A long-time lesbian couple believe in the sanctity of marriage.

[Arrian]

If anything it was pro-intellectual rather then anti.

Yes, yes. And Martin Luther King, Jr. was a conservative. As we all know, conservatives have been at the forefront of every major social change.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

You have not proven that what university professors teach is necessarily propaganda.

Some are good.

Some are like Rufus when they talk about 'subordinating prejudice', that speaks to me of propaganda. I've heard that line before. My usual counter to that is that why is it better to replace one prejudice with another?

Therefore, it was hardly pro-intellectual, but anti-intellectual and disingenuous, much in the way that ****heads trying to preach Creationism are using the guise of "Intelligent Design" and lying through their teeth by saying, "Teach the Controversy".

The premise I was getting at is that education doesn't teach through subordination. Never has, if your primary goal is to get people to think for themselves. Of course if your goal is to have them parrot other people's ideas, then yes, your first goal is to subordinate their ideals to yours.

[Ben Kenobi]

Arrian-

Of course! King doesn't take a back seat to anybody on the freedom bus.

[Arrian]

It's just delicious that you cry about purported propoganda, when you spew propoganda constantly.

Is "thinking for yourself" your code for bible study class?

-Arrian

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Some are like Rufus when they talk about 'subordinating prejudice', that speaks to me of propaganda. I've heard that line before. My usual counter to that is that why is it better to replace one prejudice with another?

Actually, from what I recall, 'subordinating prejudice' doesn't involve replacing one prejudice with another, but quashing it in favor of tolerance.

Where you might be getting confused is that some people don't actually do that, and display intolerance for those with certain prejudices.

The premise I was getting at is that education doesn't teach through subordination. Never has, if your primary goal is to get people to think for themselves.

Actually, look at it another way: one subordinates their preconceptions and prejudices, opening up their minds to learn new concepts.

At which point analysis can take place.

Indeed, the scientific method requires that one subordinate their beliefs to the rigor of empirical results and data.

Of course if your goal is to have them parrot other people's ideas, then yes, your first goal is to subordinate their ideals to yours.

Which seems to be just as common in the more dogmatic religions, wouldn't you say?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, it's my code for Higher Criticism. Dunno if that means anything to you at all...

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, from what I recall, 'subordinating prejudice' doesn't involve replacing one prejudice with another, but quashing it in favor of tolerance.

IOW, putting on the jackboots provided by the teacher instead of thinking for yourself. I don't see why replacing one prejudice with another gets you anywhere.

Where you might be getting confused is that some people don't actually do that, and display intolerance for those with certain prejudices.

'tolerance' is a code word for prejudice towards traditional mores.

Actually, look at it another way: one subordinates their preconceptions and prejudices, opening up their minds to learn new concepts.

Subordinates? No, hardly. That's a different school altogether. The scientific method forces you to make a hypothesis prior to your experiment rather then just doing the experiment and seeing what you get. You are not subordinating your own prejudices, rather you are testing them to see if they have merit.

What the scientific method insists is that if your hypothesis lacks merit, that you must discard it in favour of a better explanation. That is the challenge. Most people who are in favour of your approach are unwilling to state their prejudices ahead of time, and exhibit confirmation bias, in discarding evidence which is contrary to their unannounced biases.

At which point analysis can take place.

Indeed, the scientific method requires that one subordinate their beliefs to the rigor of empirical results and data.

It requires you to assert them, so that they may be tested, not hide them only to confirm them in the end. From what I see are the folks who believe in 'tolerance' willing to put their own beliefs to the test?

Which seems to be just as common in the more dogmatic religions, wouldn't you say?

I'd argue otherwise. Christianity is either accepted or rejected. If you accept it in the face of evidence, I don't believe that would be subordination of any kind, any different then it would be to accept the whole of a scientific theory when it is proven in part. It all fits together.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Actually, from what I recall, 'subordinating prejudice' doesn't involve replacing one prejudice with another, but quashing it in favor of tolerance.

IOW, putting on the jackboots provided by the teacher instead of thinking for yourself. I don't see why replacing one prejudice with another gets you anywhere.

Wrong. Nothing even close to what I said.

It's attempting to let go of preconceptions and instead take things as they come at you, analyzing them as they arrive.

The 'tolerance' being, not necessarily assuming something must be so.

'tolerance' is a code word for prejudice towards traditional mores.

Nice spin.

I can do it too.
'Traditional mores' being a code word for prejudice.

Subordinates? No, hardly. That's a different school altogether. The scientific method forces you to make a hypothesis prior to your experiment rather then just doing the experiment and seeing what you get. You are not subordinating your own prejudices, rather you are testing them to see if they have merit.

You are subordinating your prejudices to the results of the experiment. The scientific method does not mean, "Do an experiment over and over until you get the results you like," it means that you do an experiment to get enough data to prove or disprove what it is your hypothesis was, and then subordinate your initial preconceptions, replacing them with a new hypothesis that fits in line with the data.

What the scientific method insists is that if your hypothesis lacks merit, that you must discard it in favour of a better explanation. That is the challenge. Most people who are in favour of your approach are unwilling to state their prejudices ahead of time, and exhibit confirmation bias, in discarding evidence which is contrary to their unannounced biases.

Even those who aren't in favor of it exhibit confirmation bias. If you're going to argue meta, that's fine, but it's a pointless task.

From what I see are the folks who believe in 'tolerance' willing to put their own beliefs to the test?

I am.

As in regards to the original topic, I haven't found many of those in opposition to it, those who betray prejudice, to be willing to put their own beliefs to the test.

And if they are, they're unwilling to discard evidence contrary to their preconceptions, and display an enormous amount of confirmation bias.

I'd argue otherwise. Christianity is either accepted or rejected. If you accept it in the face of evidence, I don't believe that would be subordination of any kind, any different then it would be to accept the whole of a scientific theory when it is proven in part. It all fits together.

I do not claim to refer to all of Christianity when I say this, but a good many 'Christians' do not actually think critically about it. They subordinate to whatever it is that their pastor says, following them more or less unquestioningly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wrong. Nothing even close to what I said.

It's attempting to let go of preconceptions and instead take things as they come at you, analyzing them as they arrive.

This is a standard conditioning technique that's used in brain washing.

As in regards to the original topic, I haven't found many of those in opposition to it, those who betray prejudice, to be willing to put their own beliefs to the test.

And if they are, they're unwilling to discard evidence contrary to their preconceptions, and display an enormous amount of confirmation bias.

I have to say in my own case I would have agreed with you 10 years ago. Now? I found many of the things that I believed in lacking.

I do not claim to refer to all of Christianity when I say this, but a good many 'Christians' do not actually think critically about it. They subordinate to whatever it is that their pastor says, following them more or less unquestioningly.

Oh true, believe me I am saying that all Christians should only become Christians after careful consideration of the evidence. There needs to be the desire to learn more rather then just 'going along with the flow'.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, it's my code for Higher Criticism. Dunno if that means anything to you at all...

I googled it.

From wiki:

Higher criticism treats the Bible as a text created by human beings at a particular historical time and for various human motives, in contrast with the treatment of the Bible as the inerrant word of God

Sounds like thinking for oneself to me. Doesn't sound like you at all, though.

-Arrian

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This is a standard conditioning technique that's used in brain washing.

So is the repetition found in religious rites.
And the reliance on approved texts/messages found in religious services.

I have to say in my own case I would have agreed with you 10 years ago. Now? I found many of the things that I believed in lacking.

Strange, that I went the exact opposite direction as you. 10 years ago, I was a rather devout Catholic, only now I find the things I once believed in utterly lacking.

Oh true, believe me I am saying that all Christians should only become Christians after careful consideration of the evidence. There needs to be the desire to learn more rather then just 'going along with the flow'.

Which is fine.

That still doesn't make it okay for you to use a trite anti-intellectual line as you did earlier.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Well, I'm not wading back into it with Ben, but for anyone else who cares: by "subordinating prejudices" I meant just that: examining the topic without pre-judging (the etymological root of prejudice) and instead engaging in inquiry that is as open and objective as possible.

Far from being some conspiratorial scheme of liberal professors, this is the very foundation of Western rational thought, and as a method can be traced back at least to Socrates.

On another note, this

He was a professor. Then he decided working for George W. Bush to promote his foreign policies would be a good idea. God bless him.

really did make me laugh out loud. DinoDoc

[Ben Kenobi]

Sounds like thinking for oneself to me. Doesn't sound like you at all, though.

I thought you'd say that. I haven't always been a Christian, and I was taught about Higher Criticism and assessing reliability of sources years before I became one. I found it very useful, and still do.

Ended up writing a paper on it, on St. Augustine's use of Higher Criticism to assess the bible, so the ideas are very old.

[Ben Kenobi]

So is the repetition found in religious rites.
And the reliance on approved texts/messages found in religious services.

Rhetoric has it's uses.

Strange, that I went the exact opposite direction as you. 10 years ago, I was a rather devout Catholic, only now I find the things I once believed in utterly lacking.

That tends to be the normal course. What caused you to give up hope in Catholicism?

That still doesn't make it okay for you to use a trite anti-intellectual line as you did earlier.

What can I say, I've seen profs like that in my academic career. While that doesn't mean all of them are like that, education I feel is less about subordinating prejudices then challenging them.

I honestly think it's good for people to get shaken up a bit, but I would much rather let them come to the conclusions themselves.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Rhetoric has its uses.

But only when supporting your own school of thought?

That tends to be the normal course. What caused you to give up hope in Catholicism?

The simple fact that it failed to explain anything outside of its 'theory'?

Yes, it's the normal course. Those who convert are far more devout than those who were raised in it.

What can I say, I've seen profs like that in my academic career. While that doesn't mean all of them are like that, education I feel is less about subordinating prejudices then challenging them.

In mine, I haven't seen many of those.