The Yale Problem Begins in High School • Hacker News Board

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#471

Post by wbsgrepit » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 4:44 AM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #323

nostromo wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in a classroom setting, the students should feel free to debate the composition of the moon. Very quickly, the proposal that the moon is made of Vince Foster would be dismissed as false. This is critical thinking in action. The problem today is that students and faculty are self-censoring. This doesn't expand erudition.

> But in a classroom setting, the students should feel free to debate the composition of the moon. No, they shouldn't, and I'll follow-up as to why below. >Very quickly, the proposal that the moon is made of Vince Foster would be dismissed as false. This is critical thinking in action. Given sufficient rhetorical skill and sufficiently many appeals to "open thought" or "questioning assumptions" or "viewpoint diversit…

Yes, because it is imperative to teach and learn by rote. If any idea is commonly held to be true, there is no reason to have any discourse. Even for ideas that seem to be binary this is just ridiculous -- you will note that this position would preclude discussing topics and discoveries regarding a round earth, DNA, electricity, and many other understood "truths" over human history.

Discourse and unpopular ideas drive discovery and learning more than memorization ever will. It does not mean that unpopular views are "right" it means that the act of understanding, listening to other perspectives and being able to construct your own beliefs in that discourse is a net win and absolutely core to higher learning; even if the unpopular view is garbage.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#472

Post by wbsgrepit » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 4:47 AM UTC

fleitz wrote: post #455

dragonwriter wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The epistemological method in use in the class, so for instance in theology appeals to faith or words written thousands of years ago would be acceptable, while you'd probably want to reject appeals to logic/rationality. Theology, while its foundational principles may be established on the basis of revelation such as scripture, often proceeds from foundational principles by logic.

The foundational principles are usually logically inconsistent with each other. Please explain how you proceed logically from the position that eating from the tree of knowledge is sin?

Given that eating from the tree of knowledge is sin ...

=)

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#473

Post by wbsgrepit » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 4:51 AM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #280

1812Overture wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a history class that can't make a strong argument that the holocaust wasn't a hoax and a law class that can't make the argument that rape victims exist are in VERY serious trouble. Being able to debunk such looney claims is very valuable for students so they should develop these skills not be shielded from exposure to them.

In general I agree with you, but having dealt with (less severe) examples of this with some coworkers, it's really, really annoying. When someone simply states their (contrary or contrarian) viewpoint and refuses to admit any evidence presented is valid, you can't win. It's an exercise in futility. I had a guy simply insisting that evolution wasn't real. "Ok", I say, "what about (found some reports demonstrating obse…

At one point in our history, it was contrary to known and upheld belief that the world was round. Given your position would we have ever had the debate and changed popular belief considering it was absurd by its very nature?

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#474

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 5:10 AM UTC

fleitz wrote: post #455

dragonwriter wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The epistemological method in use in the class, so for instance in theology appeals to faith or words written thousands of years ago would be acceptable, while you'd probably want to reject appeals to logic/rationality. Theology, while its foundational principles may be established on the basis of revelation such as scripture, often proceeds from foundational principles by logic.

The foundational principles are usually logically inconsistent with each other. Please explain how you proceed logically from the position that eating from the tree of knowledge is sin?

"Please explain how you proceed logically from the position that eating from the tree of knowledge is sin?"

This doesn't seem hard. Apologist hat on.

It wasn't the knowledge that was bad, it's that the knowledge was attained by doing what God said not to. Certainly, we can condemn things done in pursuit of knowledge - Mengele being probably the easiest example.

That hat fit kinda funny.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#475

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 5:44 AM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #474

fleitz wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The foundational principles are usually logically inconsistent with each other. Please explain how you proceed logically from the position that eating from the tree of knowledge is sin?

"Please explain how you proceed logically from the position that eating from the tree of knowledge is sin?" This doesn't seem hard. Apologist hat on. It wasn't the knowledge that was bad, it's that the knowledge was attained by doing what God said not to. Certainly, we can condemn things done in pursuit of knowledge - Mengele being probably the easiest example. That hat fit kinda funny.

[deleted]

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#476

Post by thelastguy » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 6:51 AM UTC

karmacondon wrote: post #364

rthomas6 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are some. Note that I do not necessarily believe these ideas, just that they are considered taboo to the point that they cannot be tolerated or seriously discussed in certain circles. * The USA is a moral country. * The USA is morally superior to most/all other countries. * A specific member of an in-power "preferred" group can experience unjustified prejudice, oppression, and bullying from members of an out-of-…

There are just tenants of liberal vs conservative philosophy. If you hang out with a certain group of people, half of those things will be unspeakably taboo. If you hang out with the Young Republicans, the other half will be just as unthinkable. That's just culture and world view, not censorship. If someone says something unpopular on hackernews, ie "Edward Snowden is a traitor" they will be downvoted into oblivion.…

>I think this effect is just as relevant and predictable with online communities as it is with college campuses.

Nope. Totally different. In your example, the poster on HackerNews would only get down-voted and thus, censored. Okay. No big deal.

What's happening at the universities right now is different. It is not censership. At these, universities, a person who says, "Edward Snowden is a traitor" would get fired, because students would force the administrators to fired the person they disagree with, because it's "offensive" to call Edward Snowden a traitor.

So totally different. On HackerNews, it's just a down-vote, a simple censorship. At the universities, the person loses his job/education/livelihood, all because he has a different opinion about Edward Snowden. That's not censorship. That's "ruinning-people's-lives-for-having-a-different-opinion" but trying to pass it off as just a simple censorship.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#477

Post by thelastguy » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 6:58 AM UTC

rm999 wrote: post #265

marknutter wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is seriously your argument? That's so fatalistic: this is the way things are, so this is the way things will be. You're also arguing a very "us" vs "them" mentality, which is what makes professions gendered to begin with. Yeah, seriously. It's my argument. Did I not sound serious enough? Are you addressing the content within my argument or the tone of my argument? I'm not being fatalistic, I'm genuinely asking…

Discussing nursing isn't relevant, and even if it is two wrongs don't make a right , which is the logical fallacy you keep making here. But if you want to hear me say it: there's a shortage of nurses and the fact that men aren't going into it due to social pressures is an issue. >You know what we need more of in tech? People Lowest hanging fruit: actively do something about the fact that half the population isn't goi…

There's so many fields out there, so why should ALL women goes into tech?

You may say, "But why doesn't more women goes into tech?"

Well, let me ask this then, "So 80% of women goes into nursing. Why don't MORE women goes into nursing? Why not 90%? Why not 97.2% Or heck, why NOT less women? Why not some other arbitrary number?"

There are many fields out there. Each fields has it's own arbitrary number of men and women working in it. Why must a specific field have a specific quota of women?

You would say, "Because there's not enough women in tech."

And I would say, "Why is that not enough? What would be consider enough for women in tech? For women in other fields? For women in each and every fields? Why must there be 50% women and 50% men in tech? Why must there be 50% women and 50% men in any field? In every fields? How can there even possible be 50% men and 50% women in all fields?"

So you see, when you really start thinking about it, all these quotas just become nonsensical. In fact, I remember in history, a form of government where the government enforced quotas. And it's call Communism.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#478

Post by thelastguy » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 7:42 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #112

lumberjack wrote: post #25

These people act this way because they are elitist. They think they know what should be better than anyone else and therefore there is no need for debate or for rights like free speech. I find that quite ironic because presumably, these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. But maybe there isn't so much of a contradiction. They are simply more elitist than they are anything else. They don't really stand for eq…

The interesting part is not why these people do this, but why they are winning.

Because everybody is too afraid to confront them.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#479

Post by thelastguy » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 7:48 AM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #199

BurningFrog wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting part is not why these people do this, but why they are winning.

This is the most interesting part of the whole phenomenon. I think the answer is that everyone is scared to confront them. The modus operandi of this movement is to personally attack the character of anyone who disagrees with them. They've toppled university presidents, CEOs, and politicians. They got Rolling Stone to publish a completely unsubstantiated article falsely accusing a bunch of young men of a vicious gang…

>I think the answer is that everyone is scared to confront them.

Yep. They're winning because people are too afraid to confront them. And people are too afraid to confront them because this is what happens when you confront them...

At Work: They complained to HR that you sexually harass them. You get fired.

As an Administrator at Universities, Schools: They accused you of being racist, and you get fired.

As a Student at Campus: They and their 100 mob of students surround you. They are clearly angry. 100 people. Surrounded you. Angry. Anything goes. You will obviously have to apologize for having a different view than them, if you want to get out of there in one piece.

Online: They accuse you of doxxing them. The mods bans you.

And so on and so on...

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#480

Post by thelastguy » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 7:57 AM UTC

rmxt wrote: post #353

caseysoftware wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line I quoted says "doesn't like" not "hate" but by equating the two and then banning "hate speech" you are succeeding in your goal of shutting down ideas and discussion. Well done.

Distilling one's "like" of a person down to their sexual preference [or skin color/religion/take on abortion/etc.] isn't exactly the best way to promote ideas and discussion, either. I am not sure if someone saying "I don't like gay people" is the best person to defend in the debate of "what is free speech?", which is what it seems like you are trying to sarcastically do here. Note, this coworker in question didn't s…

He has the right to no like gay people. Just like you have to right to not like [insert whatever it is that you don't like]

As long as he don't act out on it, and go around killing gay people or something.

Just like you have the right to not like George Bush, or football jocks, or goths, or whatever. Nothing wrong with that. As long as you don't try to assassinate George Bush, you have the right to not like him.

I mean, sure, not liking gays make him a homophobic, but as long as he don't continuously go around calling all gays "Faggot" to their faces, harassing them, threatening them, etc.