Will the Humanities Save Us?

There were no strawmen in my comment. Here is the evidence:

1. Your case included doing away with 4 year degrees in the unapproved subjects...
Tokie said:
In short, no 4-yr degrees in these things would be awarded
Click to expand...
2. and relegating what study was allowed in those subjects to state schools...
Tokie said:
I would do this in state colleges
Click to expand...
3. Even then, you also proposed denying a major in any of those subjects...
Tokie said:
make any non-practical studies non-major studies
Click to expand...
4. unless it was accompanied by a teaching degree...
Tokie said:
unless one is seeking a teaching degree along with it.
Click to expand...
5. and opined that public funding should not flow there.
Tokie said:
I just want to be sure that the limited funding available to public universities and colleges is better spent...
Click to expand...


This is an example of a strawman:

Tokie said:
In a socialist society, sure...employers are likely forced to hire people with them, but not so here.
Click to expand...


Terms:

Tokenconservative said:
I guess we need to define some terms
1. "State schools"?
Click to expand...
I may be misunderstanding what this means in context. I assume that state schools are the lower-tier institutions that the less fortunate or less intelligent students attend. Correct?
2. "Unapproved subjects"
Click to expand...
Your list: "Virtually all of the Liberal Arts: English/Lit (any language) History, Philosophy, Film, Acting, non-specific "Music" or "Art" degrees (outside of schools specializing in those areas) all the "ism" studies (Feminism, Race, Ethicity, etc.).
"
3. "Ideological limts."
Click to expand...
Self-evident. You are not basing your argument on facts.
4. "Authoritative"
Click to expand...
Empirical evidence from a reputable source.

The following all need such evidence as defined in #4 above to be convincing:

Try getting worthwhile employment TODAY in the US, bringing ONLY a 4-yr English, or Philosophy, or History degree with you to the interview (outside education).

Most areas of the Liberal Arts have no practical application in America, today....

The reality is that post-about oh, 1990, let's call it, such degrees serve very little practical functionality in THIS society....

Tokie
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
There were no strawmen in my comment. Here is the evidence:

1. Your case included doing away with 4 year degrees in the unapproved subjects...

2. and relegating what study was allowed in those subjects to state schools...

3. Even then, you also proposed denying a major in any of those subjects...

4. unless it was accompanied by a teaching degree...

5. and opined that public funding should not flow there.



This is an example of a strawman:




Terms:

I may be misunderstanding what this means in context. I assume that state schools are the lower-tier institutions that the less fortunate or less intelligent students attend. Correct?
Your list: "Virtually all of the Liberal Arts: English/Lit (any language) History, Philosophy, Film, Acting, non-specific "Music" or "Art" degrees (outside of schools specializing in those areas) all the "ism" studies (Feminism, Race, Ethicity, etc.).
"
Self-evident. You are not basing your argument on facts.
Empirical evidence from a reputable source.

The following all need such evidence as defined in #4 above to be convincing:
Click to expand...

1- 5.While pedantry is sometimes fun, I find it typically just gets in the way.

No, that's not a strawman, it may or may not be inaccurate, but that in and of itself is not a strawman. It's odd that you accuse me of making such an assertion when you then follow with the strawman assertion that "state colleges and unis aare 'lower tier' institutions."

Hmm...my issue is not the quality of the education obtained in these schools which in my opinion likely rivals that of many if not most private institutions if for no other reason than the very fact of what I AM opposed to (in this issue), the huge sums of money going to state institutions.

That's my issue: I pay a lot to subsidize the really good state colleges and universities in my state, I would like to know that that money is not being spent on "Ethnic Studies," or "Feminist Studies," or even less nonsensical, but nearly equally economically unviable English, or Spanish, or Aramaic Lit., or Philosophy, or 4-yr Anthro, Archeo, Paleo, etc. majors.

You should really try to avoid USING the same logical fallacies you (wrongly) accuse others of using when rebutting them. It makes it seem as if you don't actually know what the fallacy you are calling into question actually means, and I know that can't be the case.

I'm not sure I care whether it convinces you. I don't anticipate common sense convincing doctrinaire types, typically.

Tokie
 
Just to intterupt: State colleges/comm. colleges ARE considered lower-tier. While some state colleges are in the upper tier of good schools, they are few and far between (Michigan State, U of Washington and NCSU leaps to mind.)

For that matter, to address the comment:

My current degree is a Computer Science (Transfer), and at EWU I plan to make that a Major and will minor in either Political Science or History (I happen to LOVE those two fields, it's just I don't have the patience to be a full out historian.)

So: (bolded letters are my insertion)
That's my issue: I pay a lot to subsidize the really good state colleges and universities in my state, I would like to know that that money is not being spent on (1)"Ethnic Studies," or "Feminist Studies," or even less nonsensical, but nearly equally economically unviable (2)English, or Spanish, or (3) Aramaic Lit., or (4)Philosophy, or 4-yr Anthro, Archeo, Paleo, etc. majors.
Click to expand...

Let's break this down.

1. The point of a state college is that it must serve the population of the state. Just because you don't think it's important doesn't mean otehrs agree - obviously, in most cases, they don't. While it may not be at all economically viable, there are other reasons to attend a college.

2. Both are useful for translators. And knowing English means you splel guud. (Seriously, I've had to edit papers for an English class and you'd be surprised at the quality.)

3. I can see how this is slightly useful, if you're a historian. Or, into religious studies. Either way.

4. Almost all of the above majors contribute to our scientific and cultural environment and understanding. Well. Most of them. Why SHOULDN'T they stop people from wanting to take them?
 
Tokie

I think rather less of your hard earned taxes goes into Peruvian nose flutery than you might think and rather more into wholesome things like health care, primary and high school education, homeland security, national disasters, and a fairly significant defence budget. Whatever GW is he is not really a committed small government man.

Whilst cutting frivolous degree courses will save a few pennies I can't see it returning a lot of them to your pocket and on the practical side do you really want these people loose on the streets?
 
Tokenconservative said:
1That's my issue: I pay a lot to subsidize the really good state colleges and universities in my state, I would like to know that that money is not being spent on "Ethnic Studies," or "Feminist Studies," or even less nonsensical, but nearly equally economically unviable English, or Spanish, or Aramaic Lit., or Philosophy, or 4-yr Anthro, Archeo, Paleo, etc. majors.
Click to expand...
Wow this is the stupidest thing I've ever read. English not economically viable? Haaa...
 
Last edited:
Tokenconservative said:
1- 5.While pedantry is sometimes fun, I find it typically just gets in the way.

No, that's not a strawman, it may or may not be inaccurate, but that in and of itself is not a strawman. It's odd that you accuse me of making such an assertion when you then follow with the strawman assertion that "state colleges and unis aare 'lower tier' institutions."

Hmm...my issue is not the quality of the education obtained in these schools which in my opinion likely rivals that of many if not most private institutions if for no other reason than the very fact of what I AM opposed to (in this issue), the huge sums of money going to state institutions.

That's my issue: I pay a lot to subsidize the really good state colleges and universities in my state, I would like to know that that money is not being spent on "Ethnic Studies," or "Feminist Studies," or even less nonsensical, but nearly equally economically unviable English, or Spanish, or Aramaic Lit., or Philosophy, or 4-yr Anthro, Archeo, Paleo, etc. majors.

You should really try to avoid USING the same logical fallacies you (wrongly) accuse others of using when rebutting them. It makes it seem as if you don't actually know what the fallacy you are calling into question actually means, and I know that can't be the case.

I'm not sure I care whether it convinces you. I don't anticipate common sense convincing doctrinaire types, typically.

Tokie
Click to expand...

Fairly pathetic response. It entirely lacks anything of substance. I await the evidence for your claims that the humanities are economically inviable. If you can provide it, you will have a point worth debating.

Us doctrinaire types tend to be sticklers for these sorts of things.
 
Tokorona said:
Just to intterupt: State colleges/comm. colleges ARE considered lower-tier. While some state colleges are in the upper tier of good schools, they are few and far between (Michigan State, U of Washington and NCSU leaps to mind.)

For that matter, to address the comment:

My current degree is a Computer Science (Transfer), and at EWU I plan to make that a Major and will minor in either Political Science or History (I happen to LOVE those two fields, it's just I don't have the patience to be a full out historian.)

So: (bolded letters are my insertion)


Let's break this down.

1. The point of a state college is that it must serve the population of the state. Just because you don't think it's important doesn't mean otehrs agree - obviously, in most cases, they don't. While it may not be at all economically viable, there are other reasons to attend a college.

2. Both are useful for translators. And knowing English means you splel guud. (Seriously, I've had to edit papers for an English class and you'd be surprised at the quality.)

3. I can see how this is slightly useful, if you're a historian. Or, into religious studies. Either way.

4. Almost all of the above majors contribute to our scientific and cultural environment and understanding. Well. Most of them. Why SHOULDN'T they stop people from wanting to take them?
Click to expand...

Hmm...well, bigotry aside: the primary state college where I live includes several Nobel Laureattes (sp?) in, if I do not misremember, physics and genetics.

As I said, pedantry can be fun, but a purposeful misreading of what I've said just makes you sound like well, maybe YOU could use a basic English (reading) course?

Tokie
 
Nogbad said:
Tokie

I think rather less of your hard earned taxes goes into Peruvian nose flutery than you might think and rather more into wholesome things like health care, primary and high school education, homeland security, national disasters, and a fairly significant defence budget. Whatever GW is he is not really a committed small government man.

Whilst cutting frivolous degree courses will save a few pennies I can't see it returning a lot of them to your pocket and on the practical side do you really want these people loose on the streets?
Click to expand...

Can you give us the breakdown of social spending vs. military spending?

Sure...I don't have a problme with setting Feminist Studies and Ethnic Studies profs free to persue careers in food service and hospitality.

They are probably legal citizens, anyway.

Tokie
 
technoextreme said:
Wow this is the stupidest thing I've ever read. English not economically viable? Haaa...
Click to expand...

Really? Well, maybe you are right.

But just to be sure, can you go to Job.com or craigslist jobs and tell me how many want ads you find for people with BAs in Miltonian Studies or Shakespere or Romantic Andoran Writers?

I'd like to know.

Tokie
 
D'rok said:
Fairly pathetic response. It entirely lacks anything of substance. I await the evidence for your claims that the humanities are economically inviable. If you can provide it, you will have a point worth debating.

Us doctrinaire types tend to be sticklers for these sorts of things.
Click to expand...

Wait...what?

Putting aside the anti-logical presentation (it's not up to me to proves something is not...):

You want me to provide a university-backed study showing that something they rake millions of dollars in on every year is NOT viable?

Ohhhkkkayy...

Tokie
 
Tokorona said:
Just to intterupt:


Let's break this down.

1. The point of a state college is that it must serve the population of the state. Just because you don't think it's important doesn't mean otehrs agree - obviously, in most cases, they don't. While it may not be at all economically viable, there are other reasons to attend a college.

2. Both are useful for translators. And knowing English means you splel guud. (Seriously, I've had to edit papers for an English class and you'd be surprised at the quality.)

3. I can see how this is slightly useful, if you're a historian. Or, into religious studies. Either way.

4. Almost all of the above majors contribute to our scientific and cultural environment and understanding. Well. Most of them. Why SHOULDN'T they stop people from wanting to take them?
Click to expand...

Okay, yeah....let's break this down.

1. You are confusing me with that bigot. I have no problem with state colleges and unis. They seem like a darn good idear to me.

2. I did not say English. I guess your reading comphrenshun is not as gud as yore speling
This sort of conflation is about what I anticipate, however.

3. Ok. Add another to my list, then: Religious studies.

4. Um...what? I realize you are (apparently) an English prof., but you'll excuse me if I don't (am unable) to respond to something that simply doesn't make any sense.

Tokie
 
Tokenconservative said:
Wait...what?

Putting aside the anti-logical presentation (it's not up to me to proves something is not...):

You want me to provide a university-backed study showing that something they rake millions of dollars in on every year is NOT viable?

Ohhhkkkayy...

Tokie
Click to expand...

Your claim, your burden of proof. You'll note I provided evidence for mine.

This is a sceptics' forum. We don't care about your opinion unless it is backed by demonstrable facts.
 
Tokenconservative said:
4. Um...what? I realize you are (apparently) an English prof., but you'll excuse me if I don't (am unable) to respond to something that simply doesn't make any sense.

Tokie
Click to expand...
It doesn't make any sense to the ignorant of the world. Archeology has helped with our understanding of science and technology. There was a metallurgist technique that the Ancient Chinese were using that we only started using in the last fifty years. References to technology were made by the Bard in his plays. Numerous people have been influenced by films.
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
It doesn't make any sense to the ignorant of the world. Archeology has helped with our understanding of science and technology. There was a metallurgist technique that the Ancient Chinese were using that we only started using in the last fifty years. References to technology were made by the Bard in his plays. Numerous people have been influenced by films.
Click to expand...

Okay....and therefore, what?

Yes, I know Porky's II influenced me greatly....

?

Tokie
 
Tokenconservative said:
Okay....and therefore, what?

Yes, I know Porky's II influenced me greatly....
Click to expand...
This type of idiotic comment isn't that far from the truth. When I wrote that I was thinking about Star Wars and Helen Greiner. Someone who makes a lot of money. Someone who is involved with technology and science. Someone who openly admits that that a movie is the sole reason why she is working on robots. Hell I'll give you two for the price of one. The word robot originated from a play.
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
This type of idiotic comment isn't that far from the truth. When I wrote that I was thinking about Star Wars and Helen Greiner. Someone who makes a lot of money. Someone who is involved with technology and science. Someone who openly admits that that a movie is the sole reason why she is working on robots. Hell I'll give you two for the price of one. The word robot originated from a play.
Click to expand...

Sorry...no idear who Griener might be....should I?

Oh, that's right...I am sure that since I don't that's proof--PROOOOOFFFFF!!!--of my backwoodsy pig-ig'nance, huh?

Yes, the term robot did originate in literature...so? Is there some reason you have to have a degree in Medieval Andoran Lit to write plays or books or movies?

Tokie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom