|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 20, 2019 20:59:55 GMT -5
So let's see. An "inclusive" environment" has no place for anyone with a different opinion! We didn't throw that tea into Boston Harbor a minute too soon. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 17:01:56 GMT -5
So let's see. An "inclusive" environment" has no place for anyone with a different opinion! How do you get to that conclusion from the facts presented in the article?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 21, 2019 18:15:55 GMT -5
So let's see. An "inclusive" environment" has no place for anyone with a different opinion! How do you get to that conclusion from the facts presented in the article?
Really? An "inclusive" environment" suddenly excluding someone they invited?
Universities used to be places where people with different opinions could discuss things.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2019 12:36:22 GMT -5
How do you get to that conclusion from the facts presented in the article? Really? An "inclusive" environment" suddenly excluding someone they invited? "The University of Cambridge said Peterson requested to be a visiting fellow and was initially granted the opportunity, but after further review it decided to take back the offer. “[Cambridge] is an inclusive environment and we expect all our staff and visitors to uphold our principles. There is no place here for anyone who cannot,” a spokesperson for the university said." They expect employees to uphold their principles, and reject those who can't. Are you argueing that Peterson is entitled to be hired in spite of this? Does Peterson's absence prevent people with different opinions from discussing things at Cambridge?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 22, 2019 18:21:54 GMT -5
Really? An "inclusive" environment" suddenly excluding someone they invited? "The University of Cambridge said Peterson requested to be a visiting fellow and was initially granted the opportunity, but after further review it decided to take back the offer. “[Cambridge] is an inclusive environment and we expect all our staff and visitors to uphold our principles. There is no place here for anyone who cannot,” a spokesperson for the university said." They expect employees to uphold their principles, and reject those who can't. Are you argueing that Peterson is entitled to be hired in spite of this? Of course not. A University has the right to hire anyone they wish. What I question is the judgement of University officials, and their courage. Jordan Peterson is not exactly unknown, and neither are his opinions. The Cambridge staff had to know what Peterson's views were before they hired him. What probably happened here is that a few activists scared the Cambridge staff into withdrawing their invitation. Please note that I don't blame the activists. They have a right to complain about anything they want to. I am blaming the Canbridge bureaucracy for having no spine and no commitment to discussing controversial views. People in Cambridge will most likely think twice now before they state any unpopular opinions. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2019 8:43:51 GMT -5
"The University of Cambridge said Peterson requested to be a visiting fellow and was initially granted the opportunity, but after further review it decided to take back the offer. “[Cambridge] is an inclusive environment and we expect all our staff and visitors to uphold our principles. There is no place here for anyone who cannot,” a spokesperson for the university said." They expect employees to uphold their principles, and reject those who can't. Are you argueing that Peterson is entitled to be hired in spite of this? Of course not. A University has the right to hire anyone they wish. Unless they refuse to hire someone whose opinions you like, apparently. Peterson is mostly internet famous, and mostly for things that have very little to do with his actual work as an academic, so I wouldn't put it past the people of Cambridge to simply be unfamiliar with his online reputation. This is all speculation, of course. The article makes no claims either way. For which you have no evidence. What activists? The article mentions none. So you are blaming Cambridge for refusing to hire people who don't pass their standards for faculty conduct. Do you have any evidence for that?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 23, 2019 22:45:17 GMT -5
Of course not. A University has the right to hire anyone they wish. Unless they refuse to hire someone whose opinions you like, apparently. But they did hire him. Had you read what I actually said, you would have known this. Yeah, right. People at a world class university would hire someone without doing an internet search. Sure. It happens all the time. I agree that what you said here is speculation. But even speculation should have some basis in reality. You are asking us to believe, without any supporting evidence, that a world class university like Cambridge hires people without doing a through search. The article did mention the student union: "In a statement, Cambridge University students’ union said: “We are relieved to hear that Jordan Peterson’s request for a visiting fellowship to Cambridge’s faculty of divinity has been rescinded following further review. It is a political act to associate the University with an academic’s work through offers which legitimise figures such as Peterson. “His work and views are not representative of the student body and as such we do not see his visit as a valuable contribution to the University, but one that works in opposition to the principles of the University.” But they DID hire him. They changed their mind only after protests started to come in. Yes. Someone who expressed unpopular opinions was just fired. Do you think that has no effect at all? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 20:34:25 GMT -5
Unless they refuse to hire someone whose opinions you like, apparently. But they did hire him. Had you read what I actually said, you would have known this. And you are saying that they should not have changed their minds? So far, you haven't presented an argument why. Whereas you are asking me to believe in protests that never happened.Also, who is "us"? What protests are you talking about?The only protests mentioned in the article happened in Toronto, three years ago: Cambridge is not in Canada, and this is not the year 2016.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 2, 2019 17:35:55 GMT -5
But they did hire him. Had you read what I actually said, you would have known this. And you are saying that they should not have changed their minds? So far, you haven't presented an argument why. Sure I have. A university should be a place where people hear varying points of view, even controversial ones. By canceling their invitation to Peterson, they are sending a message that controversy is no longer tolerated. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 17:10:54 GMT -5
And you are saying that they should not have changed their minds? So far, you haven't presented an argument why. Sure I have. A university should be a place where people hear varying points of view, even controversial ones. By which you mean, a university should be a place where people hear an Objectivist point of view, since that is the only correct and moral point of view that exists.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 5, 2019 18:11:34 GMT -5
Sure I have. A university should be a place where people hear varying points of view, even controversial ones. By which you mean, a university should be a place where people hear an Objectivist point of view, since that is the only correct and moral point of view that exists.
Absolutely not. I never said any such thing. Once again, you made it up.
I believe that a University should be a place where ALL points of view can be heard, especially controversial ones.
Even your views.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 13:02:32 GMT -5
By which you mean, a university should be a place where people hear an Objectivist point of view, since that is the only correct and moral point of view that exists. Absolutely not. I never said any such thing. Once again, you made it up. Really? You don't actually believe that Objectivism is objective truth? What is the benefit of giving people with "controversial opinions" positions of academic authority? What is to be gained when creationists and flat earthers are teaching in university science departments? Why is it a good thing when a university has openly antisemitic and racist people on its payroll?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 7, 2019 14:58:49 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 3:49:01 GMT -5
Really? You don't actually believe that Objectivism is objective truth? Yes. But I also believe that the best way to truth is free and open discussion. That way, true ideas eventually come out on top. And because Objectivism hasn't come out on top yet anywhere in the Western world, you believe that there is no free and open discussion. Why do you need "better discussions"? "Better" by what criterium? But they consider their opinions to be scientific. And according to your own argument, only through free and open discussions can scientists come to the truth. So what argument do you have to reject flat earthers and creationists teaching at universities? And you consider that a good thing, correct?[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 8, 2019 12:17:35 GMT -5
Yes. But I also believe that the best way to truth is free and open discussion. That way, true ideas eventually come out on top. And because Objectivism hasn't come out on top yet anywhere in the Western world, you believe that there is no free and open discussion. Actually, I don't know of any cases where Objectivists have been blocked from speaking at U.S. colleges and universities. So I don't know how your comment is relevant here. Better because more ideas available for discussion. Or would you prefer one particular set of ideas that are approved as being "right?" I have no objection to flat earthers and creationists from teaching in universities. But "Science" has a precise definition. People who take their inspiration from religious texts don't qualify. Neither do people like flat earthers who (to put it mildly) are stretching the data. No, it's not a good thing.
So I repeat my question to you: Are you saying you would ban Students for Justice in Palestine or the Boycott and Divest Movement?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 12:33:10 GMT -5
And because Objectivism hasn't come out on top yet anywhere in the Western world, you believe that there is no free and open discussion. Actually, I don't know of any cases where Objectivists have been blocked from speaking at U.S. colleges and universities. So I don't know how your comment is relevant here. You've been argueing for months that universities distort the free marketplace of ideas via leftist suppression of disagreement. You also believe that Objectivism is objectively correct. And you believe that a free marketplace of ideas would have correct beliefs succeed against incorrect ones.
Under those premises, the reason why Objectivism isn't the majority belief is that somebody has mucked up the correct process of the marketplace. Evidently, if the marketplace of ideas would work correctly, most people would believe in Objectivism! Then science class would be improved by the inclusion of creationism and flat earth theory, would it not? After all, these are different ideas that can be discussed. Therefore, in order to further approach objective truth, science departments need creationists. Sounds like you want to censor discussion and hobble science by excluding different opinions from a scientific debate, simply because they disagree with current science. Why not? You just argued how important it is for universities to include controversial opinions. Antisemitism is a controversial opinion, is it not?
Therefore, it is important to include antisemitic ideas in academic discussions.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 8, 2019 12:44:51 GMT -5
Actually, I don't know of any cases where Objectivists have been blocked from speaking at U.S. colleges and universities. So I don't know how your comment is relevant here. No? I thought universities across the Western world were being terrorized by leftists who suppress "everyone who disagrees"? Or is that only the case in America? They don't seem to have gotten around to Objectivists yet. But they are suppressing a lot of others. I have posted a lot of supporting articles on this over the last couple of years. Different ideas can and should be discussed. But since Creationism is religion, not science, it should be discussed in other departments. Nope. As I said, Flat Earth and Creationism can be discussed in other departments or with invited lecturers. Antisemitism leads to violence. Violence is not a good thing. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 12:54:57 GMT -5
Different ideas can and should be discussed. But since Creationism is religion, not science, it should be discussed in other departments. If "ALL opinions are valuable", then creationists would be valuable in a scientific discussion. Therefore, they must be able to discuss their views with scientists openly and freely, as equals, in academic debates. Why should these people be rejected from science departments simply because they have controversial opinions about science? Controversial opinions are valuable for universities, are they not? Students need to be shown all opinions so they can choose the correct ones. But as long as they are not violent, the proponents of antisemitic ideas should be invited for open and free discussions. Correct? After all, you said yourself: I believe that a University should be a place where ALL points of view can be heard, especially controversial ones.
And what could be more controversial than antisemitism?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 8, 2019 14:04:42 GMT -5
Different ideas can and should be discussed. But since Creationism is religion, not science, it should be discussed in other departments. If "ALL opinions are valuable", then creationists would be valuable in a scientific discussion. Therefore, they must be able to discuss their views with scientists openly and freely, as equals, in academic debates. Why should these people be rejected from science departments simply because they have controversial opinions about science? Controversial opinions are valuable for universities, are they not? Students need to be shown all opinions so they can choose the correct ones. Yes. You're right and I agree. But such discussions are better handled in the philosophy department. There Creationism and Flat Earth theories can be discussed along with Postmodernism. Yes. I agree. As long as there is no violence, Anti-Semites can give their views along with Nazis and Communists. Violence however must be strictly forbidden. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 21:02:45 GMT -5
If "ALL opinions are valuable", then creationists would be valuable in a scientific discussion. Therefore, they must be able to discuss their views with scientists openly and freely, as equals, in academic debates. Why should these people be rejected from science departments simply because they have controversial opinions about science? Controversial opinions are valuable for universities, are they not? Students need to be shown all opinions so they can choose the correct ones. Yes. You're right and I agree. But such discussions are better handled in the philosophy department. But philosophy is not science. We must expose scientists to controversial opinions such as creationism and flat earth theory, otherwise they wouldn't be able to find objective truth.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 8, 2019 22:00:56 GMT -5
Yes. You're right and I agree. But such discussions are better handled in the philosophy department. But philosophy is not science. We must expose scientists to controversial opinions such as creationism and flat earth theory, otherwise they wouldn't be able to find objective truth.
The key here is to expose students to different ideas without giving official backing to those ideas. You don't have to make the believers members of the science faculty.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 0:19:18 GMT -5
But philosophy is not science. We must expose scientists to controversial opinions such as creationism and flat earth theory, otherwise they wouldn't be able to find objective truth. The key here is to expose students to different ideas without giving official backing to those ideas. You don't have to make the believers members of the science faculty.
Bob
I thought universities are places to freely exchange ideas in a free marketplace. According to your argument, in a free marketplace of ideas objectively correct ideas will turn out successful all by themselves. Why stymy this natural process by declaring one of these ideas "official"?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 9, 2019 14:03:47 GMT -5
The key here is to expose students to different ideas without giving official backing to those ideas. You don't have to make the believers members of the science faculty.
Bob
I thought universities are places to freely exchange ideas in a free marketplace. According to your argument, in a free marketplace of ideas objectively correct ideas will turn out successful all by themselves. Why stymy this natural process by declaring one of these ideas "official"?
Exactly how does this stymie anything as long as free discussion is permitted?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 11:49:19 GMT -5
I thought universities are places to freely exchange ideas in a free marketplace. According to your argument, in a free marketplace of ideas objectively correct ideas will turn out successful all by themselves. Why stymy this natural process by declaring one of these ideas "official"? Exactly how does this stymie anything as long as free discussion is permitted? Bob
In order to function correctly, a free market must remain free of government meddling. If the government keeps intervening in the marketplace of ideas by declaring some ideas superior or "correct", then that distorts the natural forces of the market.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 10, 2019 12:44:52 GMT -5
Exactly how does this stymie anything as long as free discussion is permitted? Bob
In order to function correctly, a free market must remain free of government meddling. If the government keeps intervening in the marketplace of ideas by declaring some ideas superior or "correct", then that distorts the natural forces of the market.
Who said anything about government meddling? I didn't.
Universities should all be privately run. Then they can teach whatever they like and not teach whatever they don't like. Government should not be involved at all.
Would you expect a religious school to teach a course in the joys of Atheism? Should they be forced to? Private Universities can teach whatever they like. If people don't like the courses they offer, then they can go elsewhere. If there is a demand for certain courses, the Free Market will supply them.
A properly run University should consider all ideas open for discussion. But that does not mean you have to teach non-scientific topics (like the religious-based Creation Theory) in science courses.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 13:03:29 GMT -5
Indeed! In a free marketplace, the government doesn't have the power to determine whether an idea is "scientific". That's for the market of ideas to decide!
In a free marketplace of ideas, "science" is whichever set of ideas succeed on the market.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 10, 2019 13:18:24 GMT -5
Indeed! In a free marketplace, the government doesn't have the power to determine whether an idea is "scientific". That's for the market of ideas to decide! In a free marketplace of ideas, "science" is whichever set of ideas succeed on the market.
Well so far, "creation Science" and Flat Earth theories don't seem to be too successful.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 12:25:22 GMT -5
You don't know that because there is no free marketplace. The marketplace of ideas is suffering from leftist oppression and censorship, remember?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 11, 2019 13:01:38 GMT -5
You don't know that because there is no free marketplace. The marketplace of ideas is suffering from leftist oppression and censorship, remember?
I never said there is no free marketplace of ideas. What I did say is that the free marketplace of ideas is being attacked by leftists attempts at oppression and censorship.
Well, it is. And I've posted many cases to back that up.
As for "Creation Science" and Flat Earth theories, they are too much on the fringe to attract left-wing attempts at suppression.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 13:16:04 GMT -5
You don't know that because there is no free marketplace. The marketplace of ideas is suffering from leftist oppression and censorship, remember? I never said there is no free marketplace of ideas. What I did say is that the free marketplace of ideas is being attacked by leftists attempts at oppression and censorship.
Well, it is. And I've posted many cases to back that up. As for "Creation Science" and Flat Earth theories, they are too much on the fringe to attract left-wing attempts at suppression.
Bob
Exactly. And since people are constantly being censored and oppressed, we cannot guarantee that objectively correct ideas will succeed. In a free marketplace of ideas, the objectively correct ideas of Ayn Rand would naturally be successful. Correct?
|
|