On Thursday 03 June 2021 14:03:32 J Leslie Turriff wrote: > On 2021-06-03 15:24:29 deloptes wrote: > > J Leslie Turriff wrote: > > > This surprises me not at all. It's the same mentality that kept > > > General Semantics from being taught as well. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics > > > > it would be sufficient if classical logic were thought at school > > > > - conjunction > > - disjunction > > - equivalence > > - implication > > > > 4 operations that most of the people do not understand - especially the > > implication. this makes it possible to do false conclusions. Also it > > makes it impossible to dispute over anything. Total mess! > > Yes; but teaching such concepts leads to people becoming able to think for > themselves, which is anethema to authoritarians, be they corporate or > government. :-) "We will tell you what to think." > > The core tenets of General Semantics are also easy to grasp: > > • Over-generalizing (labeling) leads to false conclusions (The map is not > the territory) What was true in the past is not necessarily true today > Generalizations about groups of people doesn't necessarily apply to > individual members > > • Very few issues are two-valued > > Leslie Might as well contribute my 2 cents' worth to the discussion. Myself, I get gobsmacked practically every day with various species of ignorance. But since my background is in the Humanities, more or less, that is what I notice the most. And I think it is good to point out this characteristic mark in what most people complain about along these lines (of "what's wrong with the world/education/government/etc.); while the things that most offend my sensibilities are those kinds of blunders, at least I can recognize that there are other kinds of knowledge, other kinds of ignorance, other worlds of experience. In my reading, I notice errors that would never have found their way into print only 25 years ago. (I don't just mean online reading, or self-published materials, but rather mainstream books and periodicals.) Books from big publishers are now full of semiliterate crap that staggers the imagination. Little details give a quick glimpse. How often do I read somebody writing about "honing in" [WRONG] on a point, rather than "homing in" [correct]? I used to keep a list of these grievances, until my hard drive crashed, with a view to writing some sort of essay on the sad state of the English language, in its various forms and literatures; and I might still write it, but I need to recover that data, or to start the list again. And I could give hundreds more examples, but readers either know what I mean, or they don't. I came across an online news article about how history was no longer being offered as a course of study (what they call a "major" in the U.S.) in many universities; that it would soon become available only in elite schools, and that the poor or less privileged would naturally be guided to more current or "practical" fields. The same could be said for nearly any of the Humanities; not only history, but also Classics, as well as the study of any subjects that are not tied to either business or the STEM subjects. Also, the so-called "soft" sciences (sociology, anthropology, archaeology, and so on); now they are disparaged as not so "necessary" as the "hard" sciences (those that emphasize measurement, numbers, quantification, etc.); not that these things are not "valued" in a way, as entertainment, or diversion, or hobbies for the rich or leisure class - but they aren't considered worth the time, effort and expense to teach ordinary folks. The general population, if they have any interest in these matters, are expected to do it on their own; to teach themselves by haphazard reading and study, which of course makes them especially susceptible to conspiracy theories and other kinds of manipulation. It is worth noting that most of the 9/11 terrorists had engineering degrees. It isn't that they didn't have enough background in science or maths; it is that their minds had not been broadened by education, reading, and the experience of other people's world views. Don't even get me started about the lack of education in music! It's not that I believe everybody ought to become a musician; only that everybody ought to have some real education in music (i.e., learn to play an instrument or two, learn a little about music theory), because it opens up the mind to other ways of thinking about the world. The same with travel, and learning foreign languages, the study of history, anthropology, and other paths to open up our experience of the world. There is nothing better to teach us about the relativity of our values and concepts than to be immersed in a culture that is totally different from the one in which we were brought up. None of our assumptions about the world work any more; we have to learn to think about the world differently, because everybody around us lives in that different world of experience. And as for history, there is a saying, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." (I forget who said/wrote it first, but online sources tell me that it was a novelist by name of L.P. Hartley.) When we immerse ourselves in another person's thoughts and experience of the world, it opens up new possibilities for ourselves, in our own world. My version of The Rant might make it seem that I discount the value of the hard sciences, and would like to see the Humanities and those soft science better funded. And it is true, I believe that those fields have suffered by an unfair competition against the more "practical" fields. But I would not have people ignorant of science and maths. I watch a lot of science shows on television, so I try to keep up with what's going on in the world. You wouldn't want me working in rocket science, but I pay attention to what the scientists are telling us. You also wouldn't put me in charge of anything that requires advanced mathematics skills; but I would be up for a discussion of mathematical ideas or (especially) paradoxes, such as infinite sets or Godel's theorem. One of those problems that comes up a lot in the practical application of science and technology is why the problems we set out to solve are often exacerbated by the solutions. Technology was supposed to make life easier for us, but instead we have greater disparity of wealth, homelessness, disenfrancisement and dispossesion, widespread hunger, disease, and so on. Those algorithms that were supposed to eliminate human error end up making decisions to kill humans, or at least to arrest them, based on the data they are fed. What is that saying? "garbage in, garbage out"? It is not that I don't welcome the science, not that I resist modern technology; but it is only as good as the data that it is fed. If we ask the wrong questions, we keep getting wrong answers; if we set out to solve social problems, but start with assumptions that contain prejudices (hidden even from ourselves), then we end up reinforcing and intensifying the very problems that we want to solve. The different kind of critical thinking that is taught in the Humanities gives us the tools to consider the humanity of the people themselves. Too often "the people" are regarded as no better than herds of animals; when dealing with government agencies, one cannot fail to detect the attitude of utter contempt for the very persons that they are supposed to be serving. It is not the fault of any one person, nor of too much or too little emphasis on one field of study over others. (I would remind readers that the British empire was ruled by persons who were steeped in the Classics and ancient history, so the Humanities are not by themselves protection against tyranny.) What we need is emphasis on more well rounded education, rather than to allow people to live inside their own self-contained bubbles, or to move only within social circles where everybody else's bubble is like our own. Everybody will naturally find their own abiding interests, anyway, regardless whether they are forced to study other subjects; but making everybody more aware of the rest of the world, and how other people experience the world differently from ourselves; to experience a little of their world, to appreciate beauty in another person's culture or way of life. That will give us the opportunity to develop compassion. And again, it must not be the narrow province of a small group of rich, entitled or elite persons ... whoever they are ..., but ought to be available to everybody. Education ought to be free, and funded by the state; libraries ought to be free, and funded by governments, local and at other levels. Where one cannot get an education, at least libraries offer another way. But now, again, there is talk sometimes of getting rid of libraries altogether (because you can "consume" all that "content" on your computer or other devices); and a lot of the books in my own personal library have come from libraries - books that were discarded from circulation, which I bought up cheap. The "answer", broadly speaking, is the same as ever. We need more education, and everybody needs it, and needs more of it. Where everybody disagrees is that we each feel, in our own bubbles, or in our own social circles, that it is our own field (or fields) that have suffered. What we really each believe, secretly, is that the world would be better off if only we ourselves (or somebody like us, only better, or improved) were allowed to run things. And then, you would see, we would put things right! This is a kind of apocalyptic or magical thinking, in its way (my own special field of study). The believer in these areas looks to overturn the wrong social order; the unjust or ignorant or corrupt will be thrown down, and the righteous or good people (ourselves) will at last be recognized, and assume their rightful places of authority. The antidote of the Humanities is to broaden our experience: either directly, through travel, immersion in another culture, learning a new language; or indirectly, for example through reading, if they are the kinds of books that make us experience the world from a radically different perspective. The trend of the hard sciences, by contrast, tends to sharpen our focus on discrete points of facts or evidence, but sometimes cannot put together bits that, due to our own blind spots, seem unrelated. I could write much more, no doubt, though it will probably be more of the same. I would be glad to give more specific details, on request, but I would hope that my general themes are clear enough. Bill ____________________________________________________ tde-users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web mail archive available at https://mail.trinitydesktop.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
