We don't get to vote on what the truth is
From Nathan Smith's response to my post of 22 July regarding the virtues of technocracy versus democracy:
I don't know what Nathan means by "full of holes," (Is chemistry 'full of holes'? Certainly it is not completely understood nor are all its parts agreed upon) but the truth or falsity of evolution is apparently not at issue. Nathan says that to override the popular will on an issue of scientific fact is 'not worth it'. Could we apply this to geography? If we vote that, say, the continent of Asia is imaginary, should it be taught in schools? How about if only one school district votes to teach that, in an area where a sect predominates whose holy text says there is no continent but North America? What if perhaps a majority of people would rather there be no mention of the Civil War in their histry books, considering it to be an apocryphal event? Sure, a bunch of hoity-toity melonhead history professors might come along and lecture people about how their beliefs are contradicted by a mountain of rigorously-attested documentary evidence, but they're just a bunch of elitists!
Only teaching TRUE, relevant knowledge is education, all else is misinformation. One can argue that a cabal of so-called 'experts' is wrong and hiding that fact, but you can't dismiss the evidence because people refuse to believe it. Attempting to teach biology without evolution - the central organizing idea thereof - is a terrible failure of education. Unless all those scientists are wrong.
As for state-run public education versus any other kind in which public treasure is spent, the outcome is irrelevant. Public education money should only be spent teaching things that, to the best of its ability, the government has determined to be true. The way to do that is to ask a council of (hopefully disinterested) subject-matter experts, not to have a referendum. If one worries about abuse of state power, one can insist the expert-choosing process be more transparent. All government activities are ultimately answerable to elected officials.
Even the Supreme Court, in the long run.
I do not think it's a good thing that "scientific truths that most laymen do not accept are taught in schools." Even if evolution is true (and I think the theory is full of holes) to override the popular will on this issue is not a price worth paying: millions of people whom the elite considers barbarians and ignores are marginalized and alienated by such undemocratic norms. (If the Founders were alive today, they would be more distrustful of state-run public education than they ever were of standing armies.)
I don't know what Nathan means by "full of holes," (Is chemistry 'full of holes'? Certainly it is not completely understood nor are all its parts agreed upon) but the truth or falsity of evolution is apparently not at issue. Nathan says that to override the popular will on an issue of scientific fact is 'not worth it'. Could we apply this to geography? If we vote that, say, the continent of Asia is imaginary, should it be taught in schools? How about if only one school district votes to teach that, in an area where a sect predominates whose holy text says there is no continent but North America? What if perhaps a majority of people would rather there be no mention of the Civil War in their histry books, considering it to be an apocryphal event? Sure, a bunch of hoity-toity melonhead history professors might come along and lecture people about how their beliefs are contradicted by a mountain of rigorously-attested documentary evidence, but they're just a bunch of elitists!
Only teaching TRUE, relevant knowledge is education, all else is misinformation. One can argue that a cabal of so-called 'experts' is wrong and hiding that fact, but you can't dismiss the evidence because people refuse to believe it. Attempting to teach biology without evolution - the central organizing idea thereof - is a terrible failure of education. Unless all those scientists are wrong.
As for state-run public education versus any other kind in which public treasure is spent, the outcome is irrelevant. Public education money should only be spent teaching things that, to the best of its ability, the government has determined to be true. The way to do that is to ask a council of (hopefully disinterested) subject-matter experts, not to have a referendum. If one worries about abuse of state power, one can insist the expert-choosing process be more transparent. All government activities are ultimately answerable to elected officials.
Even the Supreme Court, in the long run.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home