Normal Science Graduates Too Many Sophomores

[coberst]

Normal Science Graduates Too Many Sophomores

Sophomoric—conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and [intellectually] immature

American culture enshrines and ritualizes hubris.

Hubris—exaggerated pride or self-confidence

Specialization is a boon to narrow mindedness.

Our culture is permeated with an obsessive desire to acquire stuff. We educate our self so as to gain quick entry into the race for the acquisition of more stuff than our neighbor. We are going to hell in a shopping cart because our educational system focuses attention upon the practical problem of preparing our self for the race to efficiently produce and consume more stuff.

Normal science, i.e. those sciences controlled and guided by paradigms, which I guess are primarily those based upon the sciences of physics and chemistry, have been so successful in meeting their respective goals that we have placed this form of intellectual inquiry on too high a pedestal. We have become deluded into thinking that the methods utilized by these sciences are not only the best but the only useful means for acquiring valuable knowledge.

It is human nature to be attracted to the mere appearance of things; the survival of many kinds of animals is dictated by the ability of the male and female to attract one another resulting from the colors and forms of eye appeal. We dress in the morning often based upon what type of trial we are facing; we gain a sense of confidence when we are confident of our appearance.

Our culture provides us little incentive to examine the common principles of our nature in such matters as morality and aesthetics. Such principles represent the very foundation for our actions. We finish our formal schooling without even rudimentary comprehension of these fundamental aspects of our nature. Not only do we finish our schooling with this fundamental ignorance but we leave schooling with a disdain and dismissive attitude of such matters.

We finish schooling with a prejudice against our self. We develop a satisfaction only when we think of our self as being surrounded by objects and laws independent of our self. We finish school unaware of the psychology which is the instrument of our speculations about these laws and principles. We aggressively dismiss the exclusively “subjective and human department of imagination and emotion…we have still to recognize in practice the truth that from these despised feelings of ours the great world of perception derives all its value, if not also is existence…had our perceptions no connection with our pleasures, we should soon close our eyes on this world”.

I think that specialization is perhaps a necessity but it is not necessary, nor is it health, for us to graduate sophomores who lack the rudimentary knowledge of fundamental human capacities and limitations. Also the self congratulatory attitude resulting from a mistaken hubris leaves us handicapped in any effort to develop a sophisticated comprehension of our problems after our school daze are over.

You must be the change you wish to see in the world. (Mohandas Gandhi)

Quotes from “The Sense of Beauty: Being the Outlines of Aesthetic Theory” by George Santayana

[USViking]

Normal Science Graduates Too Many Sophomores

Sophomoric—conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature

American culture enshrines and ritualizes hubris.

Hubris—exaggerated pride or self-confidence

Specialization is a boon to narrow mindedness.

Our culture is permeated with an obsessive desire to acquire stuff. We educate our self so as to gain quick entry into the race for the acquisition of more stuff than our neighbor. We are going to hell in a shopping cart because our educational system focuses attention upon the practical problem of preparing our self for the race to efficiently produce and consume more stuff.

Normal science, i.e. those sciences controlled and guided by paradigms, which I guess are primarily those based upon the sciences of physics and chemistry, have been so successful in meeting their respective goals that we have placed this form of intellectual inquiry on too high a pedestal. We have become deluded into thinking that the methods utilized by these sciences are not only the best but the only useful means for acquiring valuable knowledge.

It is human nature to be attracted to the mere appearance of things; the survival of many kinds of animals is dictated by the ability of the male and female to attract one another resulting from the colors and forms of eye appeal. We dress in the morning often based upon what type of trial we are facing; we gain a sense of confidence when we are confident of our appearance.

Our culture provides us little incentive to examine the common principles of our nature in such matters as morality and aesthetics. Such principles represent the very foundation for our actions. We finish our formal schooling without even rudimentary comprehension of these fundamental aspects of our nature. Not only do we finish our schooling with this fundamental ignorance but we leave schooling with a disdain and dismissive attitude of such matters.

We finish schooling with a prejudice against our self. We develop a satisfaction only when we think of our self as being surrounded by objects and laws independent of our self. We finish school unaware of the psychology which is the instrument of our speculations about these laws and principles. We aggressively dismiss the exclusively “subjective and human department of imagination and emotion…we have still to recognize in practice the truth that from these despised feelings of ours the great world of perception derives all its value, if not also is existence…had our perceptions no connection with our pleasures, we should soon close our eyes on this world”.

I think that specialization is perhaps a necessity but it is not necessary, nor is it health, for us to graduate sophomores who lack the rudimentary knowledge of fundamental human capacities and limitations. Also the self congratulatory attitude resulting from a mistaken hubris leaves us handicapped in any effort to develop a sophisticated comprehension of our problems after our school daze are over.

You must be the change you wish to see in the world. (Mohandas Gandhi)

[I]Quotes from “The Sense of Beauty: Being the Outlines of Aesthetic Theory” by George Santayana (emphasis added- USV)
What exactly are Santayana's words in the post above?

Santayana, right or wrong, was a master of written English,
and he would not have produced so banal, slangy,
and ungrammatical a paragraph as this:

"Our culture is permeated with an obsessive desire to acquire stuff. We educate our self so as to gain quick entry into the race for the acquisition of more stuff than our neighbor. We are going to hell in a shopping cart because our educational system focuses attention upon the practical problem of preparing our self for the race to efficiently produce and consume more stuff."

The Santayana title cited dates from 1896.

I might have the effrontery to question the great Santayana
on the subject of science, especially in light of developments
since the cited essay was published, but first I need to know
what he said.

[Scaryclouds]

So what's the purpose of this thread? As Viking points out this quote is from 1896, so it's hardly an authority on the current state of science culture.

Perhaps a question could be asked giving a direction to this current quagmire of a discussion.

[coberst]

What exactly are Santayana's words in the post above?

.


I use standard practice and enclose the words of another in quotation marks.

[coberst]

So what's the purpose of this thread? As Viking points out this quote is from 1896, so it's hardly an authority on the current state of science culture.

Perhaps a question could be asked giving a direction to this current quagmire of a discussion.

I think that one would be wise to judge a book by its content rather than by its publication date.

[USViking]

I use standard practice and enclose the words of another in quotation marks.
I missed one of the quotation marks.

Format your posts as you wish, but if you want
to draw maximum attention to citation it is best
to offset it in a distinguishing format.

Santayana:


(We dismiss the) subjective and human department of imagination and emotion…we have still to recognize in practice the truth that from these despised feelings of ours the great world of perception derives all its value, if not also is existence…had our perceptions no connection with our pleasures, we should soon close our eyes on this world.

In my own experience I have never gotten the impression
that the world was ever in danger of being taken over by
emotionless robots.

I doubt conditions were worse in 1896.

My guess is that Santayana is bewailing the fact that
so few people are capable of reaching his own exquisite
level of aesthetic sophistication. I know I am not.
However, I think me and most other people enjoy the
enrichment offered by the emotional part of our existence,
even if we cannot attain the height of a Santayana.
There are those who are numb to this potential, and
that is a pity. It does not follow that the truth of beauty
is in danger of being forgotten.

[USViking]

I think that one would be wise to judge a book by its content rather than by its publication date.
"Science" was the second word of the thread title,
and I reasonably assumed that Santayana was weighing
in on that subject.

The date of publication is important because in 1896
numerous epochal scientific discoveries had yet to be
made. For example, Quantum and Relativity theory were
undreamt of, and Mendel had not been rediscovered.

I have to admit I was hoping to catch the great Santayana
too far out on a limb. He would not have been alone:
None other than Albert Michelson said during the era
of the publication date that physics was finished, with
no more significant discoveries to be made; all that was
left to be done was to improve the accuracy of measurement
by an ever-increasing number of decimal places.

[Scaryclouds]

I think that one would be wise to judge a book by its content rather than by its publication date.

Yes, but this book, or at least the snippet provided, seems to be remarking on a contemporary phenomena, not a persistent characteristic of science. Even if that was not the case science is almost categorically different between now and then. Nothing said back then would be directly used now, that is to say if I wanted to learn about the laws of motion I would not read Isaac Newton's papers, but the most recent papers on the motion. Yes I know what you are referring to is not the actual research done, but the way the research is carried out. However this stands as a testament to how much has actually changed, as more knowledge is gained a person or group becomes collectively wiser and the way they act is different.

You still have not addressed the primary clause of my post which is providing a direction to this thread. However if you are happy discussing this with USViking, then who am I to judge? (Not to imply debating with USViking is bad thing... though to say it explicitly I would rather gouge out my eyes with flaming pitch forks :p)

[coberst]

Scary

It seems to me that our educational system has graduated far too many individuals who have not been educated but have been propagandized into thinking that the reality that they have been taught in their specialized study represents the most significant part of reality. It is like implanting into the mind that Kansas is the center of the world.

Our educational system is so preoccupied with producing good workers that it fails to graduate sophisticated intellects that are not only prepared but eager to discover what the rest of reality is all about.

Our educational system has graduated individuals who are not only grossly ignorant of reality beyond their own specialty but are arrogant in that ignorance.

Saul Bellows wrote in his introduction to “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom “Professor Bloom’s book makes me fear that the book of the world, so richly studied by autodidacts, is being closed by the “learned” who are raising walls of opinions to shut the world out.”

[serenity]

Our educational system is so preoccupied with producing good workers that it fails to graduate sophisticated intellects that are not only prepared but eager to discover what the rest of reality is all about.

Our educational system has graduated individuals who are not only grossly ignorant of reality beyond their own specialty but are arrogant in that ignorance.


Not to be too bloody-minded (and as aside, I'd like to tell you that your contributions to this site are appreciated...by me!)--but it would seem that a reasonably sophisticated intellect named USViking disagrees with some of what you post here.

That is, USViking's disagreement undermines your argument, or at least what appear to be its generalizations.

[coberst]

Not to be too bloody-minded (and as aside, I'd like to tell you that your contributions to this site are appreciated...by me!)--but it would seem that a reasonably sophisticated intellect named USViking disagrees with some of what you post here.

That is, USViking's disagreement undermines your argument, or at least what appear to be its generalizations.

Good for USViking. We all need more individuals who can think clearly and then express their thoughts in a coherent manner.

[serenity]

I can't argue with that!

[AgentM]

Scary

It seems to me that our educational system has graduated far too many individuals who have not been educated but have been propagandized into thinking that the reality that they have been taught in their specialized study represents the most significant part of reality. It is like implanting into the mind that Kansas is the center of the world.

Our educational system is so preoccupied with producing good workers that it fails to graduate sophisticated intellects that are not only prepared but eager to discover what the rest of reality is all about.

Our educational system has graduated individuals who are not only grossly ignorant of reality beyond their own specialty but are arrogant in that ignorance.

Saul Bellows wrote in his introduction to “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom “Professor Bloom’s book makes me fear that the book of the world, so richly studied by autodidacts, is being closed by the “learned” who are raising walls of opinions to shut the world out.”

How would you propose to change the educational system? The problem is that it may be too discipline-focused right now, but if they developed multidisciplinary programs, those programs might not satisfy the needs of industry enough. As well, many programs (mine included) allow for "elective" courses, encouraging students to take courses from outside their chosen discipline.

[Scaryclouds]

Scary

It seems to me that our educational system has graduated far too many individuals who have not been educated but have been propagandized into thinking that the reality that they have been taught in their specialized study represents the most significant part of reality. It is like implanting into the mind that Kansas is the center of the world.

Our educational system is so preoccupied with producing good workers that it fails to graduate sophisticated intellects that are not only prepared but eager to discover what the rest of reality is all about.

Our educational system has graduated individuals who are not only grossly ignorant of reality beyond their own specialty but are arrogant in that ignorance.

Saul Bellows wrote in his introduction to “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom “Professor Bloom’s book makes me fear that the book of the world, so richly studied by autodidacts, is being closed by the “learned” who are raising walls of opinions to shut the world out.”

I suppose that could be the case. However I would say much of that would vary from individual to individual opposed to the actual curriculum taught. Despite going to a very technical oriented school I was still required to take my fair share of general education courses.

While I see the importance in expanding the scope of what a person knows outside their field, at the same time we live in a world of limited resources and time. My education at DeVry cost me some 40-50K, that a significant amount of money for myself, and pretty much anybody here. While taking an additional psychology, humanities, or history class might have broaden my view on the world, will it's significance upon me really be worth the extra ~1.5K per class? Not only that I went there to learn how to program, I do enjoy learning about history, and found my psychology classes very interesting, however I did not go to DeVry to learn about the causes of the great wars or social psychology, if you add too much of this into my curriculum you might end up either bankrupting or disenfranchising me. So a line must be walked between giving a full rounded education and ensuring a high graduation rate.

You can try to open a persons mind to new ideas, but ultimately it comes down to the individual not the system to go out a learn about the world. Arguments can be made that the system is not working correctly, however I think a considerable portion of our closed mindedness is the result of events prior to one reaching college.

[coberst]

How would you propose to change the educational system? The problem is that it may be too discipline-focused right now, but if they developed multidisciplinary programs, those programs might not satisfy the needs of industry enough. As well, many programs (mine included) allow for "elective" courses, encouraging students to take courses from outside their chosen discipline.
.
I would start with teaching CT (Critical Thinking) to all youngsters beginning in grade school. Then I would provide a curriculum which would instill in each young person a desire to learn and a overview of realty that would allow them to become conscious of the vastness of reality and that we have a good idea about much of it but has not been passed on to the culture in general.

[coberst]

You can try to open a persons mind to new ideas, but ultimately it comes down to the individual not the system to go out a learn about the world. Arguments can be made that the system is not working correctly, however I think a considerable portion of our closed mindedness is the result of events prior to one reaching college.

Our eductional system fails to teach us much of what we need to know but its greatest fault is that it fails to give us a love of learnng and a desire to intellectually explore.

The people who have destroyed our economic system, i.e. Corporate America, are also the ones who have created our edcational system that has bankrupted our ability and desire to learn beyond the school house door. CA wants a docile and uncritical work force.