JS Mill, free speech, and creationism/global warming

[Ramo]

I've heard all of these arguments before almost as many times as I've made them myself. The problem is that we're effectively using the schools to combat a widely held ideology. I know that's education, that it's science, but it is predicated on the absolute certainty that we are right and they are wrong.

No, it's not. It's based on the likelyhood that the scientific community isn't full of ****. Again, what do you want a school's curriculum to be based on if not academic consensus?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I agree, and I don't think you really can scientifically justify creationism/intelligent design. But these people sincerely believe that they are doing proper science, and that they are being muzzled by authority. Their response is to try to use the same weapons against evolution.

I have grave doubt about the sincerity of belief of a number of leading intelligent design advocates.

Anyway, if freedom of speech includes having your ideas taught in school, we're gonna have to let in not only creationists, but every sort of revisionist, crank, and dissident. Amusing as it might be to teach both Gobineauan white supremacism and Panafricanism, it'd basically be the end of education. There's flat-earthers, pi=3 people, pyramidologists, Dubyah-is-Antichrist'ers and Mormons out there, all of whom has as good a claim to equal time or teach-the-controversy in the classroom as do the creationists.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
Not really. The followers of the widely-held ideology see it that way, and are attempting to fight back.

-Arrian

I think they're right that we're using it as a weapon. I'm not sure that we shouldn't.

[Drake Tungsten]

Of course you do.

What's that supposed to mean?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Nope. Right on.

Give me an example where they are physically harming people

It wasn't in response to your initial post, but to this:

I disagree completely.

which was in response to:

Look, allowing people to speak is a good idea, but limits are required. If their speech violates some more important ideal then it must be limited.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Then can all public education.

-Arrian

well duh, JS Mill didnt believe in state schools, IIRC.


"Were the duty of enforcing universal education once admitted, there would be an end to the difficulties about what the State should teach, and how it should teach, which now convert the subject into a mere battle-field for sects and parties, causing the time and labour which should have been spent in educating, to be wasted in quarrelling about education. If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school fees of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expenses of those who have no one else to pay for them. The objections which are urged with reason against State education, do not apply to the enforcement of education by the State, but to the State's taking upon itself to direct that education: which is a totally different thing. That the whole or any large part of the education of the people should be in State hands, I go as far as any one in deprecating. All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity in opinions and modes of conduct, involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education. A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body. An education established and controlled by the State should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep the others up to a certain standard of excellence."

[KrazyHorse]

Is this the first time you've realised that there are virtually no absolutes in moral philosophy?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, it's not. It's based on the likelyhood that the scientific community isn't full of ****.

"There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it ahs not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation." Evolution has not been refuted despite all attempts to date, but we are essentially trying to declare that it has now been proven for all time.

Again, what do you want a school's curriculum to be based on if not academic consensus?

I don't know.

[Arrian]

It was a simple expression of my lack of surprise you agree with Kuci. You often do.

...

Kuci,

I don't see it being used as a weapon against religion (or creationism). To the extent one wishes to teach biology to children, you have to teach evolution, don't you?

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It wasn't in response to your initial post, but to this:

I disagree completely.

which was in response to:

Look, allowing people to speak is a good idea, but limits are required. If their speech violates some more important ideal then it must be limited.

Speech != killing people.

[KrazyHorse]

Killing people is a form of speech. Just like painting or writing symbols down on a page are.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Is this the first time you've realised that there are virtually no absolutes in moral philosophy?

What would give you that impression? I've found these inconsistencies in my beliefs before and I'm sure I'll find them again. If you don't find them I doubt you're intellectually honest with yourself.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Killing people is a form of speech. Just like painting or writing symbols down on a page are.

Killing people is disallowed equally for all messages.

[Ramo]

Mill actually noted that math was a peculiarity, since all the evidence is on one side and none on the other...

It's favoring one set of assumptions that make up high school level math over the various others that one can come up with to create different logical structures. The issue isn't evidence, it's convention (i.e. consensus).

[KrazyHorse]

I want to show how bad cigarettes are in a shocking and graphic way, so I kill 450 000 people by nuking Columbus, OH.

Don't limit my ability to express myself in that manner!