth to swallow up either him or yourself.
(And not being too particular about which party it is that disappears, so long as one of you is GONE).
"You are the spitting mirror image of a ditto-head."
Actually. No.
Of the few times I heard Rush, one was where he explained the genesis of Rush's "ditto-heads". If you've ever listened to any talk radio, it's fairly common for callers to compliment the host. As Rush explained it, one day he had a caller who was apparently quite good with his compliments. It seems that he was so good with his complements that the next caller, instead of giving Rush his own compliments, simply dittoed the previous caller's compliments. Subsequent callers did the same, with one guy taking it further with "Mega dittos". Plus it saved time and got to the meat of the call more quickly. Thus "ditto-heads" was born.
In Rush's case, it is not lockstep acceptance of dogma from on high — though it should be obvious that some listeners do think that way — it is an expression of respect for Rush.
Ed:
You're forgetting Verbatim Boy's superpower:
Redefining any word or phrase to mean anything he wants.
So your explanation of the genesis or meaning is irrelevant once Verbatim Boy has picked a new definition. (Remember, VB sez: voluntary contract = slavery! The literal tons of Mortgage rules = unregulated!)
UJ,
True. I just wanted our side to be clear on the actual meaning.
Okay, that's weird. I thought I had replied to UJ's comment, but it's not here. Hmmm…
UJ,
True. But juris and Bilgeman seemed to be using Marky's definition instead of the actual one. And that concerned me.
I also realized that I didn't summarize the definition: Ditto-heads are simply Rush Limbaugh fans, much like Browncoats are Firefly fans. That's not the same thing as brain-dead zombies obeying Rush's every whim.
Now my previous comment shows up. Great. Just great. :: rolls eyes ::
The demand for obedient consensus is strong with him...
Comments for this post: http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/10/i-say-we-take-off-and-nuke-site-from.html
Well, I'm too late for anybody to read this, but Kevin, I think you're wrong about the New Criticism. The New Criticism, far from being Marxist or left-wing, tried to keep the focus on the text, and to hell with politics, or the author's childhood, or what the author thought he was trying to say. The book is the words on the page; that's plenty. If Shakespeare's plays were actually written by Bacon, so what? Hamlet is still the same words in the same order.
It's the kind of literary criticism an engineer would come up with. Appropriately, at times it was an exercise in reductionism[1], but it was an honest and sensible attempt to address literature for the sake of literature. This is very distinct from Marxist criticism, where literature (like anything at all, to a Marxist) is just another means to gaining power and/or abusing whatever power he's got.
On that "Critical Theory" wiki page you link to, see "Within literary theory": In the 1960s, the lefty political types rejected the New Criticism precisely because it pointed the reader at the text, rather than using the text as a flimsy excuse to point the reader on "social justice" or some crap.
[1] Now that I've read your post about cultural literacy, the reductionism, where and how they went wrong, is a lot more clear to me than it used to be.
Retardo:
The New Criticism was, if not the product of The Frankfurt School, co-opted by its adherents. And it was false on its face - you cannot detach the author from the author's work.
Ed, Bilge-
I was merely turning his pettiness back on him. I wouldn't know a ditto-head if one came up and kissed me.
I do like to imagine that Markadaffya isn't a bad person in person. Perhaps only annoying when talking politics. I could be very wrong about that, but in the absence of evidence (and evidence is usually absent when dealing with M) I choose to think the best.
"Actually, all the data which supports "global warming" or "climate change" is lies -- "
Data cannot lie. Perhaps the dumbest statement I've seen today.
deadcenter-
I have to agree with you in principle. Data (presumably factual data, not made up "data") do not lie. The problem the global warming people have is that the data do not support their conclusion, so they alter either the methods of interpretation or alter the data. This is easily, if somewhat imprecisely, summarized as "lies."
Global warming is predicted through models, acting upon data. When these models have been fed existing historical data, they have completely failed to predict actual historical trends or events. This proves that the model is wrong. Yet the global warming people (note the lack of the term "scientists") insist that the model is correct. The entire hypothesis then becomes not science, but religion - based not on facts, but mere belief.
A similar, more real world, event recently occurred in northern Virginia. A reviled coal fired power plant was accused of emitting too many pollutants. When the owners provided the data from the many sensors stationed in and surrounding (up to miles away) the power plant, their accusers ignored the real world data, in preference to a model that "proved" the power plant MUST be polluting.
denigrates teaching any actual content, labeling it "mere rote learning".
Deadcenter --
Data CAN "lie". It's all in how you (*improperly) select teh data to begin with.
For ewxample, claiming tomeasure global average increases by setting out temperature sensors where they will record tmeperatures not immeidately affected by direct man-made heating (i.e., you isolate them from local man made heat sources), and then continuing to use that data when the sensor is now surrounded by nice black asphalt.
Perhaps a better way to phrase it is "data can be manipulated to lie."
Like pretty much ALL of the so called data for man-made global warming.
Which, when combined with a bitter and willful refusal to admit the existance of all the data which establishes OTHER, non-man-made, causes for global climate change, as well as willfully ignoring all teh data that indicates that even with more severe global warming than is currently predicted, man and nature can get along just hummingly (such as when Greenland was capable of supporting an Iron Age European farming community quite handily) makes for a pretty convincing lie, especially when you cna convieniently label anyone who questions The Dogma as being in the same vein as Holocaust deniers.
Rick pretty much nailed it, but I would like to state it another way.
"Data" does not lie, but ONLY if it's not mishandled. Furthermore, it is easy to mishandle data, even by accident.
There are three ways of mishandling data that show up in the global warming claims:
1) Errors in measurment: In order for data to usable, it must first be measured accurately and consistently. It should be obvious that inaccurate measurements produce useless data. Carpenters have known this fact for centuries, which is why they live by the adage, "Measure twice, cut once." Without this care in measurements, carpenters would wind up producing something like the crooked little house built by the crooked little man.
In the case of measuring temperatures, it's critical to take all the variables which could affect the measurements into account to ensure that the same relative techniques are used over time. Rick pointed out one of these major variables, which is local changes surrounding a thermometer which cause local changes in air temperature. There are a huge number of instances where poor sensor placement produces inaccurate measurements.
2) Not taking ALL the data into account: One of the most common methods of manipulating data is cherry picking which data to accept and which to ignore. While there are legitimate reasons to disregard data — such as known inaccuracies in measurement and irrelevant data — accurate and relevant data is sometimes ignored in order to "make the data fit the theory".
Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is a prime example of cherry picking the data. He shows a chart comparing carbon-dioxide concentrations to temperature variations. There is a clear correlation between the two. However, he ignores one crucial part of the data: that CO2 concentrations follow temperature variations by about 400-800 years; which means that CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming, even though it likely has some effect. Just by ignoring that one little data point, he completely changed the conclusion suggested by the data.
3) Invalid data manipulation: In order to convert raw data into useful information, it's necessary to analyze and summarize the data. This involves applying statistical analysis to the raw data. When done properly, this process converts row upon row of meaningless numbers into something a human can easily understand and use to make well informed decisions. However, when done wrong, it leads to the type of situations which caused Mark Twain to quip, "There are three types of lies — lies, damn lies, and statistics."
There are a number of ways that the analysis can be done incorrectly. The wrong type of analysis can be used. The correct type can be applied incorrectly. Math errors can be made. Deliberate distortions can also be buried in such analysis.
The infamous "hockey stick" graph is an example of such invalid manipulation. The program used to analyze the raw temperature data turns out to always produce a hockey stick graph, even in test data with no trends whatsoever. Whether this is a mistake or a deliberate manipulation is unclear. Either way, the "data" on this graph is invalid.
In short, accurate data doesn't lie. But it is so easy to destroy the validity of data either through error or deliberate manipulation that it's critical to confirm the validity of that data whenever possible.
On more article on data manipulation in the Global Warming scam:
UN Climate Reports: They Lie
It's pretty clear that most of the data manipulation is deliberate.
That's precisely the point I was trying to make.
Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of "continental drift" in 1915. He was laughed at. The reason plate tectonics is accepted today is because his data was gone over not just by his supporters, but by his opponents. Ideas were tried and discarded, theories that seemed to work were refined to work better.
On the other hand, Mann and Briffa refused to allow anyone to see their raw data for right around a decade. No one was allowed to run the data and come to their own conclusions, they were expected to simply accept the conclusions of Mann, Briffa et al.
That's not science. And anyone with any kind of grounding in science, even a high school student in the "science club", knows that isn't science.
That's politics. That's propaganda. And that's all it is.
I realize that this is a late addition, but on the off chance that other newcomers to the site will read it...
Shortly after I married in 1990, my wife expressed the opinion that the public school system in the USA was designed not to educate, but to produce interchangeable adults for factory work (which doesn't require much in the way of either critical thinking skills OR basic knowledge). As she put it: School teaches you to get up at the same time Monday-Friday, go someplace at the same time Mon-Fri where you do what some authority figure (teachers) tell you to do, and then leave every day Mon-Fri with the rest of the day yours to do as you wish.
I was skeptical. Then in about 2005 I saw a show about the genesis of our public school system. The public school system was created as a result of lobbying by early industrialists like Rockefeller and Carnegie. Prior to their lobbying effort, they examined the various school systems then in existence around the world. They decided to lobby for a school system that mirrored the Prussian school system.
What was the Prussian School System's primary virtue in the opinion of these early industrialists? It taught conformity and obedience to authority. In other words, it turned out a uniform class of serfs amenable to being directed by the nobility.
Sound familiar?
And just like the Prussian Nobility did, our leaders (politicians and industrialists) send their children to private educational institutions that actually educate rather than indoctrinate.
I know Mark will disagree, but then he's almost certainly a product of such indoctrination as well. Also, how could anyone face knowing that they had been a willing participant in the damaging of so many young minds when they intended to help them? What act of atonement could possibly make up for such malignancy, even if done unknowingly? What would a person do if they discovered that they were the opposite of what their self image was? Indeed, how could someone even consider such a thing? Hence those like Mark will continue to think they are developing young minds with the best of intentions, because they cannot even conceive the idea that what they are actually doing is damaging them.
You need to read John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education. He makes the very same argument you do, and he was inside the system. It is my argument that you are correct as to its original intent, but that the system was co-opted by the True Believers in Marxist philosophy to do other than make good little worker/consumers. Where their grip was loose, the system did as originally designed. Where their grip was stronger, they made socialist inroads into the minds of youths. No grand conspiracy was necessary - True Believers do what they do out of a sense of righteousness. And the end result is what we have today: a conflict of ideologies between two groups, call them "the children of the Prussian Nobility" and "the children of the True Believers," with the "interchangeable adults for factory work" largely disconnected from the conflict.
And yet, the "interchangeable adults for factory work" still retain some vestiges of the history of this nation, and they remain the majority of the population.
And they're pissed.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>