Affirmative Action for Conservative Professors

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Agathon
The exception is economics, where they have done well in the last 20 years. If there were such a left wing conspiracy, then economics departments would be very left wing.

Right you are. I find it incredible that Tories can still find something to complain about. For Christ's sake, look at how the world is being run!

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
And yet, there is an admission that conservatives are winning the battle of ideas in economics.

They're winning on the field, not in the textbooks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ain't he been livin' in Texas?

He's originally from Wyoming and that is where he was a Congressman. He's only been in Texas for a few years relatively.

It's like a person who lives in New York and then moves to Florida when they turn 60. They ain't Floridians!

[Ben Kenobi]

Conservatism, by definitition, seeks to defend the status quo. It deems the status quo to be superior and change to be an attack, a destruction, a negative.

No. The status quo is not always superior when confronted with excellent argumentation. The only requirement is that lacking sufficient rationale, one must go with the status quo. The burden of proof is on the innovators.

They simply cannot afford honest intellectual thought,

Just the opposite. Because the burden of proof is on the innovators, this must be counterbalanced by freedom of speech and expression. Conservatives are not insecure about the status quo, but demand proof that the innovators are correct. In demanding such proof, the innovators must be allowed to speak their mind.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
By definition, conservativism has no ideas, no thought, no reason and no philosophy. So, by definition, liberals should win the battle of ideas even in economics as they are contending against semi-literate people, obviously unintelligent, uninformed and more than that, bigotted.

One doesn't have to be bigoted to be a conservative, nor does one have to be uninformed or stupid. Conservatism is a state of mind that is more supportive of the status quo than change. One can be a bigoted conservative, and refuse to accept any new thing that doesn't confirm your view, or one can be slightly affected by conservatism, and simply be cautious towards new ideas and concepts. And of course, one can be between both extremes.

Bigoted conservatives fare very badly in academia because they will not accept the questioning of their dogma. Slight conservatives can be very valuable academics, in that they can be willing to change their views after careful scrutiny of the new ideas. As such, some conservatives are an excellent asset for science (I'm thinking of Raymond Boudon, famous conservative French sociologist, who has spent his life criticizing the works of Pierre Bourdieu with a serious and honest method - I disagree with the guy, but I think he has helped the academia in this regard).

OTOH, extreme liberals, who'll embrass any new idea that opposes the old dogmas may fare well in the academia for short term, but they'll rarely be mentioned as serious sources in the future, once their hasty works get discredited.

[Berzerker]

What is the function of judging?

Why apply value to it?

Personally, I disagree with gravity, and find it immoral.

You don't judge that which is inevitable.

You judge because you have a choice. That is bad, because I could have chosen something else, something better, something good.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
Another retarded post from the person who, according to his padded resume, represents all Americans, particularly the American right, and who is entiled by his personal coronation of himself as the sole enlightened American conservative (who btw, hates Bush and likes Kerry) to unrinate on fellow Apolytoners with whom he disagrees.

When in fact I never claimed to represent all Americans - I just asked Spiffor to realize that you don't, and not to judge us based on your peculiar delusions.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I think Agathon's point in the opening post is sound.

Academia is about presenting theories, and then checking them with facts. This is the scientific method the whole academia agrees upon, and there has been so far no breakthrough (however, a whole field of science is dedicated on how to improve scientific research). I don't think the scientific method applies to philosophy, because I don't think philosophy considers itself a science.

Anybody who wants to use old ideological arguments in science is doomed to be very disappointed by the results. Conservative prejudices, much like leftist prejudices are doomed do scientific failure.

Now, conservatives are keen on conserving millenia-old dogma. They rely on a very rich folklore that accumulated over the time. Liberals do have their folklore, but it is much younger (there is quite a gap between Moses and Marx), and as such liberals are more prone to question it. Besides, most of the liberal folklore is a consequence of Enlightenment, and as such has values of rationality deeply ingrained: if a liberal dogma is proven wrong, many *will accept to learn from the failure - OTOH conservative/religious dogma has been proven bull****, or at least inconsistent for centuries, and yet you'll see "scientists" defending the most ludicrous of arguments, such as anti-evolutionism.

Academia is about the progress of science, about discovering new things, and about proving wrong past certitudes. Many conservatives will try to argue with arguments that have been proven wrong by newer research. These kind of guys will not fare well, and only those conservatives able to throw their wrong prejudices to the bin will satisfy the demands of the job.


*I know quite a few liberals will never accept to learn from their mistakes, even in Academia. But liberal folklore, being younger and putting more emphasis on rationality, will not know as many "defenders of the Word" as the conservatives.

Spiffor - "Conservativism" may be, for any specific time period, something from the past, but it is almost never justified on basis of tradition. Do you really think, for example, I am conservative because of my fond/nonexistant memories of the past?

[Kuciwalker]

Things like:

Conservatism, by definitition, seeks to defend the status quo. It deems the status quo to be superior and change to be an attack, a destruction, a negative.

and

Conservatism is a state of mind that is more supportive of the status quo than change.

Are utterly IGNORANT statements. "Conservativism" is used to refer to a general set of policies (it is further split into social and economic conservativism) that are NOT defined by the fact that they are the "status quo" or recently were so. They may happen to BE the status quo or recently have been the status quo, but that doesn't define them. Most conservatives (as many as liberals) would not defend something simply because it was status quo, and thus you cannot attack "conservativism" as such. You can only attack the individual policies, and just as much as the fact that they are the status quo doesn't make them right, it ALSO doesn't make them wrong or closeminded. If I had always believed 2+2=4, and you told me 2+2=5, I'm not being "closeminded" because I don't believe you

[Ramo]

What is the function of judging?

Why apply value to it?

These judgements are reflections of my emotions (which are not rational, and still would not be even if I did have free will). From these emotions, I can form an ethical basis to determine what sorts of social interactions are good and bad. And I can promote these ethical ideas through my actions and through talking with others - which changes behavior. Is there any reason why I shouldn't do that?

Personally, I disagree with gravity, and find it immoral.

You don't judge that which is inevitable.

I can not talk with gravity and convince it not to impose constraints on people since gravity is not intelligent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Skywalker, you are incorrect. Conservativism from its roots is a theory which favors tradition over radical change. Conservativism believes in gradual change, where traditions are not uprooted, but perhaps altered slowly. Traditions are the accumulation of history's wisdom, as Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, would say. Therefore it makes no sense to overturn it simply because something new is around. They would rather support the status quo unless it can be proven than the new thing is better.

[Spiffor]

Skywalker:

Not because of your fond / nonexistant memories from the past. But because of the certitudes you have accumulated, and these certitudes do have an origin way older than you. You may have developed some certitudes on your own (and you'll continue to do so), but most of your knowledge and feelings come from your education, like anybody.

The main difference is that you mostly accept the world "as it is already". Even if we look at schmooism, it is very close from the American system of today, except that schmooism isn't full of corruption and pork.

"Duh" is a word you use very often in arguments, referring either to common sense (you'll notice "common sense" is almost inevitably summoned by conservatives), or to something you believe should be obvious to everybody.

In this regard, you'd be a bad academic, because you seem to believe the truth lies in the already known, rather than the unknown.

Now, I am nervous, sleepy, and I talk out of my rump, so you may disregard this whole post

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Skywalker, you are incorrect. Conservativism from its roots is a theory which favors tradition over radical change. Conservativism believes in gradual change, where traditions are not uprooted, but perhaps altered slowly. Traditions are the accumulation of history's wisdom, as Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, would say. Therefore it makes no sense to overturn it simply because something new is around. They would rather support the status quo unless it can be proven than the new thing is better.

That's not conservativism, that logic - don't replace something with something that isn't better. However, conservativism is used to refer to a set of policies, and the fact that I agree with some of those policies does not make me "conservative" in the sense that I have blind faith in the status quo (or indeed attach any importance to it).

[Kuciwalker]

The point is that I, and (most likely) many other conservatives do not hold that a position is good because it has some relation to the status quo (in fact, it's pointless to do so). By saying "don't replace the current system with one that we don't know is better", I'm not endorsing the status quo, I'm just saying that inaction is better than an action that, given what we no of it, provide no benefit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's not conservativism, that logic - don't replace something with something that isn't better.

You're not getting it. In politics you aren't really sure what is better. It is don't totally replace something that works with something we aren't sure will be better.

By saying "don't replace the current system with one that we don't know is better", I'm not endorsing the status quo, I'm just saying that inaction is better than an action that, given what we no of it, provide no benefit.

Like you said here... but it's still supporting the status quo more than change. Every political change has some leap of faith involved in it.