The early days of third world country...
Sep. 27th, 2010 08:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsIn this morning's newsfeed, two articles back-to-back only showed me that we are in the early days of becoming a third-world country. The first article is from USA Today, and it stares us in the face and we flinch, terrified. Entitled Poor science education impairs U.S. economy, the article shows that science education has declined over the past five years and there's nothing in the pipeline intended to improve it. 49% of Americans don't know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the sun; US mathematics teaching is 48th in the world; China has replaced the US as the world's top exported of high technology.
And we are doing nothing to turn that around: we are arrogant in our assumption of exceptionalism, we are cowardly in our unwillingness to face the truth, we are self-destructive in our tolerance for foolishness.
Foolishness like the second article, Speakers challenge Darwin’s theory, in which Southern Methodist University's campus newspaper reports on how Stephen Meyer moderated a panel among Intelligent Design proponents without any input from a competing viewpoint, and ended with this quote from a student at the business school: "We can have a positive future if we can convince people that Darwin's theory is just a theory like any other and not a fact."
It's a fact and a theory, just as gravity is a fact and a theory. Just as chemistry is a fact and a theory. Germs are a fact and a theory.
I'd like to ask the business student: "I can point to several successful pharmaceutical, zoological and agricultural research programs that depended upon Darwin's theory of evolution being true in order to be successful. These research programs have resulted in new businesses and billions of dollars in revenue. Can you point to a single similar initiave that depended upon Darwin's theory of evolution being incorrect or incomplete?"
Nobody can.
SMU is an accredited university. It's motto is "The Truth Shall Set You Free." Today, SMU administrators ought to be ashamed of themselves for allowing this kind of tripe. They'd never allow yoga instructors to claim they can levitate, or acupuncture woomeisters to give a symposium on how they cure cancer, and that's the level of respectibility "Intelligent Design" deserves.
And we are doing nothing to turn that around: we are arrogant in our assumption of exceptionalism, we are cowardly in our unwillingness to face the truth, we are self-destructive in our tolerance for foolishness.
Foolishness like the second article, Speakers challenge Darwin’s theory, in which Southern Methodist University's campus newspaper reports on how Stephen Meyer moderated a panel among Intelligent Design proponents without any input from a competing viewpoint, and ended with this quote from a student at the business school: "We can have a positive future if we can convince people that Darwin's theory is just a theory like any other and not a fact."
It's a fact and a theory, just as gravity is a fact and a theory. Just as chemistry is a fact and a theory. Germs are a fact and a theory.
I'd like to ask the business student: "I can point to several successful pharmaceutical, zoological and agricultural research programs that depended upon Darwin's theory of evolution being true in order to be successful. These research programs have resulted in new businesses and billions of dollars in revenue. Can you point to a single similar initiave that depended upon Darwin's theory of evolution being incorrect or incomplete?"
Nobody can.
SMU is an accredited university. It's motto is "The Truth Shall Set You Free." Today, SMU administrators ought to be ashamed of themselves for allowing this kind of tripe. They'd never allow yoga instructors to claim they can levitate, or acupuncture woomeisters to give a symposium on how they cure cancer, and that's the level of respectibility "Intelligent Design" deserves.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Why is there such an aversion to thinking?
Date: 2010-09-28 04:27 pm (UTC)Re: Why is there such an aversion to thinking?
Date: 2010-09-28 04:52 pm (UTC)Einstein would be "famous because of" his intellect. Everyone knows the name Albert Einstein, and associates the name with, "Very Smart." However, the majority of people would have difficulty explaining why he's famous for being smart.
Carl Sagan is "famous because of" saying "Billions and billions," but is being slowly forgotten, as are all of the things he did, both for space exploration and science education.
Stephen Hawking is "famous because of" his intellect and, "His Achievements Despite His Handicap," but almost nobody outside of physics would be able to say what those achievements are, beyond that he overcame them even though he has ALS (if they even know that he has ALS). They may also know that he's "the Lucasian Chair at Cambridge, a position once held by Isaac Newton," but few will know why.
Anyone who majored in physics as an undergrad will know who Richard Feynman is because they admire him for his achievements, both within physics and outside of it. Few people outside of physics will even know who Richard Feynman is, let alone what his achievements were.
There are people who not only know who Hawking, Einstein, and Sagan are, but also admire them for their respective achievements. A subset of those people will even be critical of Einstein's or Hawking's work, and/or critical of Carl Sagan outside of his scientific achievements.
Sorry if I came across as preachy or harsh, there. But that's the distinction I'm making.
Re: Why is there such an aversion to thinking?
Date: 2010-09-28 06:00 pm (UTC)Within the Quaker community (at least in the PNW), there seems to be great appreciation for intellectual achievement and a sense that this has always been so.
Jesuits (not a single name, but rather an order dedicated to education) - very acceptable in the U.S., certainly carrying their tradition forward here.
Re: Why is there such an aversion to thinking?
Date: 2010-09-29 01:01 am (UTC)I was raised Catholic, so I already knew about the Jesuits. I also know that other Catholics see the Jesuits as just one of the monastic orders. The Jesuit dedication to education does not, alas, represent the church laitey at-large. The parish where I was confirmed was unusual in that it had a priest who was of a more scholarly nature. But that was just one priest, in one parish. No others I attended before I left had clergy who did more than parrot dogma.
Getting back to those you named: You're right in that they all made great contributions to human knowledge. I'm glad that you admire them for their intellectual achievements, and not merely their fame. For my part, I certainly admire Ben Franklin for all that he did. But Edision… I prefer Nikolai Tesla. And I used to know who Booker T. Washington was, and what he did, and once knew what Mr. Brandeis accomplished. But now? I'd have to hit wikipedia. And I'm a fairly well-educated guy who cares about knowledge.
How would the average American react to these names? (You and I,
They'll know Thomas Alva Edison for being a famous inventor, and most will know that he invented the light bulb. A few will know that he invented the phonograph. Only a few will know that he promoted residential DC electric power over AC. But I have to wonder if any of those people will really admire Edison for his intellectual achievements, or because he got rich inventing things.
Most Americans, I expect, won't recognize the name, "Booker T. Washington." Or they'll think he's the guy that invented peanut butter.
What about everyone else? How far back do you think hostility to intellectual pursuits goes in the US?
Re: Why is there such an aversion to thinking?
Date: 2010-09-29 04:53 pm (UTC)Now, _Candide_, to respond to your points.
Quakers are a very interesting group. One of the structural parts of their worship is silent contemplation with the occasional speaking. It seems to me that building lots of *time* to think right into their religious/communal worship has led to lots of actual thinking and discussion.
The Jesuit dedication for education does not represent the Catholic laity at-large, but it constitutes an acceptable and respected stream of Catholicism. In other words, there is an acceptable path for people with intellectual leanings and aspirations - within a broad framework of Catholic religion.
When you say that certain famous figures are famous for being famous, rather than for their achievements, you nullify a priori any name I mention - because if I know their name they're famous, which makes the admiration of them suspect.
But it is not their celebrity which makes the people I mentioned interesting.
Here are a few more: Ralph Waldo Emerson, admired for his essays and thinking; Walt Whitman, admired for his poetry (writing poetry counts as an intellectual achievement, I think.)
Robert Frost, also a giant of poetry. Louisa May Alcott, whose books for girls provided role models (including intellectual ones) for generations of young women.
I keep writing and deleting Thomas Jefferson, but I guess I won't delete him this time: he is renowned and celebrated for his intellectual writing as well as for the political roles he had.
Might I mention Harriet Beecher Stowe? She is widely admired for the effect that her writing-of-stories had on the world and on the country.
Now, I am at a bit of a disadvantage here, because not only am I not an average American in nearly any way, I did not grow up here. Not only do I not know what other Americans of my generation admire, I was never exposed to the names of many great people, celebrated for their intellectual prowess. Any knowledge I have is eclectic, grabbed magpie-style due to their noticeable twinkling. This was not part of a well-ordered education.
My children, however, are being raised here, and they have been informed admiringly by their schools of some wonderful figures, ones who inspire both of them to excel. This is now, in both public and private schools, in a tiny town at the very edge of the continental 48.
Now, I like to think that this city is unusual. I'd hate to live in a dull, flat space, indistinguishable from any other McCity. But it is not *that* unusual! I know this because I speak with parents from across the U.S., and their kids are having the same kind of experiences - both in terms of being fed factoids rather than learning to think, and in terms of seeing intellectual giants as worthwhile figures.
As to that average American and her response to the names I mentioned: good question. I just don't know. I've been blessed with having met only two "average" people in my life, and I suspect that even they were using that as a facade.
In summary: I don't see hostility to intellectual pursuits. I see a very disturbing way of delivering education (factoid rather than frameworks of thought), and indeed, a culture of celebrity rather than substance and of replacing contemplation with memorization. I read that as a misunderstanding of what education is, rather than a hostility to it.
Thanks for the stimulating conversation so far!
Re: Why is there such an aversion to thinking?
Date: 2010-09-29 10:48 pm (UTC)People who achieve great things will become well known. But the question is: do they become well known for those achievements? Or do they merely become famous?
I discussed this with
So, I'm saying that famous people should be famous for what they achieved, but that in the US, that's not the case. In the US, if your achievements are intellectual or artistic (instead of sports, movies, TV, or pop-music), it is extremely unlikely that you will become well-known. For the rare few that become famous for intellectual achievements, their fame will be all that's remembered, the achievements ignored and forgotten.
This makes sense. You wouldn't send your kids to a school that didn't do this. And, I have to wonder if you'd give parents who didn't value knowledge and learning any time. (Note that I say "knowledge" and "learning", not "education." Everyone thinks "education" is important. But do they encourage their kids to play chess, read, or do math puzzles? Or encourage them to take up football?) I know that I certainly wouldn't!
Re: Why is there such an aversion to thinking?
Date: 2010-09-30 04:28 pm (UTC)About the parents - well, I was on the PTA for one memorable year (I was VP, so much of what we did was my fault). This meant I got to spend a great deal of time trying to understand what parents wanted, and get them involved. Some were much more interested in sports. One of the fundraisers involved having our kids run around in circles, where the school got paid for each "lap". Another involved mass-sale of junk food. All the parents, including the ones who supported those bizarre-in-my-opinion fundraisers cared about their kids' learning. Not necessarily the way I care about it (more about having an education than doing the actual learning), but they cared. And that caring was the point at which we met and achieved things for the school.
Following that year I kept my daughter in public school until she finished working with one of the immensely awesome teachers, then pulled her into a private school more aligned with my values. This may support your point ::grin::
Re: Why is there such an aversion to thinking?
Date: 2010-09-29 01:23 am (UTC)I did vaguely recollect Mr. Washington's association with the early African-American Civil Rights Movement. I'd forgotten that he'd helped found Tuskegee University. And I never realized the extent of his work towards educating African-Americans in the latter half of the 19th Century.
I dimly recalled that Louis Brandeis was Jewish and thought that he had to fight the rampant antisemitism of his day to achieve what he did. But I didn't remember at all that, "what he did," was become the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice, at the beginning of the 20th Century. I never knew that he was a child of immigrants, or that he completed a law degree at Harvard at age 20. Nor did I know that he took so many cases, for free, backing, "the little guy," against the powerful industrial and banking interests of the Gilded Age (and later).
Both men are, indeed, worth of admiration for their deeds — and equally worthy of admiration for their intellectual prowess.
Re: Why is there such an aversion to thinking?
Date: 2010-09-29 04:00 pm (UTC)(And thanks for looking them up; I do love their stories and it feels good to know that I have been the catalyst for further sharing of them.)
Re: Why is there such an aversion to thinking?
Date: 2010-09-29 04:28 pm (UTC)Re: Why is there such an aversion to thinking?
Date: 2010-09-29 04:54 pm (UTC)