1. Comment #128971 by Incredulous on February 18, 2008 at 11:41 am

It's always a pleasure to listen to someone who is nice and makes sense and listening to Susan Jacoby was a wonderful pleasure.

Other Comments by Incredulous

2. Comment #128972 by Ragnar0kk on February 18, 2008 at 11:43 am

I love Bill Moyers! I watched this over the weekend and thought it was a great interview (as are all of his interviews)

It's too bad Bill Moyers didn't run for president, i know a lot of democrats who would have loved to see him go for it. Of course he probably wouldn't win the nomination but he would inject some much needed sanity into the political debate in America.

Other Comments by Ragnar0kk

3. Comment #128980 by Mitchell Gilks on February 18, 2008 at 12:03 pm

I found many of her objections, particularly about language use to be pedantic, and unimportant. I found her criticisms of the ignorance of the general public, and people of america to be superficial, and largely ignorant in themselves. Also just cookie cutter criticisms are are constantly forwarded at the average person by acedemics. Without ever realising that it takes a lot of time to learn what you know, it is their job to know what they know. The average person that works, and has a family has very little free time, and simply doesn't have the time to educate themselves on every issue. I find nothing wrong with the general public trusting the opinions and decisions of people whose jobs it is to know. I don't know the details of many sciences, and many many fields that I trust the word of the expects, because they have either proven to be reliable, or the majority of relevent experts in the field agree with them. I find it unfair to criticism the general public for not knowing as much about important issues as those whose jobs it is to know.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

4. Comment #128993 by pulsar1z on February 18, 2008 at 12:50 pm

You have to have an attention span of more than 60 seconds to understand Susan Jacoby.

She makes perfect sense to me.

Other Comments by pulsar1z

5. Comment #128996 by kaiserkriss on February 18, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Mitchell Gilks:

You make a couple of valid points about the lack of time available to the average person working and raising a family etc. HOWEVER trusting so called experts with extremely diverse opinions could be regarded as gullible. Which one do YOU believe, without a little knowledge about the subject yourself to help you make up your mind??

Education is a bunch of small steps. What people like Ms Jacoby are trying to do is to get the general public to take a few MORE small steps, expand their minds rather than being denied the opportunity by closed minded "know it alls".

As for the time aspect: Instead of spending 3 hours in church on Sunday, every evening at the ball park, football club, nascar race, etc etc, IF there is indeed the wish to learn, then the time CAN be found. Just a matter of priorities.

Instead of being satisfied with the lowest common denominator of the general public being at 1 we should strive to bring it up to 5, one step at a time... jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

6. Comment #128997 by Paine on February 18, 2008 at 1:05 pm

I Dont know about this book, but in general Susan Jacoby seems to be a very smart, insightful and knowledgeable writer.
You can tell from her blogs on the Washington Post On Faith site. She is the only regular worth reading, standing out from the farrago of pablum and feel-good nonsense that permeates the rest of the website.

I think we are well-served by having such an articulate spokeswoman for our point of view.

Other Comments by Paine

7. Comment #128998 by kintaro_crab on February 18, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Ya I'll second that Mitchell Gilks.

What was the point in talking about language? Troops vs. Soldiers, and that thing about folks. Is this really a problem? Sounds more like a conspiracy theory

And her mentioning kids with short attention spans due to not being read as a child, I would definitely argue against this forget about TV do kids really watch so much TV now days? I guess you could have made this argument for children born in the 70's and 80's but what about all of the kids that spend their time in front of computers on the internet learning things. I would be a complete country idiot without the internet and computers. What does she think parents would read to there children bible stories , humpty dumpty...

And lastly she said

"We can't learn the things that we need to know from a quick hit on the Internet to see the latest person making a fool of themself on YouTube. We can only learn the things we need to know from talking to each other, from books. And we all need to do a lot more of that."

Really so all of the podcasts, debates, science articles, talk origins, this site richard dawkins, The science network's beyond belief, great videos on you tube showing the irrationality of religious people around the world, and all the online lectures are quick hits on the internet that we can't learn anything from! Don't get me wrong I'm not saying books and talking to people are obsolete, they definitely are not. But to dismiss the internet like that as a source of information I call Bull Shit.

Well I'll end the rant part there, now on to the positive.

She has a point the general American populace is irrational but I don't think she proposed any methods to fixing this problem.

Other Comments by kintaro_crab

8. Comment #129001 by SPS on February 18, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Good interview. I think she's right. People do have a responsibility to themselves, their children, and each other, as well as future generations to know about some of the important issues. I know many people have little time or energy to do this (and I am not convinced this is entirely coincidence), and I count myself among them, but we do dedicate time to entertainment and the like without giving equal time to important issues of the day. We have no way to question our leaders, or those of an expert opinion if we have no facility to question or think for ourselves. I think the American right, in particular, does use language as a tool of manipulation, and it is correct to say that certain words come with an emotional association attached to them. If you hear about something called the Patriot Act, and know nothing about it, how can you oppose it when taken at face value in the most superficial sense? The media also fails the public when it does not ask tough questions. They are too worried about offending this group or that, or losing this sponsor or that. The media is largely for-profit and has to be careful of whose sensibilities might be hurt. The compromise is we don't get a lot of the information we should from the sources we rely on most. When this is the case, we have little choice but to educate ourselves, or be lead blindly down a path not of our choosing.

Other Comments by SPS

9. Comment #129002 by BicycleRepairMan on February 18, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Mitchell Gilks:

If you listen to what she actually says, you are way off, she is not saying everyone should be professors, but we should be able to find Saudi Arabia on the map. What she is advocating is a decently educated public, basic stuff you should have learned before highschool, really. Dont tell me you think its "too academic" to be able to find the country youre fighting a war with on the map.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

10. Comment #129005 by BicycleRepairMan on February 18, 2008 at 1:23 pm

What was the point in talking about language? Troops vs. Soldiers, and that thing about folks. Is this really a problem? Sounds more like a conspiracy theory

Here, I'll prescribe 50 pages of George Orwell for you, come back in 2 weeks if the symptoms have not gone away.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

11. Comment #129010 by MorbidlyCheerful on February 18, 2008 at 1:39 pm

I think the point she was trying to make regarding the ignorance of the general public is that you do not need to know or be an expert in a subject to understand the subject (or at least know who to ask). For example, understanding of science seems confused because people are more willing to believe a preacher (or whomever) about science, instead of the scientists.

Informing the general public awareness as to what is really science would help.

Or did I confuse the subject? :)

Other Comments by MorbidlyCheerful

12. Comment #129011 by Big City on February 18, 2008 at 1:40 pm

BicycleRepairMan,
I'm glad you beat me to that. An informed public is essential to the democratic process.

kintaro_crab,
Language is extremely important in politics. Especially when 24 hour news channels repeat sound-bites over and over again. People go with their gut reaction. Politicians use language to trick people who don't think about it too closely.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2115,The-Mind-of-the-Market,Michael-Shermer

Also, before going on a rant about how smart the internet makes people, maybe you should proofread your comment for spelling and punctuation. Look up "run-on sentence" on Wikipedia.

Other Comments by Big City

13. Comment #129012 by kintaro_crab on February 18, 2008 at 1:40 pm

To: BicycleRepairMan

sorry but using a plural word like troops to describe soldiers still is not a big deal. Why don't you explain why it is such a big deal instead of making a random incoherent reference to George Orwell.

To Big city,

If this was an important document and not an internet comment i would have proof read it and cared about my grammar and spelling. Ever heard of Ad hominem.

Other Comments by kintaro_crab

14. Comment #129019 by phil rimmer on February 18, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Hundreds of TV channels and billions of internet pages shore-up the walls of ignorance. Once you have decided what you think you can go and live there indefinitely, watching Fox News and the God channel and networking on Creationist websites or whatever. The only nasty thing you might encounter is the unsettling stuff your kids might bring home from school. But then maybe you can put a stop to that too.

The only chance, the ONLY chance, of fixing this is in education at school. Children educated in the value of seeking out real information are the only ones likely to find it in future.

OK, so. educated and inspiring leaders would help too.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

15. Comment #129029 by sarah95 on February 18, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Mitchell Gilks said:

The average person that works, and has a family has very little free time, and simply doesn't have the time to educate themselves on every issue. I find nothing wrong with the general public trusting the opinions and decisions of people whose jobs it is to know. I don't know the details of many sciences, and many many fields that I trust the word of the expects, because they have either proven to be reliable, or the majority of relevent experts in the field agree with them. I find it unfair to criticism the general public for not knowing as much about important issues as those whose jobs it is to know.

I agree that some people don't have time to educate themselves on specific issues exstensively, but you really can't argue that basic knowledge of the constitution, basic history, and basic geography are too time-consuming. People don't have this basic knowledge for many reasons. I think the biggest is that people eat up the sentiment that knowledge is 'uncool' when they're young, and when they're constantly told by condescending people of higher income that they don't have enough time to be good citizens, they're not shamed into simply finding the time. Thirty minutes a day to brush up on American history, the constitution and basic geography is NOT a hassle for most people, when 2 hours of television is the norm. If people had this basic knowledge, and weren't eating up the cult of opinion, they'd be less wary and dismissive of scientists and experts whose job it is to know the issues. They don't necessarily need to know the specific issues extensively to avoid botched decisions, but a basic framework is essential. Of course our education system has failed to some degree to provide this basic framework, but once people have already been failed, the wrong needs to be undone. Doing a little bit of studying should not be a source of contention. It simply needs to be done, one way or another. I know plenty of people that have the decency to with-hold their vote on certain proposals in the voting booth because they know they really aren't informed.

I really do think that if people must pass a citizenship test to become citizens, then all natural-born citizens have a duty to KNOW what's on that test. Whether it's where europe and middle-east are, what the bill of rights says, or who we fought in WW2, ignorance of this information should not be excusable for people who intend to vote. If you're ignorant of this information, for any reason(not enough time or education), then you should have the decency to either trust experts(even if it's a gamble) or simply with-hold your vote.

Of course there are some extreme cases when people don't have access to common knowledge, but we're not talking about extremes or exceptions. We're talking about the majority of people who do have some(however little) free-time with which to do a favor to the rest of us and actually know the basics.

Other Comments by sarah95

16. Comment #129032 by babrock on February 18, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Someone last Fri. alerted everyone on this website that this this was to be on that evening. I tho couldnot find it on either of t local PBS stations in our area. So I patrticularly want to thank Josh or whoever got this thing up so i can hear this.

Other Comments by babrock

17. Comment #129033 by Richard Morgan on February 18, 2008 at 2:16 pm

And we've heard it over and over in the primaries from candidates who supported the war and changed their minds. "We were lied to," they said. If we'd known then what we know now we wouldn't have done it. And they say to the public, "You were lied to."

How come everybody in France knew that the WMD story was a bunch of lies, and y'all stopped drinking good Burgundy because France refused to go and slaughter innocent Iraqis on a false pretext?
So - the Brits have Richard Dawkins, the Americans have this remarkable woman Susan Jacoby, and here in France we have, well...er... good Burgundy.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

18. Comment #129037 by Mitchell Gilks on February 18, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Trusting the experts of fields is considered gullible? Why do they bring in experts for court cases. Do you understand special relativity, astrophysics, microbiology? Are you then gullible to accept the majority veiw of the experts? I don't mean superficial understand them. Dan Dennett makes a great case for why this is not only completely acceptable, but is done by everyone to some extent whether they know it or not.

Also, it is simply niave to suggest filling all of one's free time with researching all the resent relevent subjects of public interest. Even if you had nothing but free time you couldn't educate yourself in all of it. I agree that one should seek at least a slight understanding of the subject, but in all truth that is sometimes impossible, and requires more time then many are willing to spend on it.

I am all for improving education, and finding quicker, better and more accurate ways of getting information to the general public, but you can't blame them to the extent I saw them getting blamed. Saying that it is equally the general publics fault for not knowing that it is for the person's responsible for knowing is batantly absurd.

BicycleRepairMan, I did listen to what she was saying. She clearly said that it was equally the general publics fault for not knowing that it was of the people that were in charge of knowing. That is absurd. I think the level of ignorance in some people in unacceptable and inexcusable, but the level of ignorance she is criticism is to be expected in my opinion, and is a fault of the lack of time in the day, and not something that is so easily repaired, as them going and reading a few books, studing geography, and culture, foriegn affairs, and history. Those are not small subjects that are easily absorbed, and take more time than the average person has in a day to reach more than a superficial understanding of.

You are completely full of it if you think you are an expert in every field you consider to be accurately representing reality. Even experts in one field are not going to be experts in other fields. That is why it is Myers can debate a medical doctor who things the amount of fossils has decreased since Darwin, or like in Richard Dawkins documentary you have doctors testifying and getting a man convicted of murder when they don't know what they're talking about.

Rebuting the lack of time in the day with "they should make time" or the claim that not only is a certain level of ignorance in fields one is not an expert is acceptable, but should be experted with "well they don't have to be experts" doesn't address either point.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

19. Comment #129038 by Steve Zara on February 18, 2008 at 2:25 pm

If this was an important document and not an internet comment i would have proof read it and cared about my grammar and spelling. Ever heard of Ad hominem.

It isn't an ad hominem, as it was relevant to the subject. Why shouldn't people take care over an "internet comment"? I may sound pedantic, but I support Lynne Truss' view that punctuation and spelling are there to assist the reader and are a sign of good manners. By contrast, sloppy spelling and punctuation are a sign of not caring about the reader. If you don't care, why should they bother to take your view seriously? I make plenty of mistakes, but if I notice them on re-reading I attempt corrections.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

20. Comment #129043 by prettygoodformonkeys on February 18, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Most of the geography I know I got just from being interested about the world around me, and just looking at a map; what's so difficult? Same with literature and science and religion, etc.

Why they are not interested is a better question, because if you don't have that basic interest, then more talking at the front of a classroom isn't going to help.

The background wallpaper of most US life is: we live in the best place on earth and, you can get Thai food there, too! It's spicy!

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

21. Comment #129047 by quill on February 18, 2008 at 2:54 pm

The media is the most influential factor in this dumbing-down. Like I said before, when "Expelled" comes out, all of our national news outlets will report it as a "controversial film" that "has some scientists riled up". They won't report it as something blatantly false. Out of fear of losing their cherished objectivity, they'll essentially make beliefs interchangeable with facts.

I honestly think this same trend directly contributed to the invasion of Iraq. Every educated person knew at the time that there were no "WMDs" (don't you love those press euphemisms, by the way?), but the media insisted on presenting it as an issue of "some people believe there are, and some people don't". If they had just reported on the plain facts for once instead of "some people's" opinions, we could have avoided this fiasco altogether.

Perhaps this is a problem with privatized media, that they are too concerned with ratings to tell the truth for fear of offending some of their audiences.

Other Comments by quill

22. Comment #129050 by Steve Zara on February 18, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Every educated person knew at the time that there were no "WMDs" (don't you love those press euphemisms, by the way?),

We did? I am afraid that is not the way I remember things. I remember a confused and worrying situation, with many expecting a launch of chemical weapons as the soldiers[sic] approached Baghdad.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

23. Comment #129053 by Goldy on February 18, 2008 at 3:07 pm

We did? I am afraid that is not the way I remember things.

As I recall events, the inspectors kept saying they couldn't find any, but B&B kept telling us they were there...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1615880
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/06/iraq.iraq
Confused, yes - but only in terms of what we were fed. We had a choice of believing the inspectors in Iraq or the politicians...

Other Comments by Goldy

24. Comment #129056 by Ian Bamlett on February 18, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Annoying, condescending snob.

Blathering on about 'folks' and 'troops' and wanting Roosevelt to be president again.

'I'm so smart - why won't people listen to me'

That's all I got out of that.

"That's what being an educator means" she said. She's no educator; she just wants to brow beat people for being ignorant and feel superior by doing it.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

25. Comment #129059 by quill on February 18, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Chemical weapons perhaps, but there you're talking about the kinds of chemical weapons used in the Iran-Iraq war - WWI-vintage mustard gas mostly. That's quite different from the "mushroom cloud" that Bush described.

When I say that every educated person knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... like Goldy just pointed out, all the inspectors kept saying there were none, all of the governments aside from our own and Blair's said the same thing, we couldn't get UN approval because the UN was not convinced, there was not a shred of evidence ever produced, and anyone who understood the region in the first place knew that Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda were mortal enemies, not collaborators, and that Saddam routinely killed terrorists and there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Yes, we all knew that, if we were paying attention... maybe you had better things to think about...

But my point was that the media never just presented the facts leading up to the war. They didn't stand up to Bush, just like they won't stand up to Ben Stein. Some liberal bias, right?

Other Comments by quill

26. Comment #129062 by Steve Zara on February 18, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Chemical weapons perhaps, but there you're talking about the kinds of chemical weapons used in the Iran-Iraq war - WWI-vintage mustard gas mostly. That's quite different from the "mushroom cloud" that Bush described.

I never assumed any mushroom cloud. I always imagined rockets containing some highly toxic chemical agent. I don't recally anyone seriously suggesting nuclear explosives.

all the inspectors kept saying there were none,

I may be wrong, but that is not what I recall. I remember them saying that they had not found any, but I also remember them saying that they had not been allowed full and regular access to some sites.

and anyone who understood the region in the first place knew that Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda were mortal enemies, not collaborators, and that Saddam routinely killed terrorists and there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Yes, we all knew that, if we were paying attention...

Well, yes. However, Saddam was known for having been a strong supporter of other terrorists who had attacked the West in the past, and I personally assumed at the time that the reason for the attack was not due to any direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. 9/11 was a symptom of a world that was becoming more dangerous, and so it was time to reduce the threat from some distinctly dangerous people.

Of course, it is a huge understatement to say that it did not have the desired effect!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

27. Comment #129073 by sarah95 on February 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Mitchell Gilks,
I'm not sure who you were responding to, but no one said people were gullible for believing experts. That's the whole point. We'd rather have people trust experts than just go with their knee-jerk take on things.
Also, you said:

I am all for improving education, and finding quicker, better and more accurate ways of getting information to the general public, but you can't blame them to the extent I saw them getting blamed. Saying that it is equally the general publics fault for not knowing that it is for the person's responsible for knowing is batantly absurd.

I certainly didn't blame people for their original ignorance. What I said was:

Of course our education system has failed to some degree to provide this basic framework, but once people have already been failed, the wrong needs to be undone. Doing a little bit of studying should not be a source of contention.

As you say, it is obvious that people have been failed by education. However, that is not the only factor. General cultural attitudes also make ignorance of geography acceptable. I never said that ignorance was all people's fault to begin with, but the knowledge that I said was essential was NOT issue-specific. It is knowing where the countries of the world are on a map, knowing your basic rights as a citizen, and roughly what happened in the wars the US fought in. These are things that were supposed to be taught in school. If people come out of school not knowing it, you can't send them back to school. As you say, they have no time for it. Once people have been failed, if there is any hope of societal recovery, ignorant people either need to with-hold judgement on issues or spend some small amount of their time becoming acquainted with basic things like identifying countries on maps.

you then say:

Those are not small subjects that are easily absorbed, and take more time than the average person has in a day to reach more than a superficial understanding of.

This is obvious, but the point Jacoby was making was that people do NOT have a superficial understanding of these subjects, and we'd all be a lot better off if people DID understand where Iraq, Iran, and Israel are on a map(ie, a superficial understanding of geography).
By saying the word basic over and over, Bicycle Repair Man and I also meant superficial.

BRM said:

What she is advocating is a decently educated public, basic stuff you should have learned before highschool, really. Dont tell me you think its "too academic" to be able to find the country youre fighting a war with on the map.

I agree. Just because people were failed by education in learning where the major countries of the world are, doesn't mean that no one should make any effort to make up for it by simply taking a look at a map for the same amount of time that most people spend watching American Idol. School takes a lot of time, but just brushing up on very basic things to gain a superficial understanding(compared the non-understanding most people currently have) does not take nearly as much time. It doesn't have to be done all at once.

you also said:

You are completely full of it if you think you are an expert in every field you consider to be accurately representing reality. Even experts in one field are not going to be experts in other fields.

Again, the issue is NOT about expert-understanding. No one here claims to be experts or claims that we SHOULD be experts. All we were saying was that a superficial understanding CAN be gained, and should, regardless of how someone was failed by the system in the past.

Other Comments by sarah95

28. Comment #129074 by quill on February 18, 2008 at 3:38 pm

I don't even know where to start with that...

No offense, but you should have known, frankly, that it would never have had the "desired effect". You should not have let yourself be manipulated into thinking that invading a country like Iraq was going to solve any of the issues that caused 9/11 in the first place, but that it would only exacerbate them. 9/11 was a symptom of a world becoming more dangerous, and invading Iraq was the answer? When did we even become a society that makes war so easily? I just don't know where to begin.

It seems at the time that you were getting all of your information from the national media outlets that I've just been saying were not presenting the facts. You should have done more homework. Is it really too much to ask that you make that much effort, at least, before you support an invasion of a country? Google existed in 2003.

Even at the rinkydink community college I attended at the time, our third-world sociology professor was telling us all that it would not solve any of our problems, for various reasons, and that there was no basis for it in the first place. That information was out there.

Sorry for being so judgmental.

Other Comments by quill

29. Comment #129075 by Goldy on February 18, 2008 at 3:40 pm

I may be wrong, but that is not what I recall. I remember them saying that they had not found any, but I also remember them saying that they had not been allowed full and regular access to some sites.

Which is why they wanted more time. Unfortunately the powers that be decided they wanted a war instead...

However, Saddam was known for having been a strong supporter of other terrorists who had attacked the West in the past

Not while the west kept giving him weapons (of mass, etc, etc) - he was our buddy, he was whupping them evil Iranians!
Are we talking of the same Saddam?

Other Comments by Goldy

30. Comment #129079 by Goldy on February 18, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Of course, however, it must be remembered that during most of the 90s, we, the west, were effectively isolating Iraq. So if there were any Saddamite plots against us, it is understandable. We made him our enemy by our actions (though, of course, when I say we, I mean the politicians. I can never recall anyone asking my opinion on the matter at the time...)

Other Comments by Goldy

31. Comment #129080 by kaiserkriss on February 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm

sarah95

Thanks for your comments addressed to Mitchell. I totally agree with you. I think Mitchell missed some of the points his critical correspondents were making. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

32. Comment #129081 by MelM on February 18, 2008 at 3:48 pm

We've known about the pandemic of unreason for decades If reason were a virtue and knowledge a value in the U.S., religion would be dead.

I'll read this book looking for where she places the blame. Thus far, nothing I've seen or read about the book tells me that she's looked at the philosophies of education now popular. I'll be pleased if I find what I'm looking for.

For an in-depth analysis of the current mess, I submit this essay by Lisa VanDamme. I've been an admirer of her writing and school for several years. (She's an atheist.)

In this article, she looks at "progressive" education and the "classical education" alternative--both secular and Christian--and finds them all seriously flawed.

The False Promise Classical Education by Lisa VanDamme
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-summer/false-promise-classical-education.asp

On Rousseau, Kant, John Dewey

If formal, reality-oriented, intellectual education is an "imposition" on childhood, it is an imposition that has long since been removed. Dewey's "progressive" method, founded on the rejection of reason, knowledge, and intellectual training--and on the enshrinement of emotional impulse, "experience," and "social adjustment"--has dominated American schools for the past century. The "remote," "musty" subject of history has been replaced by the disintegrated mash of allegedly "relevant" data known as social studies. The "futile," "lofty" attempt to systematically teach abstract principles of science has been replaced by the fun, child-focused "learning-by-doing" method of making collages and finding moths on a wall. The "distant," "antiquated" works of world literature have been replaced with contemporary, hip "boy-makes-good tearjerkers" that appeal to the immediate concerns of the most childish children. Rigorous training of the intellect has been replaced with, in the words of the "progressive" educators, a more "practical," "child-centered," "humane" approach to education.

The practical result of all of this has been legions of ignorant children, unequipped for a successful human life.

On E. D. Hirsch's "Core Knowledge" secular classical approach

Here we can see, among numerous violations of hierarchy, children being given a "basic concept" of atoms in the first grade, "learning" about the charge of protons and electrons in fourth grade, and being introduced to the periodic table in fifth grade. But consider the sequence in which these items of knowledge actually came to be known. The proof of the existence of atoms came in the late 19th century and depended on centuries of scientific knowledge, including Faraday's work with electricity, Avogadro's discoveries about molecules, and Dalton's experiments in chemistry, whose work in turn depended on the many scientists before them. Students are properly taught about atoms only after they have learned the long history of physics that made possible the discovery of atoms, at which time they are able to thoroughly grasp the arguments for their existence.

On Christian "classical educatin"

What Christian classical education provides for students is a fundamental, comprehensive source of ignorance. Its educators take Christian dogma--patently absurd fantasies--as the standard to which everything must be reconciled or thrown out.

Lisa's blog: http://www.pedagogicallycorrect.com/
Lisa's school: http://www.vandammeacademy.com/index.html

Other Comments by MelM

33. Comment #129082 by Goldy on February 18, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Heheheheh! All this talk of the Iraq was and look what the Torygraph has
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/19/ndefence119.xml

Other Comments by Goldy

34. Comment #129083 by quill on February 18, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Goldy,

No kidding... It's like how the Bushites now are saying that Iran is the enemy, because Iran is aiding the Palestinians.

You mean, like we've been aiding the Israelis for the past fifty years?

It's like we don't even think of other nations as having rights anymore. Like there is one set of rules by which the US abides - namely, we do whatever we want - and another set of rule by which other nations have to abide.

Other Comments by quill

35. Comment #129085 by Steve Zara on February 18, 2008 at 3:51 pm

No offense, but you should have known, frankly, that it would never have had the "desired effect". You should not have let yourself be manipulated into thinking that invading a country like Iraq was going to solve any of the issues that caused 9/11 in the first place, but that it would only exacerbate them.

I did not mean to imply that this was my view, simply that it was one of the supposed justifications for the invation.

Not everyone who reports a that view was help necessarily holds that view.

Which is why they wanted more time. Unfortunately the powers that be decided they wanted a war instead...

Yes, indeed. Unfortunately.

Not while the west kept giving him weapons (of mass, etc, etc) - he was our buddy, he was whupping them evil Iranians!
Are we talking of the same Saddam?

Let's just put things this way. I have not always been the strongest fan of American and British foreign policy and the compromises involed.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #129090 by quill on February 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Well, I guess I misunderstood, Steve... That's good.

Other Comments by quill

37. Comment #129095 by kintaro_crab on February 18, 2008 at 4:00 pm

I'm going to have to disagree, as it was an ad hominem.

Internet grammar bashing comments are ad hominem. Perhaps you grammar bashers could go over to PZ Myers blog and let him know of all the grammar/spelling mistakes there.

The original topic was to show a difference between troops vs soldiers, and not against misspelling soldiers or using the word soldiers in a complete sentence. Sorry, but my grammar and spelling are not reflective of the views I put forth. It's up to the reader whether or not he/she wants to take my comments seriously. You can say I have bad manners, but I stand by my statements made about internet comments.

As for some of the people who would share the good womens views that only reading books and talking to people solves the problem. I would like to say that I know a lot of Christians who only read the bible and only talk to other Christians. Why do you think that the Mormon church and the church of Scientology forbid their members from viewing certain internet websites. I remember listening to an interview with a former prominent member of the Mormon church "I think it was on Point of Inquiry". During which he stated that one of the biggest reasons for the decline in membership within the Mormon church was that the young people were finding real information about the church over the internet.

There is a lot of misinformation in books, misinformation in people, and hell misinformation on the internet. i was just defending against the absolutist statement that we can't learn things from the internet. We need more sources of information, not less.

Other Comments by kintaro_crab

38. Comment #129096 by Steve Zara on February 18, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Well, I guess I misunderstood, Steve... That's good.

I am sorry, I probably explained things clumsily. I was just trying to remember what was said by others at the time, not attempting to imply support.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #129098 by Steve Zara on February 18, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Internet grammar bashing comments are ad hominem.

No, because it is on topic. The matter of the quality of information on the internet was mentioned in the interview. The matter of the correct use of words was also discussed.

Perhaps you grammar bashers could go over to PZ Myers blog and let him know of all the grammar/spelling mistakes there.

How do mistakes there justify mistakes here?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

40. Comment #129100 by quill on February 18, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Well, in that case you were probably correct - that was what was said by others at the time. That's kind of my point - the media did not say what it should have said.

I agree that the word "troops" is a euphemism, by the way. Kind of Orwellian, as she said, like the way the Soviets referred to their soldiers as "soviet heroes" rather than "soviet soldiers". Or like saying "marine sharpshooters" instead of "marine snipers", "surge" rather than "escalation," and "war on terror" rather than "occupation of Iraq".

Other Comments by quill

41. Comment #129101 by Mitchell Gilks on February 18, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Sarah95, why would I care what you meant? I was criticizing what Jacoby had said... I never said that you said anything that I was criticizing beyond "make the time".

You seem to have divorced the conversation from Jacoby.

I had a problem with her claiming that the general public is just as to blame for the ignorance of the facts as the people in government whose jobs it is to know these things. That is absurd.

If you say you only mean a superficial understanding, then big deal, that isn't what she said. Why even both responding to what I said if you agree with me? Unless you want to argue I have misrepresented what she has said I don't see a single point you have made that involved a single thing she has said. So either do that, or do nothing. I haven't comment on your opinion on the matter.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

42. Comment #129106 by Steve Zara on February 18, 2008 at 4:11 pm

I agree that the word "troops" is a euphemism, by the way. Just like saying "marine sharpshooters" instead of "marine snipers", "surge" rather than "escalation," and "war on terror" rather than "occupation of Iraq".

I certainly agree with a dislike of "troops". It treats people like "attack units" rather than actual people.

I have a problem with "snipers", as that implies a particular negative point of view of the soldiers involved. And I don't think "War on Terror" can be easily linked to a single issue, as it is just too silly, inappropriate and - frankly - bizarre.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #129107 by MaxD on February 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Why do I like looking at Mitchell Gilks avatar? Is there something wrong with me?

Other Comments by MaxD

44. Comment #129111 by Diacanu on February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm

I conducted a war on the heebee-jeebees by laying out ratraps for the boogeyman.

You're welcome, rest of the world.

Other Comments by Diacanu

45. Comment #129114 by Mitchell Gilks on February 18, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Steve Zara, it was discussed, and is on topic, but doesn't make it any less pedantic, or unimportant in my opinion. Saying it is good netiquette and therefore should be adhered to is merely one's opinion. I agree to any extent, I often ignore posts that are hard to decipher, but hypocritically. As I make many mistakes. I'm too lazy to go over it, and don't think a few mistakes are important. When someone writes in broken english, then it bothers me.

In any case, it bothers me, if I want to read them, I will. If not, then I won't. I am often criticized as being aggressive, and inflammatory, more often when I have the use of emoticons are my disposal. In any case, I don't care. It is a side issue, irrelevent to any points I am making. It isn't an ad hominem, but it is definitely a red harring.

I recognize her objections to word use, and things of that nature, I simply find them trivial, silly, and unimportant. I definitely wouldn't read a book, or watch a debate about the proper way to use the word troop, or other such words. Language isn't static, it is dynamic, and pinning down a static definition of a word is not possible, dictionary, or even super-intelligent intellectuals such as Jacoby do not define words, they merely capture how they are commonly used. They are convention, and like all convention changed with the times, and the people.

Plus, symantic arguments are boring, and the only time I will enguage in them is if something is attempting to use a word contradictory to it's common usage, or they have defined the terms in such a way that it supports their argument, but the definitions do not jive with common usage. I can think of no other pragmatic reason to bring up semantics, except of course clarification.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

46. Comment #129118 by Goldy on February 18, 2008 at 4:22 pm

I was just trying to remember what was said by others at the time, not attempting to imply support.

And I was in NZ, so didn't really get the full effect of the British press.

Why do I like looking at Mitchell Gilks avatar? Is there something wrong with me?

You need more bromide in your tea ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

47. Comment #129119 by Mitchell Gilks on February 18, 2008 at 4:22 pm

I hope not MaxD, or there is something wrong with both of us. ;)

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

48. Comment #129120 by MaxD on February 18, 2008 at 4:23 pm

In defense of Steve, not that he needs it, Saddam had possessed chemical stockpiles, not large ones, as late as 1998 and manufacturing capablity as late as the same year. After which HUMINT (human intellegence sources) becomes extremely thin on the ground.
So poor intellegience on the ground coupled with Saddam Hussein's ridiculous brinksmanship united to make for nervous people outside the Bush admin. It is just one fact among many that led up to the war. Not exculpating the current admin for its fear--mongering, best casing and its total disregard for the worst case scenarios, just saying its more complicated than you might think. Most of the weapon's inspectors had said, right up to the end, that serious inspections were going to be imposssible within the limits placed on them by the Saddam regime.

Other Comments by MaxD

49. Comment #129124 by Goldy on February 18, 2008 at 4:26 pm

In defense of Steve, not that he needs it, Saddam had possessed chemical stockpiles, not large ones, as late as 1998 and manufacturing capablity as late as the same year. After which HUMINT (human intellegence sources) becomes extremely thin on the ground.

As one wag put it at the time, all the relevant administrations had to do was go over their invoices to see what Saddam had ;-)
Looks I'll need to make an urn of bromided tea...

Other Comments by Goldy

50. Comment #129125 by Steve Zara on February 18, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Steve Zara, it was discussed, and is on topic, but doesn't make it any less pedantic, or unimportant in my opinion. Saying it is good netiquette and therefore should be adhered to is merely one's opinion.

That correct spelling and punctuation make things easier to read is not just opinion.

I agree to any extent, I often ignore posts that are hard to decipher, but hypocritically. As I make many mistakes. I'm too lazy to go over it, and don't think a few mistakes are important. When someone writes in broken english, then it bothers me.

It probably only matters if you are pedantic. I am!

Language is fluid, but that does mean we should use it carelessly.

Other Comments by Steve Zara