How much of what is taught at university is WRONG?

[airborne]

I read something that got me thinking...

"I went to New York and Queens College to study economics but found it almost completely worthless except in a reverse sense; that is, I gained knowledge of what is wrong with conventional economic thinking rather than what is right"..."My formal school gave me an understanding of the predominantly Keynesian ideas that our government uses in making policy decisions

(Victor Sperandeo - Methods of A Wall Street Master)

If wrong ideas have infiltrated the teaching of philosophy and economics, what else have they reached? It would seem that number-based subjects would be the only safe courses(e.g. maths, physics, engineering).

[DavidOdden]

It would seem that number-based subjects would be the only safe courses(e.g. maths, physics, engineering).

Sociology, psychology, urban planning... sorry, there is no safety in numbers.

[markt]

I read something that got me thinking...

(Victor Sperandeo - Methods of A Wall Street Master)

If wrong ideas have infiltrated the teaching of philosophy and economics, what else have they reached? It would seem that number-based subjects would be the only safe courses(e.g. maths, physics, engineering).

A liberal education can still be an excellent thing … but some of what goes on in some universities today is more fit for an indoctrination center than a university … especially the humanities departments.

Tolerance and deference seems to be the chief goal ... and that's putting it nicely, it is more like conformance and submission. In any event, only tolerance of certain ideas and political positions.

The really excellent humanities professors which came from the world war 2 generation, who had such breadth and scope of art, politics, history and literature, are all but retired now. In their place, by in large, we have a very inferior bunch. This kind of easy going, generous, really liberal minded in the true sense, extremely intelligent person has become all but extinct in the poisonous political atmosphere that permeates the academy today. It was too good to last I suppose.

But some of the things which are allowed to go on in the universities today with the blessings of the administration are truly mind boggling. And many people who are graduated today some who go on to sit on school boards and city councils are some of the sorriest most divided individuals on the planet.-- not a very good tribute to the virtues of our modern educational institutions I am afraid.

Edited December 10, 2007 by markt

[DarkWaters]

If wrong ideas have infiltrated the teaching of philosophy and economics, what else have they reached? It would seem that number-based subjects would be the only safe courses(e.g. maths, physics, engineering).

The sciences are not necessarily safe. I recommend reading some of David Harriman's articles on the philosophical corruption of Physics. Consider: here, here and here. He also has an excellent lecture called the "Crisis in Physics" that is available on the registered user's section of the Ayn Rand Institute's website. Registration is free.

[UptonStellington]

I've taken two classes that have reverted to semester-long discussions of global warming. There are way too many examples to list here of things that are outright ridiculous. But I'll share one story, which you will either find amusing or frightening.

One of my classes was taught by a woman who has a PhD in Biology, I believe. She grew up and went to school in the USSR (on one occasion I heard her say how great the 'free' education system of the USSR was). It was an International Affairs course, where we are supposed to learn all about different things going on in the world. The entire class ended up being about global warming -- her reasoning was that when she first polled the class at the beginning of the semester, not enough people believed that global warming was a threat, so she kept having us read articles and write papers in response until she was satisfied that a sufficient number of us were believers -- this was instead of spending the amount of time we were supposed to on other things, such as world politics, economics, etc.

At the end of the semester, she asked us to evaluate her teaching, and many people told her that she was too biased in her approach. Her response to this was something along the lines of, "I have heard this before, and I don't understand it. There can't be any bias in science -- since science is looking for the truth, it's either a 'yes' or 'no' question. In teaching you about global warming, I am teaching you all about a scientific fact -- there is no bias, it's either a 'yes, it's happening' or a 'no it's not true', and I wanted to make sure that you all understood that it is happening and man is causing it."

So then the discussion briefly moves away from a debate over whether or not she's biased, and she mentions a video that she'd like us all to watch, saying, "There is a BBC documentary, a scientific documentary, that proves there is life after death. I highly recommend it to all of you, it is empowering to know these things. So that when these predictions about global warming come true and there is all the terrible flooding, etc., we won't have anything to fear, because we know we aren't just physical beings, but our spirits will live on."

After that, somebody in the class raised their hand and said, "See, right there, THAT'S you being biased."

She responded, completely bewildered, "I don't understand how you can say that! It's a SCIENTIFIC FACT that there's life after death! Watch the movie! There is no bias!"

[Thales]

After that, somebody in the class raised their hand and said, "See, right there, THAT'S you being biased."

She responded, completely bewildered, "I don't understand how you can say that! It's a SCIENTIFIC FACT that there's life after death! Watch the movie! There is no bias!"

You've got to be kidding. There's nothing you can say to that, it's so astoundingly absurd.

What was it Ayn Rand said? Environmentalists have stolen the prestige of science to scare people. This person is using the prestige of science to reassure us a life after death. Not science, but its prestige. This is what modern leftists have become. Still, even though this is the case, she sounds like a useful idiot more than anything.

Btw, it would be interesting to see that documentary, just to see what in fact is being put forth as "science".

[4reason]

Having received my BA in History (my emphasis was the American Revolution and the Early National Republic) I, too, was especially appalled at how biased some of my teachers were. Having biased teachers was one thing, but I was more disturbed by how biased some of the textbooks were. The tone in which they speak of the Founding Fathers in many texts -- I can even think back to the texts I used in middle and high school-- is just disgusting. It really is like people don't want heroes... they'd much rather tear a great man to pieces than to really admit he existed in the first place. Ungh!

With that said, however, I did still manage to have some great teachers. The greatest course I took, under the greatest professor, was my honors thesis seminar. We spent an entire semester specifically training ourselves to spot bias in history in order to prevent ourselves from letting bias intervene in our own theses. Great stuff.

It's good that you're thinking about this topic, though, because the key really lies in YOUR ability to spot where the teachers' bias lies; this will ultimately help you in your education, even if it teaches you nothing more than "everything this person says is worthless." I personally don't mind when a teacher openly shares their opinions, but I think it is imperative they make it clear where fact ends and their opinion/interpretation begins. This should apply to all topics -- even "number-based" topics-- not just history. Possessing judgment is okay, but educators need to clarify what is their judgment versus what is fact, just as they must be willing to accept students' individual judgments as well, and not do something stupid like punish them grade-wise for holding an opposing opinion. The teachers' podium should never function as a pulpit. It's okay to teach students' how to think, but shoving your opinion down their throats just defies the purpose of one's position, at any level in education.

Edited December 13, 2007 by 4reason

[UptonStellington]

You've got to be kidding. There's nothing you can say to that, it's so astoundingly absurd.

What was it Ayn Rand said? Environmentalists have stolen the prestige of science to scare people. This person is using the prestige of science to reassure us a life after death. Not science, but its prestige. This is what modern leftists have become. Still, even though this is the case, she sounds like a useful idiot more than anything.

Btw, it would be interesting to see that documentary, just to see what in fact is being put forth as "science".

Wow, sorry about that. I totally spaced on this thread. Ah, my professor changed her class website so I cant find the name of the video where it used to be. But I'll email her and get back to you.

Two things I should mention: If you want to talk about scary, we have read numerous articles on the splendors of religious environmentalism -- how important it is to make a religion out of environmentalism.

Also, she justifies her biased teaching style by saying that's how it's done in Europe -- professors teach their bias.

[airborne]

This could be related... but I've almost always hated subjects taught at school. When I did enjoy learning it was from smart people/ books. Hackers, professional traders, entrepreneurs.. topics ranging from trading -> programming -> philosophy have interested me at one point or another but NEVER at school because frankly they were boring, sucked and completely irrelevant to my life.

I remember one of the novels we read for english in high school, I forgot its name but I hated it. Anyway it was about a terrorist called Milo and how he came from poverty so his only life option was terrorism, it builds up a sympathy with the terrorists and also introduces the American characters. What I do remember is having a discussion for many lessons about how people are born into it and have no choice and you can't know if someone is really a terrorist or a freedom fighter.

Edited December 13, 2007 by airborne

[Robert J. Kolker]

I read something that got me thinking...

(Victor Sperandeo - Methods of A Wall Street Master)

If wrong ideas have infiltrated the teaching of philosophy and economics, what else have they reached? It would seem that number-based subjects would be the only safe courses(e.g. maths, physics, engineering).

Mathematics courses are usually the soundest taught. One can always determine if a proof is valid or not. One can always check algebraic manipulation and calculation.

Bob Kolker

[Prometheus98876]

Mathematics courses are usually the soundest taught. One can always determine if a proof is valid or not. One can always check algebraic manipulation and calculation.

Bob Kolker

I would be careful here though - this might be true when it comes to theories in maths. However it does not automatically carry through to things like Physics. For instance if I come up with a crazy theory that electrons are 8 dimensional entities and come up with a mathematical system that seems to prove this - this does not prove that electrons are actually 8-dimensional entities. Or if I construct a mathematical theory that says electrons do not exist - that does not mean they don't even if the maths seems to work.

Maths is not substitute for identifying the facts of reality and using that as a basis for theories and verifying them. Physics (well mainly Quantum Physics) has a track record of coming up with theories about things and claiming the most crazy things are proven to be true just because the maths seems to work.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Maths is not substitute for identifying the facts of reality and using that as a basis for theories and verifying them. Physics (well mainly Quantum Physics) has a track record of coming up with theories about things and claiming the most crazy things are proven to be true just because the maths seems to work.

Not so. Quantum physics not only predicts correctly (to 12 decimal places) but has never been empirically falsified. The Standard Model is the best physics theory every produced, despite its counter intuitiveness. It predicts right on the money which is all that counts for a scientific theory. Are the predictions right? That is the question. The Standard Model correctly accounts for all known non-gravitational phenomena involving particles or fields. General Theory of Relativity (also never falsified empirically) takes care of matters gravitational.

Mathematics done in a formal or abstract manner (i.e. non-applied) has zero empirical content. Which is why it is not a science. There is only one objective criterion for validity of a mathematical theory --- internal (logical) consistency. If an inconsistency is demonstrated, the theory is dead.

There is a subjective criterion -- interesting/non-trivial subject matter. What is non-trivial or interesting is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Bob Kolker

[Prometheus98876]

Right but you can only claim to know if the maths is valid if it does indeed match observed facts of reality. How then can Quantum Mechanics sensibly make the claim that Schrodingers Cat can be in a "superposition' of states between life and death?

Logical consistency would I take it be the fact that the maths is logically coherent with fact? (as opposed to being on its own and in isolation from actual observed facts logically coherent)

[Robert J. Kolker]

Right but you can only claim to know if the maths is valid if it does indeed match observed facts of reality. How then can Quantum Mechanics sensibly make the claim that Schrodingers Cat can be in a "superposition' of states between life and death?

Logical consistency would I take it be the fact that the maths is logically coherent with fact? (as opposed to being on its own and in isolation from actual observed facts logically coherent)

Schrodinger's Cat is a parable and a gedanken. Predictions made from the premise of quantum wave superposition have been empirically verified. Interpretations DO NOT COUNT. Only specific quantitative predictions do. It is on the verification of such predictions that theories stand or fall.

The underlying theory of semiconductors is the quantum theory of solid states. It has made your computer possible. Two of the three people who made the first working transistor at Bell Laboratory were quantum physicists who used their physics to design the device. The third was Robert Shockley an engineer who used the physical theories of his two collaborators.

Bob Kolker

[Prometheus98876]

Well yeah, stupid interpretations should not count. But they do if scientists run around talking about them as if they were solid scientific fact (as many of them do, though I grant many also do not take it too seriously).

If science is going to allow itself to formulate theories/interpretations that contain completely nonsensical stuff Schrodingers Cat, or strange particles coming out of some other universe (Im not sure how popular that last one might be anymore) how long do you think it will be until their theories stop being able to end up with any valid predictions? Especially if you consider the fact that many Quantum experts believe there is no underlaying quantum world, only a system of abstract mathematics.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Prometheus98876

[Robert J. Kolker]

Well yeah, stupid interpretations should not count. But they do if scientists run around talking about them as if they were solid scientific fact (as many of them do, though I grant many also do not take it too seriously).

If science is going to allow itself to formulate theories/interpretations that contain completely nonsensical stuff Schrodingers Cat, or strange particles coming out of some other universe (Im not sure how popular that last one might be anymore) how long do you think it will be until their theories stop being able to end up with any valid predictions? Especially if you consider the fact that many Quantum experts believe there is no underlaying quantum world, only a system of abstract mathematics.

Whatever. So far the theories in question have never been empirically falsified. Not only that, they have lead to technologies that we are enjoy and make us prosperous. Philosophical errors and oddities DO NOT COUNT. Only the correctness of predictions count. Given that, the amount and quality of technology grounded by such theories lends to their credibility. In the actual doing of science, philosophy is not a primary concern to the physicists who produce the results. I do not care a bit what "quantum experts" believe in their philosophical moments. I do care that the predictions they make are verified and that their theories produce technology I can use.

Bob Kolker

[Prometheus98876]

OK, well I for one DO care about the apparent trends for increasing irrationality in Quantum Mechanics (and other sciences such as climate science for one). The fact that they may or may not still get stuff right to the extent that they are still currently rational does not mean I should feel any less alarmed that they have a lot of irrational delusions.

Only the correct predictions count? That is why science must not succumb to irrationality, because eventually if it gets sufficiently irrational you wont get so many of them

[softwareNerd]

Only the correctness of predictions count.

The correctness of the predictions "counts"; but, the "only" part is false.

[Robert J. Kolker]

The correctness of the predictions "counts"; but, the "only" part is false.

That and internal consistency. What else matters? And counts is for real. It shouldn't be in quotes. Science is about predicting the outcome of experiments. Causes are hypotheses which lead to predictions of outcomes of experiments. The hypotheses are judged on the quality of predictions they produce.

Bob Kolker

[UptonStellington]

Thales, you had asked for the name of the documentary "proving" life after death:

"The Day I Died: The Mind, the

Brain, and Near-Death Experiences", Films for Humanities and Sciences,

BBC (2006).

[Prometheus98876]

So the fact that they may contain blatant irrationality that may or may not affect the predictions (assuming the theory gets something right) is of no concern? Does it not matter if ones scientific theories reveal scientists to be more and more mystic and irrational? Does it not matter that eventually if one becomes more and more irrational they cannot perform science or make predictions?

Damn I thought it did.

I think you are guilty of a major evasion/oversight if you think the philosophy that scientist holds and which a theory reveals is of no importance. It is of critical importance if the same sort of philosophy is widespread. Science can ONLY remain science on the basis of a rational metaphysics and epistemology. If your going to ignore signs that Quantum Mechanics seems to be willing to allow its philosophical requisite to become more and more shaky on the grounds that its still able to work for now, then I think that is just silly.

Harrimans video defineteley proves that there is a a lot of irrationality in Quantum Mechanics, would you care to prove that this is not the case?

[FeatherFall]

on one occasion I heard her say how great the 'free' education system of the USSR was

Heh.

I think I find a little humor in the way she was taught to determine truth and her evaluation of the system that taught her how to do so.

[Robert J. Kolker]

So the fact that they may contain blatant irrationality that may or may not affect the predictions (assuming the theory gets something right) is of no concern? Does it not matter if ones scientific theories reveal scientists to be more and more mystic and irrational? Does it not matter that eventually if one becomes more and more irrational they cannot perform science or make predictions?

That Standard Model has gotten everything right in its domain of application (non-gravitational interactions), so far. It has yet to be falsified empirically. The theory has been around since the early 70's and has been severely tested.

Likewise the General Theory of Relativity has been severely test for gravitational interactions. In the weak gravitational field it is so far empirically unfalsified. At the galactic scale there may be a problem. The rotation curves for stars at the outer edges of galaxies do not move as one would normally predict. The divergence is currently explained as the action of dark (non baryonic matter) but this may yet be a problem. For the region around our star it is right on the money and its gravitational red-shift corrections are one the the bases of the GPS.

Not bad for a blatantly irrational theory, yes?

Bob Kolker

Edited December 13, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[Tenzing_Shaw]

Hello, I am new to the forum (at least to actually writing posts of my own), but I have given a lot of thought to the problem addressed in this thread, so I thought I would make some comments:

I have not watched Harriman's video on quantum mechanics, so I don't know what aspects of the theory he refers to. However, I have studied quantum mechanics at an advanced undergraduate level, and do not find the main body of the theory to be at all irrational.

First of all, I do not count ideas such as Schrodinger's cat to be legitimate parts of the quantum theory. I believe that the Schrodinger's cat myth applies quantum mechanics out of its proper context, and thus produces an absurdity. It would be analagous, and equally absurd, to predict that two cats will orbit each other around their common center of mass. Cats are neither electrons nor planets. Why, then, did physicists invent such an irresponsible idea (I agree that it is irresponsible)? The reason, I think, is that it is incredibly difficult (probably impossible) to understand quantum mechanics on the basis of our experiences of the macroscopic world. I do not mean that QM has no basis in reality (all scientific theories must), but that it is hard for us to understand the world on a scale that is so much smaller than anything we can directly observe. It is probably in an attempt to concretize the very indirect observations that support QM that physicists create such myths.

This is unfortunate, but it is important to realize that such things are in no way essential to the quantum theory. Of course, one cannot simply dispense with all unfortunate aspects of a theory in order to claim that it is true (this would be redefining the theory). However, I am defining quantum mechanics according to what I was taught in school (to be consistent with the topic of the thread), and I can tell you that Schrodinger's cat was never treated as a serious topic by my professor. When he mentioned this sort of thing at all, it was generally in response to student questions, and was treated rather light-heartedly (my professor called the relevant section in our book "summer reading").

If our professor did not spend his lectures discussing irrational myths, what did he do? He taught us how to solve the Schrodinger Equation, which is the fundamental equation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. For example, we used the Schrodinger Equation to compute the behavior of the single electron in a hydrogen atom. In particular, one can solve for the energy levels of this electron, go to the lab, pass an electric current through hydrogen gas, and observe these energy levels directly (as colors). This is the sort of thing one actually does in quantum mechanics, assuming one has a competent teacher.

What is the real philosophical basis of quantum mechanics? Physicists observed that small-scale phenomena can seem bizarre and unpredictable. Over time, they began to see some patterns in the phenonmena, and they eventually discovered that a single differential equation (not counting the Dirac equation), along with some relevant physical facts, logically imply all of the phenomena they were observing. Why is this useful? It is useful because it gives us a systematic way of making predictions (by solving that equation), rather than just blind experimentation. Thus, I think that it is proper to consider QM as a tool for making useful predictions. Anything beyond this is suspect, at least with our current level of knowledge.

Science may be becoming more irrational, and scientists less responsible, but this does not mean that we should renounce theories like QM as nonsense. Far from being nonsense, the quantum theory is true, at least in its essentials, and it is a great accomplishment.

Tenzing Shaw

[Benpercent]

I just came to the conclusion very recently that most of what I have been taught in philosophy class may have been misinterpreted. I was taking a peek at Ayn Rand's entry on egoism in my textbook and saw that it had been ripped out of context from Atlas shrugged, and the next article opposing it asked straw man questions. Since this book can't even get Ayn Rand's position right, even with all her reference material and nonfiction available, I'm skeptical of the credibility of the entire book and its editor (Louis P. Pojman).

And because of this, I set up a few straw men in my research paper. Frustrating, but somehow I managed to get a hundred.

I worry of what has yet to become of me in my other philosophy classes.