Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 100 of 100

Thread: Free Speech Isn't an Academic Value

  1. #91
    Sensational
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,498
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Free Speech Isn't an Academic Value

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWonka View Post
    Critical Thinking allows a person to recognize and identify fallacious lines of reasoning very quickly and very easily with confidence. Racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, Islamophobia, ... each of these are very obvious examples of hasty generalizations. They are wrong. Knowing what is right can be difficult sometimes, but recognizing what is wrong can often time be very easy. Unfortunately for many older people the so-called wisdom that comes from age is very often more accurately described as prejudice. You get to a point where you think your age and experience has taught you all you need to know about the world and when young people with their new ideas come along it can be hard to see the merit without admitting to your own blind spots and failures for not realizing these things sooner.

    Your nonsense sounds like nothing more than standard issue generational hatred. The kids didn't put Trump in office, baby boomers did. It's time to start admitting that the kids are smarter than their parents.
    The "kids" are self indulgent, immature spoiled brats who know little to nothing about adult life.

  2. #92
    Sensational
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,498
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Free Speech Isn't an Academic Value

    Quote Originally Posted by Nilhus View Post
    Anyone who "knows" (whoa! as if it's a fact!) that "their discipline vastly outstrips that of all others but their peers" automatically think of themselves as being superior to others.

    But that's OK!

    The only problem is that many academics quite often have close to zero actual and relevant "comprehension" of "their discipline". Over 99% of papers that get published in "peer reviewed journals" are pure JUNK with ZERO VALUE!

    The biggest problem that academia faces nowadays is in the area of scientific research - the rigorous standards of research that lead to actual advances in science are under constant attack from a variety of parties: from other fields in academia(like social "sciences" - no there's no actual science in there, philosophy and so on) and sometimes from their own ranks - that is from people who should know better what science is, but discovered that they can advance in careers a lot easier and/or get funding if they lie and make wild claims about their area of research.
    My oldest child was literally published internationally in scientific journals and was receiving corporate grant money while still in high school, then attending a top private science and technology university on full scholarship. However, she abandoned the field of science for exactly the reason you gave.

    Instead, went into the military as the quickest way to get the first degrees. The military recognized the mind and skill sets, and in a fashion she does "scientific" research for practical use in state-of-the-art warfare.

    Usually, scientific "research" is hired and what scientists sell is their title as research is hired to reach the conclusions the scientists were hired to reach. Trying to do any research in many fields - particularly environmentalism - is constrained by whoever is paying for the research - meaning buying the conclusions they want. Letting the facts lead to whatever conclusions they do isn't how it works. It is about money, not science. Science is secondary and more often whoring out scientific titles than legitimate research.

  3. #93
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,100

    Re: Free Speech Isn't an Academic Value

    Quote Originally Posted by TDGonDP View Post
    Good post by Xelar! Good question (re: Heckler's Veto) from Harshaw.

    Like many others, I have been subject to a lot of political correctness from both the left and right. People don't want to hear what I have to say. And sometimes it's better just to shut up. Which then means I have caved into the pressure to keep a certain opinion away from the discourse.

    I recall a Canadian situation where a liberal celebrity debated an academic racist about the superiority of certain races. The academic had all sorts of evidence to support his perspective; the celebrity had the crowd cheering at certain points and booing at certain points. In terms of proffering arguments and rebuttals based on facts and logic, the racist won hands down.

    How should academic institutions handle "emotional" crowds when trying to display a sense of a fairness to both sides, even when one side has a reprehensible argument?
    Emotions are the problem, since being emotional makes one unable to reason and infer. Emotions will create bias, that often need to be defended, in an over compensating way, leading to the need to censor. A rational person can handle a wider range of free speech.

    When the brain creates memory, it adds emotional tags to the sensory content as they are written to the cerebral matter. Our memory has both emotional valence and sensory content. Since memory is binary, we can trigger memory from either the emotional side or sensory content side of the coin. For example, I can feel hungry. This feeling will trigger images of food will in my mind; emotion first. Or I can think of my favorite food item and start to get hungry; sensory content first. In both cases the same memory coin is played, but with differences.

    That being said, there are endless sensory content situations using our five senses. On the other hand, there are only a limited number of emotions. In terms of tagging, this limited number of emotions are recycled and used for a wide range of content. For example, the feeling of satisfaction from good food, applies to a wide range of things.

    The problem with emotional thinking; emotions first, is, if I was trigger say a feeling of anger in you, since this anger tag is used for many situations in memory, a lot of extra baggage can come up, even things not connected to the conservation. These can become blended, as one thing, simply because it has same emotional tag. People can overreact, thereby requiring censor so they don't blow a gasket.

    A rational person will approach their memory, content first. If you approach memory this way; facts, emotions are still triggered, but they will fluctuate as the content changes within the logic and premises. Those who use emotional first, can't shift emotional gears as easily. Once you push a certain emotional button, this can result in baggage resonance. The N-word is just a noise to someone who begins with content first. The emotional thinker, will feel fear and anger, which brings up a lot of other memory.

    Liberal education teaches emotional thinking, which has resulted in the need to censor. The Constitution and free speech assumes content first type of thinking. If you consider President Trump and the emotional thinking of the left, there is a single emotion of hate that will tag everything, good or bad, rational or irrational. Then cannot separate one from the other. Early on, Trump was associated with Hitler and other evil leaders, as a projection of a personal memory that also had a hate tag. Emotional thinker need therapy so they can learn how to use content first thinking, so each issue is treated a separate thing, and not part of an emotional clustering.

    The snowflakes, who feel stress all the time, is based on an emotional resonance and associated memory baggage. It is hard for them to see each event, as unique to itself ,and subject to logic and reason.
    Last edited by wellwisher; 07-10-19 at 08:52 AM.

  4. #94
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    30,589
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Free Speech Isn't an Academic Value

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Universities are inherently anti-free speech. Professors (or their aids) lecture. Students are to accept whatever they are told as facts. Students are tested in their ability to recite and understand the professor and materials.
    In short, students are tests on how precise they can submissively recite what they were told.

    There is no reason to look to college kids for free speech occasions because universities inherently are anti-free speech and pro unquestioning submissiveness to professors as if they are omniscient gods.
    Wow. Which school did you go to?
    "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks, though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
    -Donald Trump-

  5. #95
    Sage
    bomberfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,895

    Re: Free Speech Isn't an Academic Value

    Charles Murray is a total fraud who has absolutely no experience in cognitive science so the Op defending him as if he is an authority is really dumb. The students were incredibly out of line however. Murray is a shill for the pioneer fund so all that stuff about correct speech goes against Murray.


    See also the reason twump cultists need to play little “hypocrisy” games is they know they are in deep **** so the only way they can pull off any victory is by trying to make their opponents look just as bad as they are. Its the never play defense tactic

  6. #96
    Sage
    bomberfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,895

    Re: Free Speech Isn't an Academic Value

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    My oldest child was literally published internationally in scientific journals and was receiving corporate grant money while still in high school, then attending a top private science and technology university on full scholarship. However, she abandoned the field of science for exactly the reason you gave.

    Instead, went into the military as the quickest way to get the first degrees. The military recognized the mind and skill sets, and in a fashion she does "scientific" research for practical use in state-of-the-art warfare.

    Usually, scientific "research" is hired and what scientists sell is their title as research is hired to reach the conclusions the scientists were hired to reach. Trying to do any research in many fields - particularly environmentalism - is constrained by whoever is paying for the research - meaning buying the conclusions they want. Letting the facts lead to whatever conclusions they do isn't how it works. It is about money, not science. Science is secondary and more often whoring out scientific titles than legitimate research.
    tell that to Charles Murray. He is a paid shill for a eugenics organization.


    See also the reason twump cultists need to play little “hypocrisy” games is they know they are in deep **** so the only way they can pull off any victory is by trying to make their opponents look just as bad as they are. Its the never play defense tactic

  7. #97
    Sage
    Fledermaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    65,931

    Re: Free Speech Isn't an Academic Value

    Quote Originally Posted by bomberfox View Post
    tell that to Charles Murray. He is a paid shill for a eugenics organization.
    Citation would be nice.
    'All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.'

    Douglas Adams

  8. #98
    Sage
    Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,357

    Re: Free Speech Isn't an Academic Value

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Universities are inherently anti-free speech. Professors (or their aids) lecture. Students are to accept whatever they are told as facts. Students are tested in their ability to recite and understand the professor and materials.
    In short, students are tests on how precise they can submissively recite what they were told.

    There is no reason to look to college kids for free speech occasions because universities inherently are anti-free speech and pro unquestioning submissiveness to professors as if they are omniscient gods.
    I disagree. It is the individuals who are either pro- or anti-free speech, not institutions. Students who accept whatever they are told as facts have no business being in a college or university. That should have ended by grammar school. In grammar school you learn by rote. In high school you are taught how to teach yourself, so that by the time you attend college or university you are able to educate yourself with the aid of a professor or teaching assistant. College is when you should be questioning everything. College and university students are expected to perform due diligence and verify the information they are being fed is correct and accurate.

  9. #99
    Educator FinnFox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Finland
    Last Seen
    04-28-20 @ 01:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    744

    Re: Free Speech Isn't an Academic Value

    This issue is similar to academic freedom and there's few reasons why academic freedom not exist (as in form we like to think/hope). I was only one winter in university (just wasting my time, since it's free - not truly free as it's tax funded), just listening lectures about epistemology, history of philosophy, philosophy of science, ethics and skepticism. I remember one day when I talked with professor after all students left auditorium. Professor's take on academic freedom was kind of multi-layer answer. In other hand there's some debate between academic professionals what's not always seeing any daylight - because it's not actual research, that's staying in gray area and not being valued in any way - "only science matter" field is pretty strong mind set in universities and I get that.

    On other hand some theoretical findings (from field of philosophy, like philosophy of science) don't have real leverage over things even when there's enough logic in it. Funny thing is that you can end up being PhD without even be aware of those things, because they are seen somewhat weak (from other fields of science). If you think things like critique and what kind of things can be / should be in cross hairs (focus in right spot). In my opinion philosophy is special position to be aware of many things what's even remotely theoretical (by that I mean logical analysis, epistemology and philosophy of science) - you can't just cover them with some other random stuff (if you do so, you're not that smart).

    Then we have huge research bias in (all?) universities and it's like that in may ways, but I take only 2 ways up. First is that research is usually funded (all or partly) by corporations, so they have something to say what kind of research we should do in our universities. I think this is underestimated issue and problem is that we don't even know how much it's slowing down us to reach significant inventions (because research field is narrowed down to match with corporate interests). I get it that university is powered by money, but when it's done by dominating academic field and narrowing down what's included in research. You can't fund all possible ideas, I get that, but when money is mostly coming from private sector they are also tempted to think what they can get out of it: outsource research and take profit - so it's always investment for corporations. Academic freedom dies when all intentions are coming from outside.

    Another bias is part of discussion about what's real science and what's pseudo science. When we think free speech and there's some random guy talking about flat earth in university. University isn't mainly for jokes, we know that, right.. so we should say "this guy is just stupid, better kick him out ASAP". Also I can imagine lot of ethically problematic situations when free speech is just "vomiting" cesspool stuff (worst possible things what we can imagine) and at some point we have to think how to deal with that. Sometimes we face moments where we can see dishonesty, intellectual lagging, even deflecting or something else weird from lecturer. Only one example from my personal experience: lecturer took some time, stayed silent for a moment and then told: "there must be something wrong, because if not, my position should be different (what he thinks about it) and because my opinion isn't changed so far, there must be something wrong, but I can't say what it is". When you face things like that while sitting in university, you're pretty sure that there's some serious flaws (just basic human flaws) and how it's showing. Some flaws are more or less permanent and in that quote you can find hint why it's difficult to get pure scientific environment even in universities.
    Last edited by FinnFox; 07-11-19 at 01:46 AM.
    Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus

    IFF Conservatism is against progress, it's a sickness

  10. #100
    Professor

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Lebanon Oregon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,216

    Re: Free Speech Isn't an Academic Value

    I am pretty much ignoring most of these posts by everyone and just going to yak. A broad and diverse expression of ideas is definitely a value appropriate to colleges. It should be a value in high school too, but we are way too cowardly and controlling as parents to permit it. There is no doubt that the quality of an idea to be expressed, is directly impacted by the quality of the expression. If you can't communicate it clearly and concisely you are not doing anyone much good, but it would be silly to generalize about the caliber of either the art of such expression or its value when its coming from a student. Some students are good at this sort of thing and have been for years. Others never learned squat about the self discipline, and humility involved in waiting, listening and learning before trying to communicate and both will be sitting in any auditorium or lecture hall. Lets not critique them as a class.

    These speeches, panel discussions and 'open forums' (relative term that!) all have rules and there are expectations on both the audience and the presenters and organizers.
    Its all about providing an opportunity for either one way or two way communication and usually both at least part of the time. I cannot recall an event where there wasn't at least some opportunity for questions or comments by audience members - maybe almost all the time, maybe the last 45 minutes or 30 minutes, but most speakers realize that audiences expect to have some interaction time. Some of this is common sense. People come to see and hear who they expected to see and hear. The audience put aside time, got dressed, drove their cars to listen to the advertised speakers, not each other, so the most important communication is from the speakers to the audience. I think the audience is entitled to have access to those ideas, and insofar as hecklers or monopolizers are interfering with that fundamental purpose, they are being SELF-CENTERED ARROGANT JERKS. I am disinterested in a 'free speech' entitlement, when the fundamental entitlement of an audience rests more on ears than mouth. If some students want to protest the appearance or ideas of a speaker or panel member, I think that is great! Do it outside. Do it far enough away or quietly enough to make sure you are not interfering with the compact I described, between a willing/ eager audience and speaker.

    That is the expression of ideas that matters most because colleges depend on it to supplement the ideas and biases of the faculty. No socialists in your political studies dept? Then invite them! No room on the syllabus for an in depth discussion of the age of enlightenment in Europe? well there are a couple of Professors from Yale who can help out! But it all requires that universities be able to impose some discipline on those who intend to be this more about something else than the agenda provided.

    Let's let them do that.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •