| |||||||||||||
Neutral valuesNeutral valuesPosted Dec 30, 2012 19:08 UTC (Sun) by gerv (subscriber, #3376)In reply to: Neutral values by man_ls Parent article: Petition: promote the use of free software in US schools
Ideally, the state just mandates a baseline of minimum contents which should be free from ideology. That's simply not possible. All education is ideological. Take a simple example: you need to take one of these three positions on God:
The third position is the one most commonly suggested as "free from ideology" or "neutral", but it's clearly not. Saying that "God is irrelevant to what we do here" is clearly not an ideology-free statement. Gerv
(Log in to post comments)
Neutral values Posted Dec 30, 2012 19:45 UTC (Sun) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]
Do tell, what kind of ideology is there in, say, teaching kids how to wipe their arses? And how does existence of God enter the process of teaching them that, unless you seriously try to mix it with discussion of e.g. Deuteronomy.
School or not (and I bloody well hope that this particular topic is dealt with at home, thank you very much), not everything is ideological and temptation to bring ideology into everything really ought to be resisted, whatever that ideology might be.
Neutral values Posted Dec 30, 2012 20:35 UTC (Sun) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link] "temptation to bring ideology into everything really ought to be resisted, whatever that ideology might be" That view would be, er, an ideology then. Do you think children should be taught moral behaviour at school? If not, how would you go about making school an a-moral place? If so, then you've already brought in a set of values/ideology/worldview when you decide what the "moral behaviour" is that you are teaching. http://blog.gerv.net/2012/12/neutrality/ Gerv
Neutral values Posted Dec 31, 2012 20:39 UTC (Mon) by jedidiah (guest, #20319) [Link]
It is an extreme minority viewpoint that religion has to be injected into ever facet of life to the point of thanking God for a successful bowel movement. For the vast majority of people, religion is not directly relevant to most things. Beyond that, there are really not as many differences between religions as many people would like to make out.
As long as you avoid the blatant practice of religion, it's easy to keep that stuff bottled up.
The other moral and ethical implications are in fact universal despite the insistence by some groups that they have some sort of monopoly.
The problem is really not hard. The outliers can go join the Amish.
Let's ban religion from schools ... Posted Dec 30, 2012 20:58 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
The *first* subject to go would be maths. As the joke goes - "if you define religion as an irrational belief in the unprovable, then not only is maths a religion, it is the only religion that can prove it's a religion".
And the reason it's funny is it's TRUE!
Science would follow - if you don't have maths you can't do science ...
At the end of the day, it's impossible to live a belief-free life - maths is a belief system, science is a belief system, ...
Cheers,
Let's ban religion from schools ... Posted Dec 31, 2012 0:29 UTC (Mon) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]
Just how the hell is mathematics a belief system? Statements about its usefulness for describing the world may be a matter of belief (even though it's more of "as far as our memories can be relied upon, it seems to have been useful so far"), but the math itself? Details, please. And no, vague postmodern masturbation won't do; leave it to Eng.Lit wankers and their ilk, please.
Let's ban religion from schools ... Posted Dec 31, 2012 0:47 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Goedel proved that any sufficiently complex theory (capable to express Peano arithmetic) is either incomplete or inconsistent. For example, it's possible that the common arithmetic is inconsistent, perhaps one day we stumble into a contradiction in it.
Nobody believes in that, but that's the point - we can't prove it.
Let's ban religion from schools ... Posted Dec 31, 2012 1:00 UTC (Mon) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]
>Just how the hell is mathematics a belief system?
The premise of mathematics is: assuming [some collection of axioms] plus [some rules of inference], what can be derived?
As Cyberax pointed out, with most axiomatic systems in use today, we need to take it on faith that the system is consistent. And if you treat mathematics as a game, that's the only point you would need to invoke an irrational belief. But it's nearly impossible to do mathematics this way, and definitely impossible to teach it this way.
The way that math -is- taught involves saying that some subset of the world is described by these axioms. For example, if you have a collection of blocks from which you can add or remove blocks, we assume that the blocks will obey Peano arithmetic. Then consistency follows from the assumption that the world itself is consistent. (This assumption underlies -all- of science, and it also needs to be taken on faith.)
In fact, you assume the block quantities will obey Peano arithmetic at such a low level, that you teach that addition and subtraction are actually defined in terms of these quantities. You'd never just give a child an axiomatic system and walk away.
The point is: when teaching mathematics, especially to children, you need to choose some part of reality which you claim is modeled by the math. This is where the teaching becomes subjective and ideological.
(At least, this is my understanding of Wol's post. Maybe he meant something completely different.)
Let's ban religion from schools ... Posted Dec 31, 2012 1:01 UTC (Mon) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]
Sorry, I missed Jon's post asking to end the discussion! I retract my comment.
Let's ban religion from schools ... Posted Dec 31, 2012 1:16 UTC (Mon) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]
Blocks definitely do not satisfy Peano's axioms, what with the set being finite...
Anyway, Jon has the final word here.
Let's ban religion from schools ... Posted Dec 31, 2012 2:25 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Addition and subtraction are actually safe. They can be expressed using a complete theory, so we know they are consistent.
Let's ban religion from schools ... Posted Dec 31, 2012 22:45 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
I've seen Jon's block, so sorry for ignoring it, but yes that was exactly my point.
As per Goedel, ALL logic systems dealing with number are either incomplete, or inconsistent.
Hence our *belief* that arithmetic works ... :-)
Cheers,
Let's ban religion from schools ... Posted Dec 31, 2012 0:34 UTC (Mon) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
I don't know any polite words that can describe how utterly inane your post is. You clearly have absolutely no idea of what mathematics are.
Let's ban religion from schools ... Posted Dec 31, 2012 0:52 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] ...and I'm thinking that this particular discussion has wandered pretty far from LWN's usual topic mix. Maybe it would be a good time to end it?
Neutral values Posted Dec 30, 2012 22:14 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Take a simple example: you need to take one of these three positions on God: [...]Given that the separation of church and state is a prerequisite of modern states, I would say that the agnostic position is the only tenable stance for public schools. Yes, it is ideological, but very desirable. This principle is more or less embedded e.g. in our modern Spanish constitution ("Spain is a nondenominational state"). Note that it does not say "agnostic"; it could be theistic but without an official denomination. Just to bring a semblance of on-topicness to the discussion, having more free software at schools is without a doubt an ideological position too. Even the innocent "sharing is good" is part of an ideology; many people are against it.
|
|||||||||||||