Split Thread Does compulsory schooling equate to slavery? (Split from: "Liberal Fallacies" thread)

[Dancing David]

In fairness, Malcolm's point is that many (maybe even most?) folks in IT are self-taught. I'm a software engineer; I have a degree, but it's in Anthropology, not CompSci. A couple of my coworkers have no degree at all. IT, as an industry, moves much more quickly than academia can account for; by the time you graduate with a degree, the skills you were taught getting that degree are woefully out of date.

Not in my area, which is IT support and maintenance.

We maintain a network and the data support services. Almost all of the two hundred or so businesses in my area, and some are big name recognition businesses, want degreed/credentialed candidates. So maybe if you are in programming (I can't say) then that is true, but seriously all the high end employers and mid level employers want degrees, credentials and experience if possible. The number of us who do learn on our own is the same as most IT, but that will not fly with most employers in my area. (Which is what is is, certainly not silicon valley)

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... you rely on theory and anecdotal evidence ...

That's the entire range of reasoned argument, seems to me. The world is a pile of anecdotes (observations, data). Theory summarizes data.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

If you don't know what a word means you should try a dictionary.¹ I just honestly don't get why you always have to resort to defnitions provided by others to support your absurd claims.² (personalization deleted)

1. Becker defines "school" as an institution whose principal product is education. How do you get I "don't know" what "school" means when I already supplied the definition?
2. Would you find my arguments more convincing if I used my own idiosycratic definitions? Agreeing on definitions is an early step in rational discussion.

Note that it would be impossible to determine from the above exchange what this argument is about if I had not introduced the term "school" into the above response.

 

[elbe]

1. Becker defines "school" as an institution whose principal product is education. How do you get I "don't know" what "school" means when I already supplied the definition?

You asked what 'my' definition was, that's why I directed you to the usual resource of a dictionary. Pretty simple.

2. Would you find my arguments more convincing if I used my own idiosycratic definitions? Agreeing on definitions is an early step in rational discussion.

You already do! If I started a conversation about the internet by defining the internet as a pineapple rind that doesn't mean we've agreed on a definition, it means I'm pulling crap out of my backside.

Note that it would be impossible to determine from the above exchange what this argument is about if I had not introduced the term "school" into the above response.

This isn't even just about your defining school, you've done it with a half dozen other words. How useful is it if one person is being completely dishonest when trying to have a conversation?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You asked what 'my' definition was, that's why I directed you to the usual resource of a dictionary. Pretty simple.

You wrote: "If you don't know what a word means you should try a dictionary"

You already do! If I started a conversation about the internet by defining the internet as a pineapple rind that doesn't mean we've agreed on a definition, it means I'm pulling crap out of my backside.

How does that relate? Or is it just your pooprtunity to express yourself crudly? I used Becker's definition of school. There's nothing idiosyncratic about it.

This isn't even just about your defining school, you've done it with a half dozen other words. How useful is it if one person is being completely dishonest when trying to have a conversation?

I'm finding it pretty annoying.

 

[elbe]

You wrote: "If you don't know what a word means you should try a dictionary"

I can only assume, at this point, that you're being intentionally dense.

How does that relate? Or is it just your pooprtunity to express yourself crudly? I used Becker's definition of school. There's nothing idiosyncratic about it.

But as it is hardly the accepted definition, as none of your redefinitions are, then they are useless for normal conversation. Using Becker's definition over the actual one is about as useful as my pineapple rind definition for the internet.

I'm finding it pretty annoying.

I'm glad you accept how annoying it is for others to attempt to understand what you're trying to say or trust any of your arguments.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I can only assume, at this point, that you're being intentionally dense.

a) Does Elbe now contend that "you" here was the informal "one"? Review the antecedent posts and this interpretation looks unlikely; Elbe personalizes the argument.
b) This position was predictable when elbe wrote: "What is it with you and your need to redefine commonly understood words just so they agree with your preexisting bias? It makes it very hard to even begin to trust anything you say." Does "your preexisting bias" really mean "ome's preexisting bias"?

But as it is hardly the accepted definition, as none of your redefinitions are...

Flat false. I use definitions from experts (Weber, Becker, Holmes). Furthermore, I normally ask for a definition from the other side of this argument, and usually either we agree or the specialists (Becker, Weber) speak with greater precision.

I'm glad you accept how annoying it is for others to attempt to understand what you're trying to say or trust any of your arguments.[/QUOTE]

 

[elbe]

Flat false. I use definitions from experts (Weber, Becker, Holmes). Furthermore, I normally ask for a definition from the other side of this argument, and usually either we agree or the specialists (Becker, Weber) speak with greater precision.

You certainly haven't demonstrated any of them are "experts" beyond the fact that you agree with them. Considering how you enjoy making claims that are demonstrably false, and, somehow, you don't take that as a reason to evaluate said claims, I sincerely question your reasons for your defining words.

And, in general, you don't have to define commonly understood words unless you want to use them in an uncommon fashion. If you want to define all your terms, for some inane reason, I suggest the dictionary instead of jumping directly to an "expert" that you happen to agree with.

I am starting to wonder if english isn't your first language.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You certainly haven't demonstrated any of them are "experts" beyond the fact that you agree with them.//

Neither have I demonstrated that Einstein is an expert physicist. I expected that that was common knowledge. You mean Max Weber is NOT an expert sociologist and analyst of government? You mean Gary Becker is NOT an expert analyst of human capital formation?
If you don't like Becker's definition of "school", what's your definition of "school" , then?

you enjoy making claims that are demonstrably false, and, somehow, you don't take that as a reason to evaluate said claims

And, in general, you don't have to define commonly understood words unless you want to use them in an uncommon fashion.

Or one wants to use words with more precision that the general-purpose dictionary definition allows.

 

[A'isha]

You mean Max Weber is NOT an expert sociologist and analyst of government? You mean Gary Becker is NOT an expert analyst of human capital formation?

Even if they are, what relevance do they have here?

Or one wants to use words with more precision that the general-purpose dictionary definition allows.

There's no reason to for the purposes of this discussion, save an attempt at sophistry.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... in general, you don't have to define commonly understood words unless you want to use them in an uncommon fashion. ...

Classical Physics typically begins with definitions of common terms: speed, acceleration, momentum, inertia, force, energy, power.
Euclidean Geometry introduces definitions early on.

 

[Dancing David]

You still haven't shown why the old text is relevant, such as the metrics and data that support it. It is great to quote some obscure theory, but just as in anything at the JREF, you need to show how it is applicable, and what current data support it.

What you have presented is not as applicable as speed, acceleration, momentum, inertia, force, energy, power which is also not really Euclidean geometry either.

http://www.philadelphia.edu.jo/math/witno/notes/axiomgeo.pdf

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You still haven't shown why the old text is relevant, such as the metrics and data that support it.

Vague. What "text"? What is "it"?

It is great to quote some obscure theory...

Vague again. If David intends that the above relate to anything I wrote, what "obscure theory" have I quoted?

... but just as in anything at the JREF, you need to show how it is applicable, and what current data support it.

Again, what is "it"? Further, why must data be "current"? David's requirement that supporting data be current looks affected to me. Navigators can use old charts to find Honolulu. Satelite GPS precision isn't necessary to find the harbor mouth. Chemists can use decades-old periodic tables to deduce chemical properties of elements. Nickel, palladium, and platinum have the same number of valence electrons. Slavery is still wrong. Compulsion kills motivation.

What you have presented is not as applicable as speed, acceleration, momentum, inertia, force, energy, power which is also not really Euclidean geometry either.

In Physics AND Geometry, the discussion begins with definition of terms. Apparently that point was too "obscure" for David.

 

[Chaos]

Classical Physics typically begins with definitions of common terms: speed, acceleration, momentum, inertia, force, energy, power.
Euclidean Geometry introduces definitions early on.

Weird... in neither fields, anyone with any clue at ever takes people seriously who re-define terms they way they need to in order to support they whacky "theories", they way you are doing.

 

[Minoosh]

The world is a pile of anecdotes (observations, data).

An anecdote is information, but weak for making a quantitative case.

Theory summarizes data.

If you believe that, it explains a lot.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Weird... in neither fields, anyone with any clue at ever takes people seriously who re-define terms they way they need to in order to support they whacky "theories"...

You don't know any mathematicians, obviously.

...they way you are doing.

Where the dictionary and I differ, there's usually either
1. Agreement when the verbiage is cleared away ("slavery" means "compulsory, unpaid labor" or "slavery" means "people are property". Property => ownership. Ownership => title. Title => enforcement of the title-holder's will. Force => compulsion) or
2. A more precise (but not fundamentally different) definition ("Interpersonal violence" for Weber's "force", "largest dealer in interpersonal violence" for Weber's "monopoly on legitimate force") or
3. A real disagreement between the vapid blue-maned-silver-hooved-unicorn definitions that socialist shills try to foist on internet discussions and the materialistic definitions of "government", "law", "school", etc. that I profer. Case #3 is the shills foisting wacky definitions on the discussion.

 

[RandFan]

You don't know any mathematicians, obviously.Where the dictionary and I differ, there's usually either
1. Agreement when the verbiage is cleared away ("slavery" means "compulsory, unpaid labor" or "slavery" means "people are property". Property => ownership. Ownership => title. Title => enforcement of the title-holder's will. Force => compulsion) or
2. A more precise (but not fundamentally different) definition ("Interpersonal violence" for Weber's "force", "largest dealer in interpersonal violence" for Weber's "monopoly on legitimate force") or
3. A real disagreement between the vapid blue-maned-silver-hooved-unicorn definitions that socialist shills try to foist on internet discussions and the materialistic definitions of "government", "law", "school", etc. that I profer. Case #3 is the shills foisting wacky definitions on the discussion.

Yet you still cannot demonstrate that your ideas have any validity in the real world when the rubber hits the road. At the end of the day humans are an evolved social species and we exist in large numbers only with governments. You don't have any bright and shinny examples that demonstrate any of your ideas to any significant degree.

Nations highest in economic freedom, GDP, HDI, are all counter to your theory. And the reason is simple, we can't all stop being compassionate creatures possessed of empathy. Most of us simply cannot because it's in our nature to want to live in a world where our neighbors and their children are happy and healthy.

"I got mine now the rest can go to hell" is slowly becoming an anachronism all around the world in democratic nations. And for good reason. It doesn't work. It doesn't work because we are an evolved social species. We did not evolve to be solitary creatures that don't give a damn about others. It's true we don't all have empathy and it's true that we also evolved egos and drive so the best solution is going to be one that allows people to get rich and keep most of their money but also have strong social programs including welfare and education.

Anyone who thinks otherwise simply hasn't looked at history and the current state of affairs.

Laissez-faire capitalism is just as dead as communism. Both ignore fundamental aspects of human nature. Communism ignores that life is personal. Laissez-faire capitalism ignores that life is social. --MLK (paraphrased)

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Malcolm): "The world is a pile of anecdotes (observations, data)."
(Minoosh): "An anecdote is information, but weak for making a quantitative case."
The natural world does not come with numbers or words attached to things. As soon as you say "quantitative" we move from observations (anecdotes) to summaries of measurements imposed on things.

(Malcolm): "Theory summarizes data."
(Minoosh): "If you believe that, it explains a lot."
If you don't, that explains a lot. Seems to me there's a continuum of psychology from theologian to materialist, from theoretician to experimentalist, from ideologue to opportunist, from paranoiac to schizophrenic. The theoretican sees the world as the outcome or implication of a prior theory (string theory, God's Plan, etc.). The experimentalist sees theory as a way to summarize data.

The definition of "function" relates. A function is a set S of ordered pairs such that (a,b) in S and (a,c) in S => b = c. That's the de-mystified definition of "function". A theory is a function, a set of ordered pairs {(observations, predictions)}.

 

[RandFan]

(Malcolm): "The world is a pile of anecdotes (observations, data)."

Please to find out what statistical significance is and when you are finished there then look up Optimum Sample Size.

People much smarter than most if not all on this forum figured this all out a long, long time ago. No need for this silly equivocation.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yet you still cannot demonstrate that your ideas have any validity in the real world...

Flat false. See the abundant evidence that relates compulsory attendance to negative social outcomes. The success of homeschoolers is pretty well accepted. In Hawaii, juvenile arrests FALL when school is NOT in session. Juvenile hospitalizations for human-induced trauma FALL when school is NOT in session.

...You don't have any bright and shinny examples that demonstrate any of your ideas to any significant degree...

RandFan immediately contradicts himself:...

Nations highest in economic freedom, GDP, HDI, are all counter to your theory.

No. Economic freedom promotes advances many other laudable goals. We agree there. That's hardly "counter".

And the reason is simple, we can't all stop being compassionate creatures possessed of empathy. Most of us simply cannot because it's in our nature to want to live in a world where our neighbors and their children are happy and healthy.

So why compulsory attendance statutes (which degrade economic freedom)? Because, although "we" cannot stop being compassionate social creatures, the processes which select the people who direct the world's territorial extortion rackets (i.e., governments) select sociopaths who very much CAN stop being compassionate creatures possessed of empathy, and State-worshipful indoctrination centers are just too useful for these creatures to resist, even for policy makers in governments of a free-market inclination.

"I got mine now the rest can go to hell" is slowly becoming an anachronism all around the world in democratic nations.

We disagree. Crony capitalism is winning: the GM bailout, Solyndra, TARP, The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

Anyone who thinks otherwise simply hasn't looked at history and the current state of affairs.