Professor Edward Feser “continues his self-immolation”:http://www.techcentralstation.com/022004C.html on TechCentralStation (see previous episodes “here”:http://www.techcentralstation.com/021304A.html and “here”:http://www.techcentralstation.com/021604A.html and Brian Leiter’s takes “here”:http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/bleiter/000817.html#000817 and “here”:http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/bleiter/000822.html ) and, in the course of doing so issues a challenge to his critics:
bq. The real question is whether on balance, in general, students tend to become more liberal as a result of their university experience; and this question can, for clarity’s sake, be broken up into a number of sub-questions [details below].
The answer to the questions is, according to Professor Feser, “yes”, indeed he
bq. … simply den[ies] the intellectual honesty of anyone who claims to believe otherwise — or at least doubt that he’s spent much time among university students. Yet to acknowledge that these questions must be answered in the affirmative is to acknowledge that the modern university does indeed serve the de facto function of undermining the commitment of the young to the traditional institutions of Western civilization.
I find it odd for someone to say of anything that just because it has a certain effect (if it does has that effect) it thereby fulfils a function, even a “de facto” one (whatever that is). Presumably, Feser wants to suggest that there’s some kind of explanation lurking here. That, perhaps, universities are the way they are because they perform some beneficial role for someone or something.
Anyway, on to the specific questions to which any intellectually honest person must allegedly answer “yes”. On examination, it becomes clear that _to the extent_ to which it is true that _on some interpretation_ one must answer in the affirmative, that is simply because exposure to more and better information and better training in reasoning and the assessment of evidence leads to people having better founded beliefs. Woudn’t it be shocking if universities didn’t have such effects?
bq. 1. Are students today, on balance and in general, more likely after having attended university to be hostile to capitalism?
I’ve no idea about this one really. I imagine that before attending university many students don’t have an attitude one way or the other to capitalism or much sense of what is meant by the term. Afterwards, I doubt that most university graduates are hostile to extensive private property and the use of the market mechanism – but perhaps Professor Feser has evidence to the contrary?
bq. 2. Are they, on balance and in general, more likely after having attended university to think that modern industrial society is inhuman, devastates the environment, impoverishes the Third World, etc.?
Again, many of them probably thought little about the issues before being exposed to higher education. After some exposure, I rather hope that they believe these claims to the extent to which they are true. Specifying the extent to which they are true, and the ways in which they are true (and false) requires some nuance.
bq. 3. Are they, on balance and in general, more likely after having attended university to think that differences in wealth, income, and the like between the sexes and between ethnic groups are the result of deep-rooted sexism and racism in American society?
Yes, let’s hope so, at least if those patterns that result from the legacies of slavery and segregation count as the “the result of deep-rooted … racism”. Does Feser disagree?
bq. 4. Are they, on balance and in general, more likely after having attended university to believe that the history of Western civilization is largely a shameful history of oppression and exploitation?
I hope that they come to believe the truth. Namely that the history of Western civilization is, _in part_ , one of oppression and exploitation. Since colonialism, feudalism, slavery and genocide are an important part of this history one rather hopes that any educated person (including Professor Feser) would agree.
bq. 5. Are they, on balance and in general, more likely after having attended university to believe that there is no rational foundation for traditional religious belief, especially of the Christian sort — indeed that Christianity is a uniquely repressive and irrational creed?
Highly doubtful that they would believe the last — “uniquely” — part of Feser’s final sentence. But they should, after exposure to higher education, come to believe what they do believe on the basis of a more sceptical and dispassionate examination of the evidence. If learning those habits of thought leads to them abandoning religious belief, then too bad for religion. If not, not.
bq. 6. Are they, on balance and in general, more likely after having attended university to believe that traditional moral scruples, especially concerning sex, lack any rational justification and ought to be abandoned as mere expressions of superstition and bigotry?
This question is slightly hard to parse as Feser has written it. But are educated people likely to be more tolerant of, say, homosexuality than non-educated people? Are they less likely to believe that masturbation makes you go blind? Let’s hope so.
Professor Feser speculated about the “function” served by universities. “A much better answer”:http://www.room34.com/kofsky/coldwar.html concerning the function they actually serve (as opposed, I hasten to add, to the one I’d like them to serve) was provided by the late Marxist jazz critic Frank Kofsky in his book _John Coltrane and the Jazz Revolution of the 1960s_. As Kofsky puts it:
bq. ….the university is in some ways a microcosm of the Establishment as a whole. As we now know from studies that appeared as the by-product of protest movements at campuses all over the country during the second half of the 1960s, universities are governed by boards of regents, trustees, et cetera, on which sit representatives of the dominant business groups in the community.26 In a general way, the curriculum of the university is shaped to the demands of this corporate elite for an institution that will mass-produce mid-level technicians with all the approved social attitudes….
That was the reality then, and that is the reality today. Most student go on to fill exactly the roles Kofsky mentions and universities continue to be governed by the same kinds of people. The limited exposure students get to some moderately counter-cultural influences shouldn’t blind us to the function they actually do perform.
{ 80 comments }
son volt 02.20.04 at 2:39 pm
the modern university does indeed serve the de facto function of undermining the commitment of the young to the traditional institutions of Western civilization.
He writes as if he believes that universities ought to shore up the traditional institutions of Western civilization.
Usually the argument against politically-correct, engage tendencies in academia is that scholarship should be disinterested, should let the chips fall where they may.
But obviously Feser believes nothing of the sort, rather believes that higher education should give students the warm fuzzies about their history and their culture. No doubt many others on the right feel the same way, yet aren’t as frank (maybe inadvertently) as Feser.
Russell Arben Fox 02.20.04 at 3:00 pm
I agree with you, Chris, about the ultimate corporate function of the modern university; and I agree that this guy is insecure, paranoid, and tiresome in the extreme. However, regarding points 5 & 6, I think you’re a little dismissive of the sort of (I think to a fair degree legitimate) concerns which many traditionalist religious believers have regarding higher education. Certainly on the right, you see these kind of worries put crudely and polemically to great effect (as Feser does here), but that doesn’t mean they’re entirely unfounded. Surely you recognize, this late into the post-Enlightenment game, that the idea that students should “believe what they do believe on the basis of a more sceptical and dispassionate examination of the evidence” is not a little exclusionary. Which standards of evidence apply? What counts as a skeptical claim? What forms of authority are accepted as plausible? Yes, yes, I know: down this path lies the horrors of creation science and all that. Still, there’s a fine line here, and there’s no good reason to be blind to it, or else we play into the hands of the Know-Nothings. A kid taught by loving parents to believe in miracles or commandments should be able to use the resources and environment of higher education to think about or critique that teaching, but to set up the canons of our respective disciplines (and our relatively elite mores) as broad controls, outside of which only nonsense and superstition exist (an attitude on display in more than few university classes, as I can attest) goes, I think, a tad too far, to say the least.
limberwulf 02.20.04 at 3:09 pm
Higher education is indeed a place to learn more and different perspectives, information, etc. Any such influx of information should make one question their existing beliefs, its not perticularly healthy to never question one’s position.
OTOH, for those that do not question their beleifs, but instead simply regurgitate the latest thing they have heard, the opinions and perspectives of professors and curriculums can be seen quite clearly, since they are essentially being replicated. I have sat under many professors that have their own very opinion on life, and do not hesitate to relay that to their students. In some cases, disagreeing with them can affect your grades. I dont have an issue with a professor having an opinion, but when, for instance, and economics professor spends 3 or 4 times the amount of time discussing keynesian economic theory than on any other concept, there is a biased level of teaching occuring. This professor (I use this example because this happened to me) believed that Keynes had presented the only concept of economics that worked in modern times, and he did not discuss alternatives to any depth. The class was more a sales pitch than anything else, and while I learned a great deal about keynesian economics, I did not learn a great deal about economics in general, therefore the class was flawed.
I know this does not happen all the time, there are many professors that, in spite of their biases, are more than willing to discuss the full range of what they know. The point is, however, that if you have significant bias towards a certain way of thinking, then that will, on balance, be what you teach. The point of higher learning is to teach a multiplicity of things and expand knowledge, not to indoctrinate. I find it interesting that many people who became more liberal in college change back to more conservative positions (at least economically) once they start working in the “real world”. I tend to wonder if the University environment tends towards liberal thought because it is isolated from the rest of life so well.
mondo dentro 02.20.04 at 3:11 pm
Oh Gawd. I’d love to get into this fight, but I gotta go to work. Great post and links, Chris.
Let me try a nutshell argument, minus academic caveats and hedging:
I would say that the three-fold role of the University is to: (1) be a repository of knowledge; (2) develop new forms of knowledge and ways of knowing; and (3) transmit knowledge, and the methods for knowing, to future generations. (I’m using knowledge in a wide and somewhat fuzzy sense spilling over to “culture”.).
On the side of pedagogy, it is indeed the mission of universities to teach students to think, to not merely believe in received notions, but to analyze their foundations and develop a critical view of the world and the works of man.
Now, the right-wing critics of universities can’t have it both ways. Do they agree with this mission statement? Is it inherently “left-wing”? I’d be perfectly happy if they confirmed my prejudices and said “yes”. But if they say “no”, then they have to ask themselves: if students are more “left-wing” as a result of this type of teaching, what does that mean for their world view?
We have seen the rightist response to this perceived “bias”: it is to establish “think tanks” populated all to frequenty by hacks. In short, they aim to do to for the notion of “university” what Fox News has done to the idea of “journalistic objectivity”.
I’m sorry, but I have yet to see any sensible popular critique of the issue from the right that does not come across as a crass political attack. I’m sure they do exist, and I’d be more than grateful if someone wants to send me links.
John Isbell 02.20.04 at 3:21 pm
The thing won’t cut and paste. Anyway, “traditional institutions of Western civilization.”
Such as liberalism?
To think I spent 45 seconds addressing that person. Make that 60.
Russell Arben Fox 02.20.04 at 3:28 pm
Mondo, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by a “sensible popular critique”–what counts as “popular”? Anyway, you might want to look at the writings of religious historian George Marsden (“The Soul of the American University,” “The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship,” etc.). All of his studies are widely available (try Amazon), are frequently cited by those involved in these debates, and there’s nothing “crass” about them.
Ken 02.20.04 at 3:34 pm
“I hope that they come to believe the truth. Namely that the history of Western civilization is, in part , one of oppression and exploitation. Since colonialism, feudalism, slavery and genocide are an important part of this history one rather hopes that any educated person (including Professor Feser) would agree.”
Yes, the history of Western civilization includes oppression and exploitation in the form of colonialism feudalism, slavery, and genocide, features that it shared in common with the rest of humanity of the age and of every age that came before. In fact, Western civilization is noteworthy for the degree to which it repudiated these things, the degree to which its moral code explicitly rejects these evils. It’s all well and good to say that Western civilization’s past is not all that it should be, but its ideals and its actual correctives for these evils set it apart, and the real history of Western Civilization is the story of unprecedented success in banishing these evils to the dustbin of history.
“Now, the right-wing critics of universities can’t have it both ways. Do they agree with this mission statement? Is it inherently “left-wingâ€? I’d be perfectly happy if they confirmed my prejudices and said “yesâ€. But if they say “noâ€, then they have to ask themselves: if students are more “left-wing†as a result of this type of teaching, what does that mean for their world view? ”
It means that, while we agree with the mission statement, actual universities are doing a bad job of actually fulfilling it.
mondo dentro 02.20.04 at 3:39 pm
“sensible popular critiqueâ€
I mean “not academic”. I know there are critiques of various right-wing bete noirs (like postmodernism) made by academics. I mean, those people are already in academia, so where’s the bias argument then?
But we should try to separate the sound academic critiques from the purely political kind (I’m thinking of the Horowitz’s of the world here). Obviously, there isn’t a sharp line between the two, but surely anyone acting in good faith can see the difference. I’m quite willing to address the former on their intellectual merits. The latter I will meet with suitable political polemic!
By the way, in so saying, I am being culturally conservative! We can talk about reforming the university in some way, but politicizing it would be a disaster that would destroy its very essence.
harry 02.20.04 at 3:46 pm
The traditional role of the university was to provide a space for the formation of each generation’s elite. As the university expanded, it attempted to provide access to that elite to people not born into it. Mass higher education is new, and we don’t understand its role well. But it is pretty clear that universities in the higher tier continue pretty well in performing the elite-formation function. They also provide places for people to pursue research that is not supported by the market (for whatever reason). Having people pursuing research being the same people teaching the new elite creates frictions, obviously, and it can be irritating for students to have their ignorance and prejudices challenged in ways that do not serve their longer term goals of belonging to their generation’s elite. They deal with it pretty well, in my experience.
Professors, of course, shouldn’t require that student regurgitate their political or moral opinions, or penalise them for disagreement. I think Russell’s concerns are legitimate, but I worry much more about the various ways in which the students exert pressure on each other. I think the moral atmosphere on every American campus I’ve been on is appalling, and oppose efforts to make it worse (I was v. sympathetic, eg, to the Orthodox Jewish students at Yale who didn’t want to be forced to live in co-ed dorms as a condition of attendance). But those efforts come from administrators and students more than from professors, in my experience.
Feser is not commiting professional suicide by the way. He has obviously decided that a career as a professional polemicist might make him more money and notoriety than a career as a professor. (There is A LOT of right wing money around for people like this). Unless he is an outstanding academic he is almost certainly right — he’s obviously good at getting lots of attention with this loose, ill-informed stuff, so unless, again, he’s really an outstanding academic, he’s making a rational move.
Russell Arben Fox 02.20.04 at 4:07 pm
Harry, I agree with everything you say, especially your comment that we don’t understand the role of “mass” higher education very well. As for the social pressures that exist on many campuses, you’re correct; more often than not, the faculty aren’t the source (at least not directly), but rather they come from the instituionalized culture of place, via administrators, alumni, fraternities, etc. That’s partly what I was trying to get at when I lumped the “environment” of higher education along with its intellectual “resources.”
DJW 02.20.04 at 4:22 pm
This guy is absolutely impossible to take seriously. There’s not-so-subtle subtext here, which is that we ought to be turning students into uncritical cheerleaders of the western canon. Which hardly sits comfortably with the tone of his remarks about religion, and frankly, when we look at bit more closely at the concept of enlightenment, he’s clearly not in favor of it. He’s more interested in instilling the correct dead dogma, a la Mill.
Again, the mistake I’m making is taking him seriously. Expect a AEI or Heritage appointment soon; this the equivalent of sending along one’s resume. No teaching, no professional standards or peer review, guarenteed lifetime employment–damn, I wish there was some equivalent on the left!
dsquared 02.20.04 at 4:35 pm
In fact, Western civilization is noteworthy for the degree to which it repudiated these things
Indeed, just in the same way in which Michael Corleone repudiated the Mafia, or the way in which the third generation of Rockefellers repudiated “trade”. In other words, rhetorically, while continuing to enjoy the benefits of having done so in the past and while standing ready to take it up again in future if need be.
JRoth 02.20.04 at 4:45 pm
Someone above mentioned in passing what I think is the core of this debate: do universities exist to teach knowledge or to teach thought [how to think]?
I was ambitious as a high school student (not grade-hungry, but knowledge-hungry), and would sometimes go above and beyond assignments. But it took me all of 3 weeks at university to realize that that had been largely regurgitation or sloppy pseudo-intellectualism.
What conservatives seem to desire in the humanities is high school level teaching: Here is the Canon. Please write essays comparing parts of the Canon to other parts of the Canon. Now go get a job and never, ever question the status quo.
What is interesting, I think, is that where conservatives do dominate at universities – in engineering, sciences, etc. – is where they can think, not merely regurgitate, without shaking the status quo. To do inventive work in literary criticism, say, requires questioning – not necessarily debunking, but at least questioning – the Canon. To do inventive work in materials science may be a little disturbing to certain specific industries, but it meshes well with the established hierarchy of material progress.
Carlos 02.20.04 at 4:51 pm
To tie this into John Q’s recent post, it strikes me that Feser is assuming that the people entering American colleges are naturally conservative in terms of social and political mores without the university’s influence; and the university somehow converts them away from this blank slate.
But look at the American high school. All of Feser’s dislikes are there already, not merely in embryo, but as an active presence. I suppose Feser could again blame the teachers, but high school students often have siblings, parents, friends, and the ability to read for themselves. Much like college students.
College allows students to pursue their interests in a way that high school does not. Sometimes this has evil consequences: an athletic program goes rogue, for instance. Anyone really think that Colorado’s combination of athletics and sexual abuse is something new and unheard of for incoming college students? That it’s somehow transmitted to them by the leftist professoriat? Rather, it’s the same old high school crap brought to a new level, and we all know it.
Finally, how many professors did y’all have as an undergraduate who really transformed your life? One, two, three? Since this is Crooked Timber, a notorious haven for university-affiliated intellectuals, I’m gonna guess that it’s a non-zero number. But do you really think your experiences are part of the common undergraduate experience? My guess is that Feser does.
Keith M Ellis 02.20.04 at 5:25 pm
Most of you seem to be accepting Feser’s equivalence of the Canon with conservatism. That’s false.
I went to a “Great Books†school and the only curriculum there is the canon. And I can confidently report that it does not make students conservative.
As it happens, while there is a conservative core for whom SJC was attractive because of the very misimpression evident here; the majority of the community is liberal to leftist to radical.(1)
The canon is not some monolithic thing that instills conservative values. Almost every book in the canon was radical in its time—the lesson certainly is not that “we should believe and behave as our fathersâ€.
I’ve discussed this here before, but I think there’s a reason that, for example, the Straussians of the University of Chicago—and they have a connection with St. John’s, Strauss was in retirement a tutor emeritus—tend to actually be quite conservatives where Johnnies are not. And this is because at St. John’s these books are not taught, they’re read, and for the most part non-ideologically. There is not a “professor†who sees these books as an opportunity to inculcate an ideology into his/her students. A teacher (“tutorâ€) doesn’t have that opportunity because they don’t “professâ€. It’s not part of the ethos.
People can read the canon and come away with radically differing worldviews. One factor is just what part of the canon one finds most felicitous to one’s predilections and/or most fascinating.
It pains me greatly to see the canon wielded as a bludgeon in the culture wars. I do not deny that it is thus often misused.
The Santa Fe campus of St. John’s offers a graduate degree in “Eastern Studies†that is organized similarly to the Program. Is such an education intended to inculcate “Eastern values� Does such an education act in opposition to what Feser thinks the college should be doing?
Again, I recognize that for an unfortunately large number of people, including many at SJC, an advocacy of a traditional liberal arts program is really just disguised cultural chauvinism. And sometimes not disguised. Within the College community, the establishment of an Eastern Studies degree was bitterly fought over, partly for this reason.
But the western canon and western cultural chauvinism are not equivalent.
(1) One of my favorite anecdotes is a favorable but quite puzzled review of St. John’s in “National Review”. NR liked SJC because of its curriculum, which it assumed conservtive; but was greatly puzzled by the fact that the students were, on average, quite liberal.
Josh Narins 02.20.04 at 6:05 pm
If your ouevre is convincing people that there is a being in the sky who metes out justice, and convincing people that their payoff will come post-mortem, the idea of sending anyone to a science based University is silly.
Now sprinkle some water on the baby’s head and say this and the kid will be safe.
I’m laughing to think that people probably PAY for such things. Their own rules talk about Simonists in hell!
jm 02.20.04 at 6:14 pm
How about some consideration of the history of the university in the west. In every age they were a source of opposition to prevailing orthodoxies — even when they were formally charged with the function of assuring orthodoxy. Thus Feser’s critique could be made (and has been made) in every age. Exposure to new ideas (and the ideas are always new to the students) cannot do otherwise than to encourage differences in views and at least some questioning of society’s views, practices, and faiths. (“Undermining the commitment of the young to the traditional institutions of Western civilization”??!! — Sounds like what they said about Socrates).
Steve 02.20.04 at 8:26 pm
Thus Feser’s critique could be made (and has been made) in every age. Exposure to new ideas (and the ideas are always new to the students) cannot do otherwise than to encourage differences in views and at least some questioning of society’s views, practices, and faiths.
“I accepted the challenge, and invited them to attend a lecture on the very next day…. In truth at this first lecture of mine only a few were present, for it seemed quite absurd to all of them that I, hitherto so inexperienced in discussing the Scriptures, should attempt the thing so hastily. However, this lecture gave such satisfaction to all those who heard it that they spread its praises abroad with notable enthusiasm, and thus compelled me to continue my interpretation of the sacred text. When word of this was bruited about, those who had stayed away from the first lecture came eagerly, some to the second and more to the third, and all of them were eager to write down the glosses which I had begun on the first day, so as to have them from the very beginning.”
And look, higher education leads to moral turpitude and the corruption of youth!
“And so, after a few days, I returned to Paris, and there for several years I peacefully directed the school which formerly had been destined for me, nay, even offered to me, but from which I had been driven out…. These proved so satisfactory to all who read them that they came to believe me no less adept in lecturing on theology than I had proved myself to be in the field of philosophy…. And the greater progress I made in my lecturing on philosophy or theology, the more I departed alike from the practice of the philosophers and the spirit of the divines in the uncleanness of my life. For it is well known, methinks, that philosophers, and still more those who have devoted their lives to arousing the love of sacred study, have been strong above all else in the beauty of chastity.”
Steve 02.20.04 at 8:49 pm
Obviously, what happens is that students go into college and have experiences that change their views, like:
They realize that their healthcare expires the day they graduate and they will be uninsured, so they start renouncing that ayn rand / libertarian crap and become supporters of nationalized health care.
They take biology classes and realize that evolution is true and creationism isn’t.
They drop acid and realize that is actually possible for people to get along with each other if everyone would stop acting like jackasses for a few minutes.
They learn about economics and shy away from conservative economic positions.
They learn about the history of racism and decide that affirmative action is OK because of the nature of past injustices.
They see friends smoke pot and drink alcohol, realize alcohol is worse then pot, and become pro-legalization.
They learn to question their beliefs and re-evaluate the conservative positions they once held.
They take a science class and learn that dumping oil wherever we feel like and changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere is actually bad for the environment, and become more friendly to environmental causes.
They make friends with diverse people, including openly gay people, and realize that allowing GLBT people to marry is a good idea.
etc, etc, etc.
I think that it is the university experience (rather then the professors) who cause the liberalization. Continually socializing with a bunch of diverse people who actually learn facts about issues is going to make people more liberal.
WillieStyle 02.20.04 at 9:22 pm
Why do I keep seeing this claim popping up in discussions like this? Is my personal experience in such stark contrast to the norm? Anyone have any ‘Horowitz-style’ studies on the voting patterns of Academics in the ‘hard’ sciences?
PZ Myers 02.20.04 at 9:39 pm
Conservatives do not dominate biology departments, that’s for sure. Since this bizarre, modern, aberrant version of “conservativism” that Feser-like drones favor include denunciations of environmentalism, evolution, conservation, and diversity, they don’t fit in very well.
Maybe the problem isn’t that academe rejects conservatives, it’s that we reject flaming insane conservatives.
rvman 02.20.04 at 10:24 pm
Yes, yes, they learn all the stuff Steve mentions. Hopefully they also learn analytic skills, so that when they enter the real world, outside of the protective shell of Academia, they will then figure out that the world doesn’t work the way it does in socialist theory, and they will follow the same hippie to yuppie path their boomer forebearers did. If you aren’t a socialist at 20 you have no heart, and if you aren’t a conservative at 40 you have no brain, and all that.
Oh, and Steve, economics is among the more conservative (or at least libertarian) disciplines out there. You will find Republicans and Libertarians on faculty there. You won’t, elsewhere on campus. (outside the SE quad) It is the shibboleths of the LEFT (protectionism, minimum wages, regulation, taxation, social redistribution) which Economics attacks as a profession, not the conservative myths.
Keith M Ellis 02.20.04 at 10:59 pm
No, it means that you are conventional and can’t think much beyond your own immediate self-interest. So, such a person probably lacks both heart and brain.
Ophelia Benson 02.21.04 at 12:02 am
“Surely you recognize, this late into the post-Enlightenment game, that the idea that students should “believe what they do believe on the basis of a more sceptical and dispassionate examination of the evidence†is not a little exclusionary. Which standards of evidence apply? What counts as a skeptical claim? What forms of authority are accepted as plausible? Yes, yes, I know: down this path lies the horrors of creation science and all that. Still, there’s a fine line here, and there’s no good reason to be blind to it, or else we play into the hands of the Know-Nothings. A kid taught by loving parents to believe in miracles or commandments should be able to use the resources and environment of higher education to think about or critique that teaching, but to set up the canons of our respective disciplines (and our relatively elite mores) as broad controls, outside of which only nonsense and superstition exist (an attitude on display in more than few university classes, as I can attest) goes, I think, a tad too far, to say the least.”
But what does all that mean? What does ‘exclusionary’ mean for example? What fine line? What have the loving parents got to do with it? If the loving parents teach the kid that the world is run by fairies, are college teachers supposed to agree? What is the suggestion – that religion should be protected from rational analysis? Isn’t that also ‘exclusionary’?
I’m not coat-trailing, I’m seriously puzzled.
limberwulf 02.21.04 at 3:34 pm
Steve,
The students that realize about their health care loss are the ones who have never had to pay for it, they have been dependent on their parents, so why not simply jump from the parent’s arms to the government’s? That way they dont have to grow up.
They take biology and are TOLD that evolution is true and creation isnt because the text and teaching are set in such a way as to assume it is true in spite of its shaky status. Weaknesses in evolutionary theory are not addressed, so students not willing to research on their own reach new assumptions. Students that are willing to do so recognize the weaknesses of both arguments, but again, that requires hard work and thinking, not regurgitation.
They learn that if everyone in the world would just “be good, lighten up, and drop a little acid” we would have a great utopia. Great, it would be a utopia if the world was run by fairy godmothers too.
They learn about economic theory and shy from conservatism. Then when they have to actually make it on their own with their own money they realize that conservatism works, and “economic thoery” is just theory, it doenst fly inthe real world. That is why so many liberal students change their minds when they start working, especially about economics.
They learn about racism and want to make amends, untill they start seeing the injustice actually caused by affirmative action. Again something they dont experience in the sheltered world of academia where they dont have to grow up or face reality.
They become prolegalization, and thats great, but they do so because they want to do things that are currently illegal, not because they recognize that government controls do not work, are generally money ploys, and are the foolish, self-righteous actions of a self-righteous elite. Government controls should be done away with entirely. The students, however, arent thinking broadly enough to recognize that freedom is freedom, and the government should make no law restricting freedom, on anyone in any way. It goes a lot farther than drugs.
They learn to question their beliefs. Awesome. Fortunately many also carry that questioning into the real world and question the beliefs that were taught them in college, once they get out from under the constant tutelage.
They take a science class and are told that we are not environmentally friendly enough, and that its all the big corporations’ fault. They are fed incomplete statistics to back this, and are not made aware of the reality of what reaching their “environmental” goals would really accomplish. Emotional appeal is very strong among the young, as their rational thinking has not yet fully developed.
They make friends with diverse people, and recognize prejudices are bad. Good stuff. This is one thing the indoctrination of professors have little affect on. This and the pro-legalizaton thing. Its interesting how these are both positions of pro-personal freedom, and are positions that many libertarians hold.
The university environment is not real. It is a manufactured society in which a majority of the residents are living on either someone else’s money or borrowed money. It is not necessarily bad, but to think that all of the things discovered in a fake world are somehow better than the lessons that real life teaches, is not rational at all. Universities, as they are now run, do not prepare the youth for the real world, they are an environment that permits folly and extends immaturity. People grow up when they have to, not when they reach a certain age.
Ophelia Benson 02.21.04 at 3:46 pm
But that’s a strange definition of what’s ‘real’ and the real world – one where one has to make one’s own money. Of course it is reality and really true that one does have to do that. But it’s also true that, for instance, the pursuit of money is not always compatible with the disinterested pursuit of truth. So which world is more ‘real’? That takes some teasing out, it seems to me.
WillieStyle 02.21.04 at 3:57 pm
And there, in a rather large nutshell, is why “conservatives” are underrepresented in academia.
Ophelia Benson 02.21.04 at 4:35 pm
“And there, in a rather large nutshell, is why “conservatives†are underrepresented in academia.”
Because they don’t understand biology? Well they could always teach literature though.
Keith M Ellis 02.21.04 at 4:52 pm
Ophelia: fair is fair, and I want to acknowledge that you’re being very nice (not snarky) in this conversation.
I especially want to point this out because—and maybe it’s really just my state of mind this morning—but such politesse in response to limberwulf’s barefaced propagandizing seems to me to close to heroic. Kudos.
I guess I should also mention that dsquared’s comment above struck me as a leftist counterpart to limberwulf’s tiresome hyperbole.
Incidentally, timberwulf, twenty years ago I took an anthro course that examined evolution and creationism in parallel. The prof assumed for the purposes of the class that creationist arguments were made in good faith and the claims were to be treated “fairly” in the manner that you advocate. Guess what? Creationism is bullshit. Period. The end. No more discussion needed. It’s not science.
Keith M Ellis 02.21.04 at 4:56 pm
Yah, the same thing occured to me. Specifically, I recalled the famous (Katha Pollit?) Nation “two cultures” article where at an interdisciplinary conference, a speaker, a biologist, was immediately interrupted with the skeptical challenge: “You really believe in genes?”
WillieStyle 02.21.04 at 6:42 pm
Or physics, or chemistry or logic or…
I suppose. Although, presumably an institution wherein bat-shit insane theories weren’t given the time of day would prove a hostile environment.
Mike H 02.21.04 at 7:36 pm
Perhaps timberwulf should take a look at the course catalogs of most large universities and see what upper level courses in biology are offered. Those comprehensive examinations of evolution that are offered (which not infrequently trace its history and alternatives such as Lamarck’s work) are often an entire semester/term in length, if not spread out over two or three terms within a sequence. And you want professors to compress all of that into a week or two of a typical undergraduate intro biology course?
This same pedagogical concept plays itself out in other subjects, and no one seems to object too strenously. After all, intro chemistry and physics courses often include some amount of quantum mechanics, yet I don’t hear people complaining that we need to develop the full Hilbert space structure and operator algebra in order to teach first years.
PZ Myers 02.21.04 at 8:42 pm
Mr Limberwolf is mistaken in another regard: the status of evolution is not shaky in the slightest, so it is a bit odd to demand that we teach it as a troubled theory in decline — it isn’t. It’s a robust science in a healthy state of inquiry and advancement, with new vistas for research opening all the time (genomics, proteomics, and developmental biology are just a few that are going to be revolutionizing the field in our lifetimes). The core idea — common descent with modification — is pretty much inarguable.
People who talk about evolution as “shaky” typically want solid science replaced with absurdities like creationism and intelligent design, ideas that have no evidence in support. Now THOSE are shaky stories.
mondo dentro 02.21.04 at 9:01 pm
What is interesting, I think, is that where conservatives do dominate at universities – in engineering, sciences, etc. – is where they can think, not merely regurgitate, without shaking the status quo.
Why do I keep seeing this claim popping up in discussions like this? Is my personal experience in such stark contrast to the norm? Anyone have any ‘Horowitz-style’ studies on the voting patterns of Academics in the ‘hard’ sciences?
I agree with williestyle. I’m an engineering professor, I work in nonlinear mechanics and dynamical systems, and have spent the last 25 years of my life in fairly techy-mathy environments. The idea that my colleagues are “conservative” is, to be charitable, an abuse of the word. So, concerning the statistics of voting patterns: bringem on!
Are we more “conservative” in temperament? Maybe, but that’s not what’s intended, is it? Scientists are not dogmatic marxists, in general, sure. We’re not dogmatic anything. No doubt, we do an awful lot of dancing with the military industrial complex. We’re even entreprenurial. But this is nothing new (check out that guy Galileo). But we are hardly conservative (as a statement of averages). I’d say they are free thinking, moderate left- to center-right on economics, fairly libertarian (again, on average), and socially liberal. Right wing? No way. For starters, science since WWII has thrived on a modern, western style mixed economies, and we all know it. For another, we don’t like creationists and flat earthers.
One thing is for sure: the idea that political biases enter into the interview and hiring process in the hard science world is truly laughable. So y’all have to go back to a serious analysis of self-selection based on temperament, competencies and worldview.
What many on the right are betraying with this kind of statement is that they have confused their caricature of the pomo/deconstructionist/nihilist fringe in the humanities with “the left” in general. (I think this is a deliberate smear, frankly.) The generally left tendencies among scientists, engineers and mathematicians are more old-school modernist than pomo. (see the Sokol affair.) But that don’t make ’em “conservative” folks!
No, this is just another piece of propaganda with a clear political agenda. That’s why I have a hard time believing I should seriously discuss the issue of professorial political bias, because it is so often clearly just another case of the right-wing tactic of “working the refs”.
mondo dentro 02.21.04 at 9:09 pm
…positions that many libertarians hold.
First of all, limberwolf, could you please stop it? “Libertarian” is not synomymous with “a hipper form of conservatism”. One can be left wing and libertarian. They are orthogonal concepts.
The university environment is not real…It is not necessarily bad, but to think that all of the things discovered in a fake world are somehow better than the lessons that real life teaches, is not rational at all.
I await with bated breath your analysis of churches.
Look, surgical theaters are not the “real world” either. (Perhaps we are making a mistake shielding those thoracic surgery patients from the real world of microbes?) Neither are factory floors. Humans construct different environments for different things. So what? I submit that to do what I do–research about the real world–necessitates that I be semi-free (not too free, but free enough) from the “real world” of quarterly reports and Dilbertian bosses to actually think about things.
In a nutshell: the “real world” is overrated.
limberwulf 02.21.04 at 11:28 pm
mondo,
churches in general are a far worse “fake world” with little or no objectivity, and IMHO more inclined by far to be indoctrinating and full of unfounded BS than any college or university that I have seen.
What disturbs me about evolution is that it is presented as science’s answer to creation. The old concept of a 6,000 year old earth is easily refutable, as are other church based ideas of creation. What I resist is the dogmatism with which people insist on the validity of evolution, evidenced in part by the fact that out of my post the only thing that caused a flurry of fuss was the part concerning creation. Is it that scary? Or is it just that the creationist dogmatism is typically worse and so the mere mention of it is a danger zone. If its the latter, and I suspect it is, then I understand the reaction. However, I am not the typical right wing religious nut, so calm yourselves. I have researched evolution and creation for about 8 years, and find both to be lacking in some major areas (I am sure your college course 20 years ago was interesting keith, I would like to have been around for it, but I have studied this to a lot more depth than one course). I also find supporters of both sides to be so bent on proving their case (yes, the creationists are more often the worst in this aspect) that they deviate from scientific method enormously.
That said, however, I do understand the limitations of what can be presented in a given course, all views and ideas can not fit into the average semester, and so the most accepted are generally used. Point taken.
Also, in relation to “the real world”. Life is indeed what you make it, and what I see as life at my job is not necessarily definable as “reality”. However, a person that can not survive using their own abilities in conjunction and cooperation with others in their community is living in a bubble of dependency. When children are young, they are living off of the means provided by their parents/legal guardians. As they mature they take more and more responsibility for their actions and they produce more and more of their own resources that are needed for staying alive. Most students in college are not producing their own resources, nor have they had experience with doing so. That aspect of life is missing in their perspective. When that aspect of life is added, a great many of them change their viewpoints significantly.
Finally, libertarians, as I understand it, value personal freedoms. Legalization of drugs, abolishing of laws that are discriminatory, and opening up of the mind are things I support, and those are not typical conservative views.
limberwulf 02.21.04 at 11:35 pm
BTW, Ophelia, I too appreciate your rational and friendly responses. My rants tend to inspire a lot of fuss at times, and I am sure I have a ways to go in the tact department, its always a pleasure to debate someone who has the character to keep the discussion on a calm and rational level, particularly since I myself am not always so calm and rational as I should be. I also tend to use a lot of run-on-sentences… :P
mondo dentro 02.22.04 at 12:25 am
I also find supporters of both sides to be so bent on proving their case (yes, the creationists are more often the worst in this aspect) that they deviate from scientific method enormously.
I can get behind your general point, limberwulf. Science proper says nothing about spiritual or metaphysical matters, and people who claim, for example, that science can either prove or disprove the existence (or necessity or whatever) of God are just wrong. Science can inspire use to be religious or athiests or various flavors in between… but it has nothing whatsoever to say about the “the meaning of it all”. It’s shocking how often very very smart people (and often great scientists) make this mistake. Dawkins, who I think of as a very bright and interesting fellow, falls into this camp. I like to tweak my students’ minds by often telling them that the reason math is so powerful and general is that it means nothing in itelf–it is an empty vessel of formal relationships into which the applied mathematician pours their creative interpretations.
On the other hand, the creationists have no clue what science is. The often-heard claim that “evolution is just a theory” proves it.
Most students in college are not producing their own resources, nor have they had experience with doing so. When that aspect of life is added, a great many of them change their viewpoints significantly.
This has more to do with the process of maturation than it does with the university. It so happens that most people who are in college are adolescents. People who go to college after working (as I did) are older and behave differently in college–and, indeed, see the university experience differently. Now that I’ve been on the other side of the fence for 15 years, I see the difference in students. Most faculty are ecstatic when they get an older student!
So the problem isn’t with universities per se, but with the way they are used. I think what you’re saying may be a great argument for everyone not to go straight to college after high school. Universal work, national service, or what-have-you would be beneficial for most students prior to university. Maybe.
libertarians, as I understand it, value personal freedoms
Sure–I was just trying to emphasize that it is possible to be a libertarian socialist, despite the current tendency to think that “libertarian” is the opposite of “liberal”. They are in fact independent.
Hey, thanks for the response. I gotta go out and have some fun now!
Ophelia Benson 02.22.04 at 2:40 am
My pleasure, limber. Not that I’m always rational and the rest!
“Science proper says nothing about spiritual or metaphysical matters, and people who claim, for example, that science can either prove or disprove the existence (or necessity or whatever) of God are just wrong. Science can inspire use to be religious or athiests or various flavors in between… but it has nothing whatsoever to say about the “the meaning of it allâ€. It’s shocking how often very very smart people (and often great scientists) make this mistake. Dawkins, who I think of as a very bright and interesting fellow, falls into this camp.”
But who does in fact say this? I don’t know of anyone who does. Richard Dawkins doesn’t, that I’ve ever read, so I don’t think he does fall into that camp. I’ve never, ever read him claim that he can ‘disprove’ the existence of God (and I have read a fair bit of him, with some care).
And I’ve never said it either, and yet in the argument we had here last week that dragged on exhaustedly into this week, I kept being charged, over and over again, with having said that. I would patiently correct. No, that’s not what I said. Someone would very soon charge me with it all over again. One dedicated person was still charging me with it when I gave up replying.
So Mondo are you saying that’s Dawkins’ claim? If so, are you sure you’re not translating? There seems to be an amazingly strong disposition to translate on this subject. To translate ‘Why should I believe something for which there is no good evidence?’ to either ‘You can’t prove that god exists’ or ‘I can prove that god doesn’t exist’ or perhaps ‘It’s been proven that god doesn’t exist.’ But the first sentence is very different from the next two. Very, very different.
As for the meaning bit. Who does have anything to say about the meaning of it all? And what is it worth? What is it based on? Is there some group or profession, some form of expertise or knowledge, some discipline, that can say anything better and more true than what anyone else can say about the meaning of it all? If so I would really like to know who or what those people or professions are. Are you just assuming that religious people fit that description? If so, why?
Dave Gudeman 02.22.04 at 7:03 am
Hi, just found your article and printed a response on my blog. This is to answer some of the comments:
It is _not_ possible to be both a libertarian and a socialist. The two are practically opposite. There’s more to libertarianism than wanting to legalize drugs and prostitution.
People who think that conversatives are people who want to “take society back” to some point in history don’t understand the movement at all.
Feser did not say he wants universities to just teach traditional values. He wants university educations to expose students to a broad range of views. His complaint is that liberals exclude the work of conservative thinkers from classes and from discussion. This is a statement about a general trend, not a universal statement, so pointing out individual exceptions is not interesting.
Keith M Ellis 02.22.04 at 7:30 am
I thought they might be people who enjoy good conversation. Oh, you meant “conservatives”. Well, what do you know? There is a large overlap between “conservative” and “traditionalist” (or, perhaps, “nostalgaist”).
Conservatism is a lot of things. Cultural conservatism certainly is traditionalist. Many other people that find themselves under the big tent of conservatism are not necessarily cultural conservatives.
This heterogeny is mirrored on the left in American politics. A strong component of traditional liberalism is in recognizing individual rights, for example, which conflicts in some key ways with other “progressive” ideals that move the focus to class based rights. Liberalism, like conservatism, is in America extremely heterogenous.
That said, I’d be willing to wager that a nostalgic yearning for the better times of a generation or so past is the single most predictive factor for differentiating self-identifying conservatives from self-identifying liberals. Which is to say, you’re mostly wrong.
My experience of American politics is that the nuclei of the left and right are both made up of utopians who differ only in their orientation towards an imagined future or past utopia. Either one of progressing toward all that is right and leaving behind all that is wrong; or conserving all that is right and abandoning contemporary “mistakes”. But for various reasons, these two relatively small cores of fervent believers attract people with widely divergent and often nuanced views. And sometimes, for practical reasons, people make common cause with those they’d otherwise find their enemies.
mondo dentro 02.22.04 at 1:48 pm
It is not possible to be both a libertarian and a socialist.
Dave, to the extent that this is a semantics argument, I don’t really care about it. I mean, we can define things in a lot of different ways, and it wouldn’t matter all that much to me.
However, you are simply wrong in a historical sense. Try a quick Google search with “libertarian socialism” and you will see just how wrong. You can also do the same search at Amazon.
Just as one simple example, this is from the Wikipedia entry on the subject:
Libertarian socialism is a political philosophy dedicated to opposing what its advocates regard as illegitimate forms of authority and social hierarchy, most famously the institution of government. It has gone by various names: libertarian communism, anarcho-communism, left-anarchism, and, most commonly, anarchism. Libertarian socialists therefore believe in the abolition of privately held means of production and abolition of the state as an unnecessary and harmful institution (anarchism/libertarianism).
Now, as I said, I don’t necessarily care about narrow definitional debates, because in the end that’s like trying to argue about “what is art”, or “how many angels can fit on the end of a pin”.
For me the most important thing is that we need to stop thinking that all possible political orientations lie in a one-dimensional space ranging from the “left” to the “right”. This univariate thinking is really limiting our discourse and preventing us from innovating as a culture.
So, for starters, we can at least try a two-dimensional political space. Such a thing is attempted at the Political Compass, in which they posit a two-dimensional space with left-right, and libertarian-authoritarian axes. Apropos of our current discussion, they have this to say about their 2-D construction:
The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal “anarchism” championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America’s Libertarian Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.
mondo dentro 02.22.04 at 3:30 pm
Hi Ophelia.
I’m afraid my imprecision once again has come back to haunt me–that and the fact that I seem to have stepped into an old debate unawares.
First, let me say, I was in no way saying anything about your position, since I don’t know what it is! I am sorry, though, that I missed that discussion, because it sounds like it would have been interesting.
Now, back to the matter at hand. I said (with emphasis added):
Science proper says nothing about spiritual or metaphysical matters, and people who claim, for example, that science can either prove or disprove the existence (or necessity or whatever) of God are just wrong.
I intended for the simplistic “proof of God” bit to be just one little example of an inappropriate “application” of science to theology. I didn’t intend to say that this was an issue for Dawkins in particular. But he does write things like The Improbability of God which argues against belief based on probabilty, and, in general, it is safe to say that he is rather polemical in his dealings with religion. Would you agree?
You state:
To translate ‘Why should I believe something for which there is no good evidence?’ to either ‘You can’t prove that god exists’ or ‘I can prove that god doesn’t exist’ or perhaps ‘It’s been proven that god doesn’t exist.’ But the first sentence is very different from the next two. Very, very different.
Logically, I agree completely. However I think that rhetorically Dawkins goes farther than saying “why should I believe something for which there is no good evidence?” He is not merely arguing for the right to disbelief: he is criticizing belief in very strong terms, and even argues that it is unethical or immoral to have it based on its fruits. That’s to say, he believes that much of the suffering in the world is caused by irrational belief, and he typically juxtaposes belief in a Sky God with a purportedly superior “scientistic” view.
I am not religious in any conventional sense, and am a big fan of the Enlightenment project as well. I sometimes explain that my work as a scientist has created within me a type of scientific, pantheistic spirituality–but this spirituality is in no way, in and of itself, scientific! Rather, it is a consequence of my subjective experience of having practiced science as a discipline.
Truth be told, I share much of Dawkins’ negative views on the impact of the religion in many of the world’s problems. Where I suspect that I differ is that, first, I think scientism has it’s own limitations, a view not unfamiliar to, say, fans of the book Brave New World. Maybe this is just a matter of degree. Dawkins is more of an unapologetic advocate of scientism than I.
A more important difference, though,is that my critique of “belief” vs. “science”, is not so much leveled at “religion”, but at fundamentalisms of all types, especially apocalyptic fundamentalisms–be they secular or religious. I see this as part of a particular human weakness: the thirst for certainty. To my mind, “scientific” fundamentalists have the potential to be just as inhumane, and dangerous, as “religious” ones. So maybe it’s that, for me, Dawkins is a bit too much of a True Believer. I have found that I have a lot more in common on an immediate emotional level with a non-totalizing, open-minded religious person than I do with a dogmatic scientist.
Am I excessively distorting his views?
I prefer to think of science as one way of knowing that, like all ways, can not be complete. Other ways, religion and art being the two biggies, will never go away because they address aspects of the subjective nature of consciousness that science will never be able, ultimately, to touch. All may be related. All can perhaps asymptotically approach each others’ perspectives. But ultimately they will remain distinct. Every culture in history has had religion not because people were “primitive” in the past, but because a spiritual tendency is an epiphenomenon of consciousness.
OK. Having written this, I can find much wrong with it already. This isn’t simple, and I certainly don’t understand it all. But I’ll leave it at that. Perhaps you can help me clarify the issues here.
Cheers.
Ophelia Benson 02.22.04 at 3:32 pm
Oi! Mondo! What about my questions?
Of course you’re not obliged to answer. But I really am curious. I see these moves made so often, and I just do think they are unfair – in the sense of inaccurate – to the atheist side. I think you’re misrepresenting Dawkins, for instance.
mondo dentro 02.22.04 at 4:11 pm
Wow, Ophelia. I did answer your questions. In some detail.
Do you actually think I’m being evasive?! If so, I’m at a loss.
Ophelia Benson 02.22.04 at 4:12 pm
Oops! Beg pardon! Cross-post.
Thanks, Mondo, interesting reply. Don’t think I disagree with any of it. (!) No, I didn’t take you to be disagreeing with me, I just mentioned the other discussion because the same kind of argument turned up.
No, those are fair points about Dawkins, I think.
Have you read his Unweaving the Rainbow? You might find he shares that subjective experience you mention.
Ophelia Benson 02.22.04 at 4:14 pm
No no! Sorry! I hadn’t seen it, then went away. No no, not at all. Very good answer, much food for thought.
Ophelia Benson 02.22.04 at 4:20 pm
I know what you mean about Dawkins – don’t agree myself, but know what you mean. But the reason I don’t agree, I suppose…is that so much discussion of religion is so evasive, does give it so much benefit of the doubt. Does assume its competence and expertise (without ever really saying why, or what it consists in), does assume it should have some special right to be free of criticism. And religion itself can be so very coercive and demanding. I admire Dawkins’ efforts to keep pointing out such things. I don’t really think he does claim certainty – on the contrary, really. But he does point out that other people do, and get a free pass to do so, and ought not to.
mondo dentro 02.22.04 at 4:30 pm
I will take your view of Dawkins to heart, Ophelia, and keep it there when reading him in the future.
I know what you mean, of course, about this annoying, specially-priviledged status of religious argument. I despise that crap. (Not very scientific of me, eh? Hah!)
I “solve” the problem personally by distinguishing between “religion”, which is a human organizational structure, and what, for want of a better label, I’ll call the spiritual impulse, which I believe is universal in conscious entities–perhaps it is “nothing more than” the experience of the limits of thought, but it is something that we all find powerful. It’s the hair standing up on the back of the neck when we lie on our backs and look at the Milky Way. It’s the difference between knowing thermodynamics and being caught in the middle of a raging firestorm. In short, it’s the experience of the sublime.
Oh hell, why don’t I just say it: I’m a closet romantic!
Ophelia Benson 02.22.04 at 4:47 pm
Ha!
I’m a kind of closet .05 romantic. Or a romantic when I read Keats’ letters and The Prelude and no other time.
Have a look at Butterflies and Wheels if you haven’t. (Click my name.) From some of the things you were saying yesterday (which I meant to answer but ran out of time) I think you might like it.
mondo dentro 02.22.04 at 4:52 pm
Have a look at Butterflies and Wheels if you haven’t.
Already bookmarked. Thanks.
Ophelia Benson 02.22.04 at 5:18 pm
Ah. Thank you. [blush]
limberwulf 02.22.04 at 11:35 pm
Mondo,
I like the 2D approach. “libertarian” can indeed be defined many ways because of how it has been used. Libertarian as it is defined in the political arena in recent times (for example in the US libertarian party) seems to be generally more individualistic than the bottom left hand corner. I am a bit to the right as you have probably guessed, but I am more towards truly libertarian as I recognize that it is contradictory to be about individual liberty and still expect the government to mandate morality.
bill carone 02.22.04 at 11:38 pm
Ophelia,
“One dedicated person was still charging me with [claiming that religious claims weren’t true] when I gave up replying.”
On the other thread, I eventually figured out that you were saying things about religion that I agreed with. For example, you seem to agree with (of all people) Pope John Paul II and his ideas on the philosophy of religion:
– religion attempts to says things about the real world, not just the world of “why?”, contra Gould;
– if religion conflicts with science, science wins;
– if you don’t have faith, there is no reason to believe purely religious arguments; and so forth.
These are things that most people who understand religion agree with, and I agreed with your attempt to educate people who hadn’t already thought these things through.
I misunderstood you many times, though. For example, you (I think) are in the “Why should I believe something for which there is no good evidence?” camp (as am I), yet the things you wrote seemed to put you into the “Religion is not true/religion is meaningless” camp. For example.
– “theology doesn’t explain anything, it only claims to,”
– “the answers religions give are not true,”
– “[religious arguments] mean exactly nothing,” etc.
You can see how confusing it was for me. :-) But I think I understand you now, and appreciate your point of view.
Cheers,
Bill
limberwulf 02.22.04 at 11:46 pm
“On the other hand, the creationists have no clue what science is. The often-heard claim that “evolution is just a theory†proves it.”
Many creationists indeed do not have any interest or understanding of science. However, I see little difference in the attitude of one who says “evolution is just a theory†and one who says “creation is just a religious fantasy”. Neither are willing to see the rational basis for the other’s position, or look objectively at available evidence. I chose to believe in creation as the more probable explanation of the origin of the universe only after extensive study of current evidence. If future evidence shows that evolution is in fact more probable, I will change my thinking.
That said, I certainly understand the bad taste in the mouth that most creationists give. I just like to point out that the bad taste goes both ways, as I have yet to find an evolutionist that can answer the questions I put to them in a reasonable and rational fashion. More often I run in to discrediting and emotion rather than rational discourse. That is why I tend to view evolution as a religion, because it is practiced as one by many people. Those that approach it in the the more truly scientific sense are excluded from said criticisms.
Andrew 02.23.04 at 11:47 am
Only in the USA can people be so prissy about criticizing religion.
Let’s be honest here. There is no basis for a belief in a God of any form. None of the religions of the world are of any use in understanding the world (although they are generally good repositories of folk knowledge about human behaviour). Dawkins is honestly of this view so edging around his hard-edged atheism is pointless.
Science has proven itself (again and again and again) as by far the most useful way of thinking about the world yet developed.
It may be surpassed by a new and better way of thinking in the future.
But that way will not be religious and will not involve any god.
And any god who disagrees with me can strike me down immediately.
gemma 02.23.04 at 12:22 pm
“…where conservatives do dominate in the universities–in engineering, the sciences, etc…”
I’ve seen this claim made on numerous blogs and comment threads, but I’ve never seen it backed up by any kind of empirical data. It’s always taken as a given.
I’ve never noticed any particular political bent to the science departments, except that they tend to look down on religious fundamentalists. The science profs and researchers that I’ve met seem to span the political spectrum, from conservative Republican to hard-core left-wing, with most clustering in the unremarkable middle. In other words, they look more or less like the general population.
Does anyone know of any hard empirical data on the political tendencies of university science and engineering faculties in the U.S.?
Ophelia Benson 02.23.04 at 2:19 pm
Hi Bill,
I can sort of see, I guess. But one group of statements had to do with belief in a deity, and the other had to do with religion. I think you may have run both groups together – have taken statements about one to be directly transferable to statements about another, which isn’t always the case.
And then you were also talking about theology throughout, and that was never what I was talking about, so that could have been a confusion-source too.
I do try to be clear, at least about what it is that I’m actually saying. I may not succeed, but I do try.
Ophelia Benson 02.23.04 at 2:23 pm
“Only in the USA can people be so prissy about criticizing religion.”
That’s actually not entirely true. I’ve seen a lot of hostility to Dawkins as a narrow dogmatic atheist (which, I hasten to add, is not what Mondo was saying) on the Guardian DB for example, from people who are clearly in the UK. And there’s an interview with Susan Greenfield in which she criticises Dawkins and her then husband for arguing for atheism.
bill carone 02.23.04 at 4:36 pm
“There is no basis for a belief in a God of any form.”
Out of (true) curiosity…
Imagine we hadn’t figured out the theory of evolution yet.
Would you still say there was no basis for a belief in a God of any form?
Or do you mean just the God(s) of religions?
Ophelia Benson 02.23.04 at 5:33 pm
But why do you say ‘still’ when I haven’t said that in the first place? That’s not how I would phrase it. It depends on how one defines that ‘God.’
Mind you. I think an awful lot of cheating and fancy footwork goes on around this kind of thing. That defenders of religion define ‘God’ as just some nebulous Whatever for purposes of one kind of discussion, and as a person of some sort for purposes of the other kind. So definitions are in that sense not all that useful, because not all that reliable. But still, if by ‘God’ one just means ‘whatever started all this’ then no I wouldn’t say that (though I would ask ‘then what started the starter?’ and off we would go on the infinite regress, which takes hours to ride and is not as much fun as the roller coaster).
bill carone 02.23.04 at 5:41 pm
Sorry Ophelia, I was quoting Andrew above, not you; he took a much stronger line. I should have been more clear.
I do agree with your post; if you are going to talk about God, you probably should mean what everyone else means by it, not by some idiosyncratic definition.
Ophelia Benson 02.23.04 at 6:13 pm
Oh, oops, sorry Bill, delusions of reference again.
It does help, doesn’t it, if everyone is talking about the same thing! (‘By “dog” of course I mean that long green legless animal that slithers through the grass…’)
GMT 02.23.04 at 7:05 pm
It is a manufactured society in which a majority of the residents are living on either someone else’s money or borrowed money.
Yes, that’s so they can do this thing called “studying,” although there’s no certainty there.
Though I admit that working your ass off for declining wages may make it harder to figure out how you’re being screwed.
So, why should we academics carve out a little bantustan or reservation for every contrarian view? If I’m teaching geography, I’m not required to have a flat-earther as a guest speaker. Whatever “conservatism” may actually mean (leaving aside why it “works” in the “real world,” which is a great mystery), conservatives seem to be hopping mad that Scaife can’t buy our discourse they way he and his ilk have in the mass media and even in America’s seminaries.
Tough. People like Feser are beneath contempt. If you spend more time complaining that people won’t let you make your point than you do actually making that point, it’s probably because you don’t have one. He’s mad that people are saying things he doesn’t agree with and THAT is indoctrination. Some jokes write themselves.
GMT 02.23.04 at 7:07 pm
where THAT = that THAT
limberwulf 02.23.04 at 10:03 pm
gmt,
agree on the idea that complaining about not being heard often means your point is weak, or that you are not in a position to put your point forward in a rational manner.
Agree also that intellectuals need not carve out a spot for contrarian vies, however, my question is this. If your primary view does not work in the “real world” and people are clammoring for the teaching of one that does, what then? Is that not like the universities teaching the earth is flat and resisting the teaching that it is indeed a slightly pear-shaped sphere? Liberal versus conservative concepts as they relate to economics are not so cut and dried as the shape of the earth, to say that they are demonstrates an arrogance of belief in unfounded truth that approaches that of religion. If you do not understand why conservatism works, perhaps you should study it, rather than trying to teach an alternative. It is unlikely that I will find a superior engine if I have no clue how current engine technology functions. Not impossible, mind you, but certainly unlikely.
Bottom line is, your school, your teachers. You arent required to teach anything other than what you believe to be true in a school you own. But you do not own the schools. In most cases there is “public” ownership, and the arguments in a publicly owned and funded organization that you do indeed have to make concession to everyone involved. Take away public funding and you will find that the complaints about who is teaching and what they are saying will vanish. But then, thats not a very left-wing concept is it?
Ophelia Benson 02.23.04 at 10:08 pm
“Take away public funding and you will find that the complaints about who is teaching and what they are saying will vanish.”
Ohhhhhhhh no they won’t.
What on earth gave you that idea?
bill carone 02.23.04 at 10:48 pm
““Take away public funding and you will find that the complaints about who is teaching and what they are saying will vanish.”
Ohhhhhhhh no they won’t.
What on earth gave you that idea?”
I’ll bite.
If all schools were private, then if a school teaches nonsense, I can simply enroll elsewhere.
I might try to get the school to change its curriculum, but I certainly wouldn’t spend too much effort on it, since there would be a “better” school down the street.
In a public school system, it costs more to change to a “better” school, so you would expect people to spend more effort trying to change the school they’re in.
I would think, then, that complaints about curriculum would decrease if all schools were private.
limberwulf 02.24.04 at 1:49 am
That, Bill, is precisely what I was saying. My terminology was a bit exagerated perhaps, I am sure there would still be people that protest the actions or teachings of a said school and attempt to bring government control to the school because they think the teachings are inherently dangerous to society. However, on the whole, individual families, rather than complaining, would simply move their children to a different school. The complaints would dwindle down to those that believe in an authoritarian government that has the right to run the lives of others with whom they disagree.
j jenson 02.24.04 at 4:43 am
I’ve read several of the critiques addressing these Feser articles (as well as the articles, themselves). The striking thing about all of the critiques is that they are so clearly anxious to refute what they CLAIM is crack-pot non-sense.
My point? If professors like Feser feel compelled to write about these things, and if people like Berube, et al., are so quick and vicious in responding to them, then doesn’t it seem plausible that there’s actually some fire amidst all this smoke? Speaking hypothetically, would the nay-sayers feel as compelled to refute a professor who thought he was abducted by aliens? Maybe they would have a laugh, but would they appear as paranoid about refuting the veracity of alien abductions as they do in this case? I think not. It seems obvious that there’s a good chance that Berube and crew feel threatened on some level. But why? Is it because there’s a good deal of truth in Feser’s analysis? In my own experience, Feser’s analysis is right on the mark – it could stand improvement by way of nuance, but the core of his analysis is a bull’s-eye. Plus, I’ve seen these very same defensive/derisive postures, which Berube et al. assume, assumed in my own classes by professors keen to deny the same sort of accusations.
Elephant? What white elephant?
Thomas 02.24.04 at 4:55 am
Why suppose that this is self-immolation on Feser’s part? Leiter publishes a blog that would destroy most anyone’s reputation, but he manages just fine.
Chris’s response, so far as I understand it, is to agree with Feser that university education leads students to liberalism, but to disagree as to whether that’s good or not. I think that concedes almost everything to Feser, on this particular topic.
Ophelia Benson 02.24.04 at 1:11 pm
Right. Well think of broadcasting for example (US version). Or the entertainment business – movies in particular. Or publishing. They’re all nice and ‘private.’ Does no one ever complain about any of them? Are there no quality issues? Is the for-profit sector always as easy to move around in, to vote with one’s feet or wallet in, to exercise one’s ‘choice’ in, as you portray it? I don’t think so.
GMT 02.24.04 at 2:20 pm
If your primary view does not work in the “real world†and people are clammoring for the teaching of one that does, what then?
Well, I don’t have that problem, so I wouldn’t know.
You’ve made some rather broad generalizations, so much so that I’m not sure what you mean by “liberal,” “conservative,” or what “works,” or even that you have any idea what it is that academics actually do, aside from what certain pundits CLAIM that we do. You have not estabished this allegedly non-functional “primary view.” Stereotypes are not the same thing as samples.
So, I’ll define my terms. As it stands now, politicians who call themselves “conservatives” are preaching traditional liberalism. If that’s confusing, look up the word “liberalism” in a dictionary, or consult a history of political economy for the 19c. In the process, any disagreement with “conservative” (i.e., liberal) economics is dismissed as “liberal,” which boggles the mind!
What conservatices actually do, if we look at the policies of, say, the last five GOP presidents in US, or the difference between conservative government in the US and Germany (and West Germany) since 1945, is another thing.
Even Laffer himself admits there was no clear supply-side effect in 1982, so while even the battle lines are blurry, in your own terms, there is furthermore no victory. Every developed nation has a mixture of “free-market,” meaning a market free of govt.. influence but not that of the behemoths of the marketplace, and govt. policies. The absolutes of American polemics are nowhere evident in this “real world” of yours, just as the borrowed rhetoric of liberalism is nowhere evident in the actual policies of conservatives who have borrowed it.
GMT 02.24.04 at 2:28 pm
you do indeed have to make concession to everyone involved.
Huh? If I don’t teach something that is true because my customers don’t want to hear it, what kind of product are they getting? Isn’t this the sort of thing to which conservatives objected when the “concessions” were to people of color -vs- the canon? I won’t dumb my curriculum down for Afrocentrists and I won’t dumb it down for the right, either. That’s my responsibility and my professional self-respect, and all the Adam Smith fairy tales in the blogsphere cannot change that.
This is why economic models don’t work for everything. Remember the storm over “community standards” in the teaching of US history? The customer isn’t entitled to what they want, because they aren’t a customer. The teacher is more like a consultant.
Would you apply this same “reasoning” to personal trainers?!? “Why, no, if you want to eat doughnuts all day, by all means. And when you get fat, just sue me for malpractice!”
If this is how you approach the “real world,” I’m surprised you can cross the street in safety. A multi-ton bus doesn’t give a tinker’s damn what you want, it will run you over.
Ah, the childish epistemology of the free-market fundamentalist!
GMT 02.24.04 at 2:33 pm
then doesn’t it seem plausible that there’s actually some fire amidst all this smoke?
In what field could get away with making that kind of unwarranted assumption?
Yes, what Feser said was patently stupid. It was also an assault on our entire profession.
Get it, now?
Oh, and I admit, I have a strong, visceral reaction to stupidity, which I guess is why I’m in education.
j jenson 02.24.04 at 3:16 pm
“Yes, what Feser said was patently stupid. It was also an assault on our entire profession.
Get it, now?”
Huh? (Emphatic reiteration does not comprise an argument.)
Also, I made no assumption. I posed a question for which there might be a range of answers – including the answer that Berube, yourself, and others, are in denial. Why is that not possible? Do you deny it?
N.b. I also happen to be in the “profession.”
bill carone 02.24.04 at 4:57 pm
Ophelia,
“[Movies are] nice and ‘private.’ Does no one ever complain about [them]?”
If you are only objecting that there would still be some complaints, then I agree. My argument is only that there would be less complaining and dissatisfaction; no system would work perfectly.
“Are there no quality issues?”
Well, there’s quality and then there’s quality; I was just talking about quality as “consumer satisfaction.”
I think that most movies are dismal; however, the ones I choose to see are quite good overall. Same goes for books and magazines (and blogs).
If half of the private schools taught creationism and the other half taught evolution, there might be no complaints from the consumers, but I would not hesitate to call it a “low-quality” state of affairs in education.
I would guess that “I’m being forced to pay for something I don’t like” causes more dissatisfaction than “Other people are choosing to pay for something I don’t like.”
“Is the for-profit sector always as easy to move around in, to vote with one’s feet or wallet in, to exercise one’s ‘choice’ in, as you portray it? I don’t think so”
I think it is easier than the government alternative in the education example. Why do you think otherwise?
GMT 02.24.04 at 6:32 pm
Yes, emphatic reiteration does not constitute and argument. You’ll note that that’s not what I was doing, I was pointing out the obvious. That’s a data point, not an argument.
Overlooking inconvenient data points also doesn’t help one construct arguments. Claiming that others are “in denial” is also not an argument. But I am beginning to see why you might consider Feser credible.
In case you are having difficulty, I was responding to this non sequitur:
[if some] are so quick and vicious in responding to them, then doesn’t it seem plausible that there’s actually some fire amidst all this smoke?
I provided another possible explanation for all the smoke, see? Then you … well, what is it that you’ve contributed, exactly?
limberwulf 02.24.04 at 7:25 pm
gmt,
I apologize for not defining what I was referring to. I am not relating any of my definitions to politics or politicians. I totally agree with what you had to say about that. I was referring to economic and philisophical theory taught in colleges versus what is more widely accepted in the business world. That has nothing to do with democrat and republican. It has everything to do with free market and socialism. Granted there is a mix out there, but the attitude of many students out of college is very anti-capitalist untill they try to apply it. Then it tends to change to be more anti-socialist. Few people firmly believe in one or the other as a pure system, unless they are in a condition in which they are insulated from the need to actually apply their beliefs.
j jenson 02.24.04 at 8:30 pm
I am clearly outclassed here, intellectually speaking. I was under the delusion that a “data point” was precisely the point in question; i.e. is what Feser wrote stupid, or not? (I also suffer under the delusion that those in the “profession” are interested in the answers to questions posed, not in avoiding arguments. Silly, silly.)
Comments on this entry are closed.