Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Shirley Serious
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 20:30:00 -
[1]
Something occurred to me the other day.
At school, I was never really taught to question what an article was saying, beyond basics such as: Who is writing this? What are they trying to achieve? And that sort of thing wasn't really taught until quite late at school. (16+)
Then, when I was at university I was taught to really question things. Things like: Why are they using these particular words? What are they not saying? What is their agenda?
So, with most people not going to university, and many not staying on at school beyond 16, how does that affect things with people not questioning the media much? and how does it affect conspiracy theories?
|
JAQUE ALERA
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 04:44:00 -
[2]
Surely you're not serious.
|
pwnedgato
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 04:48:00 -
[3]
Her name is not Shirl...
Originally by: Crumplecorn These is a forum for this.
|
Bob Stuart
Federation Fleet
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 08:29:00 -
[4]
Wut?
Are you saying that there would be less conspiracy theorists if everyone was taught to question what they are told from a young age?
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 10:39:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 06/07/2008 10:41:57
I dont know what kind of view you have on conspiracy theorist... my own is that they are often intelligent, but the media makes them out to be nutcases. And so the sheep cheer on. But if you listen to what they are saying (like in the case of 9/11 for example), they have solid arguments that cannot be swept under the rug.
--- Its dead, Jim.
|
Princess Kyky
Caldari Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 11:45:00 -
[6]
the 5 w's is all you need to know apparently, thats what my english teacher taught me in secondary school
who what when where why ------
|
Gojyu
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 12:19:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 06/07/2008 10:41:57
I dont know what kind of view you have on conspiracy theorist... my own is that they are often intelligent, but the media makes them out to be nutcases. And so the sheep cheer on. But if you listen to what they are saying (like in the case of 9/11 for example), they have solid arguments that cannot be swept under the rug.
No, but they can be thoroughly refuted by scientific evidence. Conspiracy theorists are an educational failure of another kind, that of refusing to analyse your own arguments with the same rigor as one looks at others'
|
Kalahari Wayrest
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 12:20:00 -
[8]
school is about enforcing ideology, university is about questioning it...that was true of my course anyway, but it depends on what you're doing.
that said it's kind of elitist to assume people who don't go to university won't learn to question the world around them just because they weren't specifically taught to.
additionally people can be resistant to indoctrination at school and the system doesn't always work.
But as a general statement comparing the two methods of education, rather than the results of them, you're probably right. __________________________ Indulge Me Consider Yourself Indulged - Immy ♥ Wow immy scored - Xorus
|
Mark Lucius
Kinetic Vector
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 12:31:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Jim McGregor I dont know what kind of view you have on conspiracy theorist... my own is that they are often intelligent, but the media makes them out to be nutcases. And so the sheep cheer on. But if you listen to what they are saying (like in the case of 9/11 for example), they have solid arguments that cannot be swept under the rug.
Conspiracy theorist often have one or two good arguments that at least bring doubt to existing explanations. It is because they are usually mixed with ghost stories and fear-based arguments that stops people from taking them seriously.
Just like everybody else conspiracy theorist also tend to get into one-track minds, which makes them oblivious to proper counter-arguments. They tell us to question what the media is telling us, but they don't really question their theory themselves.
It's impossible to question and research everything for yourselves though, so everybody makes a selection of things to accept and to question. Some people question less than others, but I don't think that is a bad thing. ---
|
P'uck
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 12:43:00 -
[10]
There are people that point out a few things that just don't fit when you look at 9/11. Those are usually called "normally friggin people with a bit of common sense left".
And then there are conspiracy theorists. That's a big difference.
also, 9+11+2+0+0+1=23
|
|
Isiskhan
Gnostic Misanthropy
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 14:57:00 -
[11]
I remember a chapter in a book we had at some point in school for Language where it reproduced side by side two articles on some past French general election: one picked from a left-leaning newspaper, the other from a right-leaning one. They offered wildly different accounts and points of view on the very same event, this appreciation was precisely the point of the chapter, and I distinctly remember finding it quite striking in my then forming mind.
Truth is a whore, and our subjective minds play a far larger and creative role in shaping and interpreting what we perceive as "reality" than we're generally aware of, as well as ignoring the bits that don't fit with what we don't want to believe, amplifying or simply making up the ones that do, seeing patterns where there are none, etc...
Conspiracy theorists are particularly prone to fall for these sort of trappings, as often you'll find there's a strong underlying desire to believe a particular idea beneath their theories, whether it is that aliens are here, or that government is utterly evil, or simply that there's a far more exciting explanation for the world as it is than us humans being dull, selfish and stupid. Some argue that conspiracy theories make the individual feel "empowered" towards the evil "them" who are the ones ultimately responsible for bad things that affect the individual.
But aside from that chapter, yes, in school you are basically taught "facts" about things, whereas in college there's also an emphasis on the "meta-facts". In school you learn about historical events, in college you learn about what makes a good historian, the (scientific) mindset and methods you use to arrive at good historical "facts", the importance and effect of bias and perspective in others' and your own historical "facts", etc...
College is not just about the particular knowledge you acquire, but perhaps more importantly about the mechanisms, disciplines and attitudes your mind learns, and I do think these certainly have an influence in developing a proper framework for critical thinking, whether it's regarding what we see on newspapers, books, tv or the ramblings of some conspiracy nut. Not to say it can't be developed otherwise, of course, but it sure helps - at least if you were paying attention.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 16:27:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Isiskhan But aside from that chapter, yes, in school you are basically taught "facts" about things, whereas in college there's also an emphasis on the "meta-facts". In school you learn about historical events, in college you learn about what makes a good historian, the (scientific) mindset and methods you use to arrive at good historical "facts", the importance and effect of bias and perspective in others' and your own historical "facts", etc...
Ahem... Zzz research towers Direrie NEW: Liekuri
20:1 low-end compression |
Isiskhan
Gnostic Misanthropy
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:40:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Ahem...
Hehe, well, ok... mathematicians are on a league of their own.
|
annoing
Amarr MisFunk Inc. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:51:00 -
[14]
Originally by: pwnedgato Her name is not Shirl...
^^^ this wins "most witty answer of the year award" ^^
Dwi Cymraig
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 17:51:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 06/07/2008 17:55:15
Originally by: Gojyu
No, but they can be thoroughly refuted by scientific evidence. Conspiracy theorists are an educational failure of another kind, that of refusing to analyse your own arguments with the same rigor as one looks at others'
I disagree, you usually have scientists both for and against a theory.
Also scientists are dependent on funding, and no scientist that come up with some other answer than what the funder wants is going to survive.
--- Its dead, Jim.
|
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 02:52:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Princess Kyky the 5 w's is all you need to know apparently, thats what my english teacher taught me in secondary school
who what when where why
How never gets a mention
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Games, EVE Online Email / Netfang |
|
Slade Trillgon
Siorai Iontach Brotherhood of the Spider
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 10:42:00 -
[17]
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
Originally by: Princess Kyky the 5 w's is all you need to know apparently, thats what my english teacher taught me in secondary school
who what when where why
How never gets a mention
Yes the infamous "How" always forgotten like Y is sometimes a vowels.
Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 06/07/2008 17:59:00
Originally by: Gojyu
No, but they can be thoroughly refuted by scientific evidence. Conspiracy theorists are an educational failure of another kind, that of refusing to analyse your own arguments with the same rigor as one looks at others'
I disagree, you usually have scientists both for and against a theory.
Also scientists are dependent on funding, and no scientist that come up with some other answer than what the funder wants is going to survive.
The media also typically invites only people that underlines whatever theory they want to get attention, or they invite someone with a different view and runs over them completely for kicks (O'Reilly or Fox News in general).
There is some good explanation above on the diferences between Universities and grade schools. As for the media, statistics, and conspiracy theorists it couldn't have been said better.
Slade
|
Mark Lucius
Kinetic Vector
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 12:23:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Jim McGregor I disagree, you usually have scientists both for and against a theory.
Also scientists are dependent on funding, and no scientist that come up with some other answer than what the funder wants is going to survive.
The media also typically invites only people that underlines whatever theory they want to get attention, or they invite someone with a different view and runs over them completely for kicks (O'Reilly or Fox News in general).
Scientific evidence != scientist. Proper scientific research makes a scientists opinion superfluous as the results is always the same. Problems and contradictions arise when scientists voice their opinions on matters instead of doing that proper research.
The part about media is spot on though. ---
|
Keorythe
Caldari Terra Rosa Militia Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 12:49:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Mark Lucius
Originally by: Jim McGregor Scientific evidence != scientist. Proper scientific research makes a scientists opinion superfluous as the results is always the same. Problems and contradictions arise when scientists voice their opinions on matters instead of doing that proper research.
The part about media is spot on though.
Yes, and no. One of the biggest problems with studies today is the lack of scientific method. X+Y=Z isn't always true. Yes the experiment will be repeatable and yet it may still be invalid. Often scientists who are seeking to prove something (regardless if it is true or not) will disregard variables that may cause the end result. X+Y=Z but only if W is present invalidates the hypothesis. However, as mentioned before funding plays a big part in this as well and while unethical its not that hard for a scientist to turn a blind eye to certain variables and still produce a case study which looks well researched.
As to the media thing, all outlets have their slant in one direction or another. However, in the end its all about ratings. Reuters, Fox, AP, CNN, and MSN have all played the sensationalism game equally. Its just not going to get you ratings for very long if someone comes out and disproves "global warming prediction 50,000 people will die in tsunami of doom". Instead of being able to milk a story its killed and they end up with slow news days.
Oh, and college doesn't make someone more intelligent. And frankly it doesn't teach you anything that you aren't already willing to learn. College will only enhance your curiousity which needed to be there in the first place.
|
Mark Lucius
Kinetic Vector
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 13:39:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Keorythe Yes, and no. One of the biggest problems with studies today is the lack of scientific method. X+Y=Z isn't always true. Yes the experiment will be repeatable and yet it may still be invalid. Often scientists who are seeking to prove something (regardless if it is true or not) will disregard variables that may cause the end result. X+Y=Z but only if W is present invalidates the hypothesis. However, as mentioned before funding plays a big part in this as well and while unethical its not that hard for a scientist to turn a blind eye to certain variables and still produce a case study which looks well researched.
My reply to Jim was to point out that scientific evidence is not always unreliable because scientists are fallible (for whatever reason). You are basically saying the same as Jim, so my response stands.
You are right that a research can be flawed because certain aspects have been overlooked or ignored, but to state that scientific evidence is similar to having an opinion is plain wrong. Proper scientific evidence is simply not bound to the person doing the research. ---
|
|
nahtoh
Caldari StrikerCorp
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 21:22:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Shirley Serious Something occurred to me the other day.
At school, I was never really taught to question what an article was saying, beyond basics such as: Who is writing this? What are they trying to achieve? And that sort of thing wasn't really taught until quite late at school. (16+)
Then, when I was at university I was taught to really question things. Things like: Why are they using these particular words? What are they not saying? What is their agenda?
So, with most people not going to university, and many not staying on at school beyond 16, how does that affect things with people not questioning the media much? and how does it affect conspiracy theories?
**** ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
Shirley Serious
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 22:58:00 -
[22]
Originally by: nahtoh Edited by: nahtoh on 07/07/2008 21:32:42 Well perhaps that was not the best approch...
So your trying to say that only higher education outfits you for any kind of inquisitve thought? Or without soem kind of instuition that allows you to question what is said?
Pergaps foir you thats true, but do not project your mental lazyness onto others.
No. I'm saying that schools don't really encourage their pupils to think for themselves, while universities do a better job.
My parents got their opinions from the Daily Express, and never taught me to really think for myself. Most of the children in my age were the same. If they're not encouraged to think for themselves at home, and schools don't do much, then will they ever think for themselves? Or just believe what the papers say?
|
nahtoh
Caldari StrikerCorp
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 00:22:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Shirley Serious
Originally by: nahtoh Edited by: nahtoh on 07/07/2008 21:32:42 Well perhaps that was not the best approch...
So your trying to say that only higher education outfits you for any kind of inquisitve thought? Or without soem kind of instuition that allows you to question what is said?
Pergaps foir you thats true, but do not project your mental lazyness onto others.
No. I'm saying that schools don't really encourage their pupils to think for themselves, while universities do a better job.
My parents got their opinions from the Daily Express, and never taught me to really think for myself. Most of the children in my age were the same. If they're not encouraged to think for themselves at home, and schools don't do much, then will they ever think for themselves? Or just believe what the papers say?
They can pull their head of their arse by themselves... ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |