Today's contentious discussion

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1188278]

Inspired by the discussion here.

Comments

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

"Correct views" sounds a little... I don't know, 1984-ish to me.

[andabusers.livejournal.com]

I was about to say something similar. :)

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

It just SOUNDS creepy, doesn' it?

[theferrett.livejournal.com]

Who decides the views? If it's me... Well, hell, I'm still not comfortable with it.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

Yeah, exactly. I mean, I'm right A LOT but... *grin*

[theferrett.livejournal.com]

Oh, fuck, I'm wrong all the time.

Some days I think I'm the only man on the Internet who'll recant a blog post. *g*

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but you put forth definite opinions on controversial topics - it happens.

Admitting it when you (generic you) are wrong is a total art form that more people need to learn.

[andrewducker]

I had to do it earlier today - I was defending Myers-Briggs, because of some stuff I'd read saying it was reliable. Then I did some reading. Turns out it's a lot less reliable than I thought.

Still more reliable than astrology, but I felt pretty dumb for defending something for bad reasons. And having to say so :->

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

It's unpleasant, not so much fun.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

I think M-B is useful for well those who find it useful - just like Tarot and I Ching and IQ tests :)

Things that work don't have to be defended. cf aromatherapy (but prob not homeopathy, cos they LIE)

haven't tiem to read the Salon thing but I think the underlying problem is probably your assumption that there always IS a "correct view". But we have so been here...

I wouldn't mind it being illegal to teach misleading info in the natural sciences to children tho - wow that would shut a lot of people up.. but remember evolution in its own day was a controversial theory. We should accept that other views may exist. We just don't have to indicate that they are in any backed by peer reviewed science. teachuing how to argue and interpret rather than FACTS in school would be a good start.. (would certanly produce better law intrants!)

[andrewducker]

your assumption that there always IS a "correct view"

An assumption I haven't been guilty of making since I was 22.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Looking above, I'm hardly the only one who thought your second option kind of did promote that assumption! :-P

[andrewducker]

Not my second option. Both options taken from the article I linked to.

Hmm, I possibly need to clarify my stance on "correct views" - that'll be its own post though :->

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

What happened when you were 22?

Lx

[andrewducker]

This did:
http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/1460432.html

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

You were trapped in a time loop?

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

Correct views turn into stagnant views without an influx of dissenting views - even if the dissenting views are incorrect.

Few views are exempt from evolution.

[andabusers.livejournal.com]

Thing is, scientific views only come about by freedom of expression anyway - it's not like there's some collective sigh of relief when a truth magically emerges. People just shout out the flaws in an argument over time until you come to some idea that seems vaguely reasonable/possible. And then it changes anyway.

[randomchris.livejournal.com]

Freedom of expression is fine, but lying and misleading others in a harmful way should be punishable as a crime.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

*Wince* Define "lying", "misleading", and "harmful".

There are good reasons that fraud laws are as limited as they are.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

It is one thing for the delusional to convince the easily persuaded, but for the manipulative to do so is opportunist at best.

I happen to think the use of such faith based theories in school is little more than mind control. Sure you can argue that not every subject is bound by absolute fact, but every effort to do so should be taken (whilst maths is fact based, history can be interpretive for instance). Would you like for someone to teach scientology in schools for instance?

[ishkhara.livejournal.com]

I may not believe in what someone is saying and I may even feel it is abhorrent but I will defend their right to express their opinion.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you'll pay to replace science lessons with religious dogma? I'd rather people who have whacko views pay for it themselves.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

oopsie, my mistake. well as long as they don't want tax exemption I suppose they get to ruin their own children's future as much as they like.

[ishkhara.livejournal.com]

Actually that's not what I said. But never mind.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Snowflake answer: finishing spam chapters :-P.. those who teach do, those who don't, natter!!! /end self obsession!

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I can't believe how many people fell into that obvious rhetorical trap. 'Dissemination of correct views' = "Not using tax money to trick children into believing lies"

or, fine, we'll tell lies in schools?

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

I think this was a private school, so taxes aren't relevant.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

yeah, I see my error now

I still bet there are things you (and all the above) would agree we shouldn't teach children, like 'snake handling - god will protect you - honest'

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

Yes; actually I agree that it's wrong to teach children creationism of the variety that the article is talking about.

I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with it being illegal though. Certainly things like your snake-handling example should be, and I've used government agencies several times to prevent or attempt to prevent people making what (I regard as) incorrect or unsupported medical claims.

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

To elaborate, I'm kind of working on the basis that the teachers are acting in loco parentis, and that there's not really a good alternative to allowing parents to fill their kids' heads with crap.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

The question is where do we draw the line? We wouldn't arrest a man for telling his kids round the dinner table that black people or jews are inferior, but we wouldn't let him set up a school to teach it to those same children, for instance.

[zz]

"correct" applied to "views" != "correct" applied to "information/facts/data"

not having read the article, but making an assumption of its content based on the other comments and its url:
freedom of expression trumps "correctness", but freedom of expression is "the right to say whatever you want", not "the right to force people to listen", which classrooms/curricula fall under.

[andabusers.livejournal.com]

Also, it seems to me that if (as in the original discussion) there is a particular view that is being invited at the expense of another, that ain't freedom of expression. That's deliberate bias and manipulation. I guess I think of freedom of expression as the opportunity for open debate, otherwise one person's freedom is just as well someone else's suppression.

Teaching's a weird one, because curriculum means as a teacher you basically have to be biased to achieve a particular understanding in the allotted time. But really shouldn't the idea of religious education be to better understand people rather than manufacturing religious beliefs?

I also don't particularly have a problem with people mentioning creationism in a science class as long as they also point out the evidence for it being nutso. :P

[cheekbones3.livejournal.com]

Is a view ever correct? The dissemination of facts I'd maybe go for, but views? Isn't that just freedom of expression?

[ninox.livejournal.com]

I agree with the rest with regards to your assumption on what is a correct view. I often find life isn't black and white, you certainly need a society with different stand points to challenge and evolve.

Complete freedom of expression, is a different matter. I used to like the British stance against incitement, now political correctness has gone mad. It will always be a fine line to walk.

[fetket.livejournal.com]

I don't know.... I think both so I can't vote.

I support freedom of expression but I get offended by intelligent design so I really don't know.

I suppose in a rational sense I want both and view it as an ideal. I'll support either and hate things which are neither.

[avatar.livejournal.com]

where's the both option?

[andrewducker]

I can't see how you can constrain people to the truth and also allow them free speech...

[avatar.livejournal.com]

A little from column A, a little from column B. It depends on the circumstances. You need to allow free speech, but it'll get to the point where the constraint is required.

It's what the justice system is built on, if I'm not mistaken.