We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata slogan of the day That seems to point up a significant difference between Europeans and Americans. A European says: “I can’t understand this, what’s wrong with me?” An American says: “I can’t understand this, what’s wrong with him?”
-Terry Pratchett
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
So did Terry ever figure out what was wrong with him?
The “American” view is the correct one.
All matters of basic economics or politics can be explained in straightforward language. So if an “explination” does not make sense to most people there is someting wrong with the person doing the “explaining”.
Paul Marks.
No, it’s not the correct one. There is indeed a strong anti-intellectual bent in America, and it’s really a bad thing for science education. Students are unwilling to look at something if it’s too hard, and complain that the teacher doesn’t explain it when they have made no effort to understand it. It’s pathetic and annoying (speaking as someone who was a teaching aid for a mathematics class.)
Considering how important knowledge of science is to many issues of public policy, it seems fairly plain to me that you cannot explain many issues of great important in a completely straightforward way. Some level of thought is required to understand even basic economics, and most people in the U.S. (at least, presumably elsewhere) are unwilling to put in the effort.
Lucas, I would call this quote cute with a kernel of truth, but I have to respond to your statement Re: the correct way.
“No, it’s not the correct one. There is indeed a strong anti-intellectual bent in America, and it’s really a bad thing for science education.”
The previous poster asserted only that: “All matters of basic economics or politics can be explained in straightforward language.”
He is correct. In that arena, anyway–politics and fundamental economics are very natural as subject matter goes–chances are that if you are not making sense to a mass audience, you really are not making sense. Mathematics and science, of course, are different. There are methods to frame the discussion to make scientific and mathematic ideas easier to assimilate, but that only goes so far. After which, the students can only blame themselves and their lack of effort.
Now let us think about Terry Pratchett. He writes accessible, popular fantasy. Is he rich because people worked hard to understand his complex mathematic ideas? No, not really. He is wealthy and popular because a large number of people read, understood, and enjoyed his fantasy books. Operating on our knowledge of Terry Pratchett, we can assume that he values accessibility and therefore is not referring to the domain of science and math. I don’t believe he intended to the quote to have a ‘right’ and a ‘wrong’ person in mind, as the two previous posts demonstrate the ‘American’ to be both right and wrong in different contexts.
As far as anti-intellectualism in America–yes. Rampant. Nil value is attached to science and mathematics in education, and I have experienced this firsthand. I am glad we can import hard-working folks from India, else we would be in trouble.
Lucas: As a teaching aid, were you a calculator or a log table?
“All matters of basic economics or politics can be explained in straightforward language”
yes, but they can probably be explained in at least 3 different, possibly conflicting, simple ways. Further, the listener/reader’s depth of understanding will vary depending how much they know about the surrounding issues; how well, if at all, they have assimilated this knowledge.
It’s like the US foreign policy thing; I don’t value the opinion of most of the US public on world affairs because for years they’ve hardly been informed about/paid attention to what has gone on round the world.
Of Terry’s 2 approaches, i prefer the European, at least as an initial basis for response. If then, after some investigation, you come to the conclusion that the other is wrong, then fair enough, you can switch sides, but if you start off with the assumption that you’re right every time, you’re not likely to learn much.