- Joined
- Aug 27, 2013
- Messages
- 4,859
- Reaction score
- 1,345
College is aight, the predatory lending is the problem imo.
The point is, if this group is "huge," their research should be everywhere. Yet they're nowhere to be found on those three organizations I linked to.
Perhaps we should look further. Just off the top of my head, I'll choose the craziest of the crazy. A few schools in California and a few from the Northeast. UCLA, UC-Santa Barbara, Yale and ummm, Rutgers.
http://www.genderstudies.ucla.edu/
http://www.femst.ucsb.edu/
http://wgss.yale.edu/
http://womens-studies.rutgers.edu/
I don't know about you but I see a very small scattering of research that can be called postmodern. There's discursive and qualitative, but that's hardly postmodern. Anthropologists have been using this methodology for a couple hundred years.
So again, this "huge postmodern influence" is really just a few people in lit departments. And if you're expecting literature analysis to be positivist, then perhaps you should look up what "positivist" really means.
Post modernists seem to believe that science is only 'one way of knowing' and just as valid as 'other ways of knowing'. For one reason or another they gained traction on American campuses in the 60s and have become more and more prominent and accepted with each passing decade until finally the popularity of post modernism reached critical mass and gave us social justice warriors who are vehemently anti-science.
What a moronic, misleading headline.
Conservatives are sickened by the liberal agenda of PC nonsense pushed by a lot of modern universities. That's not the same thing as being against higher learning.
Yeah I don't disagree with anything you said. But nothing you sent here addressed post modernism. You also just saw this post where I was specifically responding to someone asking for me to expand about post modernism and either didn't see my post talking about the right's anti-science bullshit or just didn't respond to it if you did see it.That is certainly a limited perspective. I agree that there are multicultural and feminist factions in sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc., who will eschew the philosophy of science when it gives them answers counter to their worldviews, but there are plenty of greed heads who have bent the spine of science to give them the answers that they wanted in the "hard" sciences. And then when science doesn't give them the answers that they want, they make it all part of some anti-capitalist conspiracy.
Moreover, thinking scientifically (or even rationally) is not the natural state of the human mind, and most people have not been educated at all to think scientifically, and some have not been educated well to think scientifically. There are those that use this to their benefit, but there are also just irrational people bumbling around not vaccinating their kids against measles because they think vaccines cause autism.
Maybe that was old school professors. The new info you hear is safe spaces, playdoh, coloring books, LGBTQ, vegetarian leftists.
I wonder how long a conservative professor would last on campus if his true beliefs came out? That prof out in Washington was called a racist and the campus rioted. Then there's Peterson in Canada catching Hell for not using correct pronouns.
But thinking that's a bigger problem than the benefit of higher education is stupid. Thinking that colleges in general has a negative impact directly means that you think the country would be better without them, while any averagely gifted person understands that it would cause the country to fall apart.
It gets even more funny when the same group is very strongly positive towards religious groups.
No, you're wrong. Saying something is negative doesn't necessarily mean you want it gone, it can simply mean you want it fixed. I mean seriously, you think Republicans honestly want post-secondary abolished? Republicans hate the fact that there are institutions where people can go to become doctors, engineers, and other occupations that are vital to our society? Get real.
Liberals always love to shit on Republicans and religious folk, saying "ohh they're ignorant, they just believe what they want to believe", and then those same leftists fall hook, line and sinker for a nonsense article like this.
Yeah I don't disagree with anything you said. But nothing you sent here addressed post modernism. You also just saw this post where I was specifically responding to someone asking for me to expand about post modernism and either didn't see my post talking about the right's anti-science bullshit or just didn't respond to it if you did see it.
I think post modernism has its place, as it has chased off a lot of dogmas, but it also allows for a lazy and nihilistic attitude towards thinking under the guise of post modernist thought. I gave examples of where that type of thinking has been, and is, pitted against science in academia, but I don't postmodernist thinking is necessarily anti-science, nor do I think all social justice warriors are anti-science or are motivated by postmodernist thinking.
There is a leftist movement in some churches now. I don't know what denominations. But they will say "who are we to know what the truth is. We cannot know it." Which goes against Christian evangelical theology. Where we believe what the Bible says is true.I would say the core of postmodern philosophy is that "there is no objective truth". Maybe I'm wrong but I believe that's correct. If that is correct, postmodernism is categorically anti science.
There is a leftist movement in some churches now. I don't know what denominations. But they will say "who are we to know what the truth is. We cannot know it." Which goes against Christian evangelical theology. Where we believe what the Bible says is true.
So what happens in these churches is that they use that to justify things that the Bible and Jesus Christ would not support. Which is basically the major things the leftist movement is pushing and promoting right now.
So anyway, I think you're right that the underlined sums up the postmodern philosophy. I've heard on the radio that it has infiltrated some leftist churches.
The exchange of ideas with people educated in a particular subject or exposure to things that you wouldn't otherwise be exposed to. The college experience is a very unique living experience and some people put value on that experience, although the specifics of experience differ from student to student. But there really isn't a substitute for it. How critical it is appears to be very subjective.
In my opinion, it's a critical experience for young people's intellectual and personal development as they, hopefully, transition from their parents households into running their own. But you might think otherwise.
If the debt isn't burdensome, it's no different that going into debt so that a person can go fishing or skiing or staying in a hotel, all of which happen regularly via credit card debt.
Read my post again as you clearly managed to misinterpret something, or injected some of your own thoughts. I said that if you say that it's overall negative you automatically are saying that the country would be better off without it in the state that it is now. That's the obvious meaning of that answer and if they are too stupid to understand that it's even worse than just that opinion. That's not saying anything about what they want to be done about it so that shouldn't have been brought up.
I didn't read the article, I read direct information from the study. I also don't care about whether it's Republicans or Democrats, it's really just pointing out stupid people.
I think it's hard to dispute the notion that post modernist thought is the core of SJW ideology, whether they themselves recognize that or not is another issue.
I would say the core of postmodern philosophy is that "there is no objective truth". Maybe I'm wrong but I believe that's correct. If that is correct, postmodernism is categorically anti science.