Society/Culture The distrust of education

[Mateyman]

The Review Was based on substantial research,
data analysis, policy assessment and
extensive consultations led by the e61
Institute. It draws heavily on evidence
from across government, and the
private and community sectors. It is
also informed by the growing body
of national and international research
on the impact of COVID-19 and the
response to it

Yeah if you actually read it you notice how thin the 'scientific' evidence is for a number of the claims supporting some of the key conclusions. There's basically no scientific or economic assessment of lockdowns in their entirety - to take an excerpt:

"Weighing up the costs and benefits of lockdowns will be a focus of researchers for years to come. At the beginning of the crisis, when little was known about the virus, a stop gap measure was needed to buy time to put effective procedures in place, to prepare our health systems, develop vaccines, acquire personal protective equipment (PPE) and RATs and to set up contact tracing arrangements. At the end of the crisis, when more information was available and Australia had more tools in its arsenal, the results of a cost-benefit analysis likely look very different"

So they didn't actually do any analysis but think that the results would probably look a certain way. This isn't science. There's a reason scientists spent 60 years looking for the Higgs-Boson and didn't just decide because someone thought that it might be there that'd be good enough.

It should be fairly straightforward to understand that one report with no scientists on the authorship panel is not 'the science'.

It's like if I wheel out a report from the Grattan Institute arguing for some policy proposal. Those reports are also based on substantial research, data analysis policy assessment and consultations. They also only represent one point of view and do not constitute scientific consensus on a subject.

Science can only somewhat inform policy recommendations anyway as most things end up as a value judgement based on different trade offs between different outcomes.

 

[Lethality]

Yeah if you actually read it you notice how thin the 'scientific' evidence is for a number of the claims supporting some of the key conclusions. There's basically no scientific or economic assessment of lockdowns in their entirety - to take an excerpt:

"Weighing up the costs and benefits of lockdowns will be a focus of researchers for years to come. At the beginning of the crisis, when little was known about the virus, a stop gap measure was needed to buy time to put effective procedures in place, to prepare our health systems, develop vaccines, acquire personal protective equipment (PPE) and RATs and to set up contact tracing arrangements. At the end of the crisis, when more information was available and Australia had more tools in its arsenal, the results of a cost-benefit analysis likely look very different"

So they didn't actually do any analysis but think that the results would probably look a certain way. This isn't science. There's a reason scientists spent 60 years looking for the Higgs-Boson and didn't just decide because someone thought that it might be there that'd be good enough.

The lack of cost analysis is one of the concerning faults found by the report.

"The NSW
Legislative Council passed legislation in May 2022 that
requires all new legislation brought before Parliament to
be accompanied by a statement of public purpose. This
includes a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed policy
and its alternatives.177 But our consultations indicated
that a culture of evaluation is still nascent, with only
about 5 per cent of federal policy proposals requiring
a regulatory impact analysis. Even then, the quality of
such assessments has been variable at best."

Same goes ironically with leaning too heavily on medical science

 

[Schneebly11]

Covid vaccine's were a total shambles. pharma lied, government lied, data misreported, injuries + more.

Evolution is a theory

There is a definite link between left wing and people can't think beyond the word science

Hitting the piss tonight I see?

 

[gouki88]

Covid vaccine's were a total shambles. pharma lied, government lied, data misreported, injuries + more.

Evolution is a theory

There is a definite link between left wing and people can't think beyond the word science

I am a Critical Thinker version of iamverysmart

 

[gouki88]

Differences between groups are also discussed in science books. You're referring to racist organisations who misuse information for their own purposes. That doesn't mean the science isn't valid.

Some competitive advantage doesn't mean they're going to dominate all sports. Trans athletes do test better in some areas, as mentioned in that video

The "science" of what, exactly? IQ? Or some other Western-biased Eurocentric aspect of "science"?

No, it doesn't mean dominance. It does mean that there should at least be one who is winning, right?

 

[Hoops]

Both sides do. Try discussing sex or race differences, especially in things like intelligence. Or point out that trans women retain some advantages in competitive sport, or even that the jury is out.

I take the view that science is the reality, no matter how uncomfortable. If men were on average less intelligent than women then that's no good but you have to accept reality.

My point is one of hypocrisy, not who's worse.

 

[Lethality]

The "science" of what, exactly? IQ? Or some other Western-biased Eurocentric aspect of "science"?

IQ, EQ, different kinds of intelligence, statistical variance and so forth. Some of this is already well documented between biological sex.

No, it doesn't mean dominance. It does mean that there should at least be one who is winning, right?

There are definitely trans athletes who are winning.

 

[the_interloper]

This is an almost ever present conversational topic on the SRP, so it probably should have a thread to discuss it isolated from everything else.

Certain groups and politicians like referring to 'Inner city elites', 'Latte sipping', 'Acacdemic/theoretical understanding'; in short, they evince a distrust of education. They dismiss studies, the value of education for wider society. This thread is to discuss why; the philosophy, specific occurrences, etc.

This is not a thread for partisan shittakes. I get that this is the SRP and partisanship is almost a necessary component of all discourse here, but let's try and find a legitimate basis for conversation.

Do you distrust education? Is it limited to fields you feel are unscientific? Can you explain why or what has lead you to this position? Do you feel too much money is spent on education?

Have at it.

Well I did a scientific undergrad degree and an MBA a few years ago. I guess with the first I had no idea of the political leanings of the teaching staff but in the MBA it was pretty clear for basically all of the subjects (and it was all on one side too). So yeah just on that I guess I mistrust education.

One thing I always thought tertiary education was meant to do was teach us to think for ourselves, well after the MBA I was pretty convinced they try to get you to think think they do.

Having said that it's still generally worthwhile to invest in education, qualifications can at the least tick the box for a role you might want. I guess for me I just kept my head down, did my work, got my grades and got out of there.

 

[Brad Goodman]

It's ok to be uneducated.

It makes your opinion worth less (not worthless) IMO.

 

[gouki88]

IQ, EQ, different kinds of intelligence, statistical variance and so forth. Some of this is already well documented between biological sex.


There are definitely trans athletes who are winning.

What other different kinds? Please do elaborate. Measuring these kinds of things is inherently biased towards certain cultures. You've used the silly umbrella term of intelligence when discussing ethnicities. Surely someone who cares for science would be wary of the nuances.

Who are they?

 

[Lethality]

What other different kinds? Please do elaborate. Measuring these kinds of things is inherently biased towards certain cultures. You've used the silly umbrella term of intelligence when discussing ethnicities. Surely someone who cares for science would be wary of the nuances.

Trans Athletes Are Posting Victories and Shaking Up Sports

Transgender athletes at all levels of sport are winning medals, spurring a contentious debate over the future of gendered competition.

www.wired.com

 

[Marcel Proust]

There was also some RW person who thinks psychology isn't real.

Sociology is fairly dodgy

 

[gouki88]

View attachment 1542143

Trans Athletes Are Posting Victories and Shaking Up Sports

Transgender athletes at all levels of sport are winning medals, spurring a contentious debate over the future of gendered competition.

www.wired.com

Yep, lots of various types of intelligence, with many aspects thereof very difficult to test in a culturally neutral setting. So, your contention of differences in "intelligence" (without specifying any subset) is a crock, really. Just racialist dogwhistling.

Oh dear. Better watch out for the takeover of the Pacific games or Div II college sport! This article listed 3 people - wow!

 

[JyeDye]

I do think too many people believe every ‘New university study suggests’ article whenever it fits their already formed positions.

 

[Marcel Proust]

It makes your opinion worth less (not worthless) IMO.

As opposed to some tosser that has studied marketing ?

 

[JyeDye]

As opposed to some tosser that has studied marketing ?

University degrees are massively overrated.

 

[gouki88]

University degrees are massively overrated.

How so?

 

[Marcel Proust]

How so?

If you are discussing a bridge then talking to a qualified engineer carries some weight.

But in most cases how is having a degree helpful?

I don't see how a masters of business gives you more sway when discussing the coronavirus

 

[JyeDye]

How so?

There is a wealth of information available online to be able to obtain a similar level of knowledge for free, let alone $10k a year. Some university courses are obviously necessary to ensure people are sufficiently qualified for their chosen field, but a lot are rubbish ones where you can find the exact same information online for free. Yet jobs that require that knowledge (think business, marketing types) still require you to have that piece of paper that says you wasted $40k to get before they will hire you. Hence, overrated.

 

[Schneebly11]

There is a wealth of information available online to be able to obtain a similar level of knowledge for free, let alone $10k a year.

So how do you know the information coming from some random online source is peer reviewed, discussed in academia, the agreed to knowledge of that topic? It could be just some random swindler selling snake oil. Universities have strict oversight system. Sometime they pick up poor information and the media that wants you to think universities are overrated runs this as “proof” unis are no good. But the truth is that’s evidence a uni has better oversight than whatever some online swindler may be selling.

but a lot are rubbish ones where you can find the exact same information online for free.

Do these online ones have strict assessment policies to ensure you are learning the correct knowledge not just coming away with what you want to believe?

Yet jobs that require that knowledge (think business, marketing types) still require you to have that piece of paper that says you wasted $40k to get before they will hire you. Hence, overrated.

They want that piece of paper as it’s evidence you have been through a formal learning process.

An online class in nonsense could be teaching you rubbish, or you may come out of the course thinking things that were totally against what the course was trying to teach you but because there was no assessment you never had a chance to get told you were wrong.

It’s a degree in Dunning Krugerism.

 

[Gethelred]

There is a wealth of information available online to be able to obtain a similar level of knowledge for free, let alone $10k a year. Some university courses are obviously necessary to ensure people are sufficiently qualified for their chosen field, but a lot are rubbish ones where you can find the exact same information online for free. Yet jobs that require that knowledge (think business, marketing types) still require you to have that piece of paper that says you wasted $40k to get before they will hire you. Hence, overrated.

While it's true that there's a wealth of information online to allow one to achieve a similar level of knowledge to someone with a degree within particular fields, a university source or database has certain levels of source verification and peer review the internet lacks. A university insists on citation, and is built on principles of objectivism to allow nonscientific disciplines to mirror the scientific process as best they can.

I think the problem you point to is more to do with capitalism's insistence on placing a price on everything - hence, your $40000 piece of paper - than it is academia's level of importance to wider society.

 

[Schneebly11]

While it's true that there's a wealth of information online to allow one to achieve a similar level of knowledge to someone with a degree within particular fields, a university source or database has certain levels of source verification and peer review the internet lacks. A university insists on citation, and is built on principles of objectivism to allow nonscientific disciplines to mirror the scientific process as best they can.

I think the problem you point to is more to do with capitalism's insistence on placing a price on everything - hence, your $40000 piece of paper - than it is academia's level of importance to wider society.

No major corporation in this country is going to give a professional job to someone who went through a random unverified online course over someone with a degree from a recognised institution, all other things equal.

In fact I would never hire someone who thought their free online course made them more qualified for a job over someone with a degree from a proper institution, it’s a great way to identify those who suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome.

 

[gouki88]

If you are discussing a bridge then talking to a qualified engineer carries some weight.

But in most cases how is having a degree helpful?

I don't see how a masters of business gives you more sway when discussing the coronavirus

I believe higher education helps teach people how to think critically and identify robust sources of information.

 

[Marcel Proust]

I believe higher education helps teach people how to think critically and identify robust sources of information.

I reckon that concept is a bit overrated

 

[Marcel Proust]

No major corporation in this country is going to give a professional job to someone who went through a random unverified online course over someone with a degree from a recognised institution, all other things equal.

In fact I would never hire someone who thought their free online course made them more qualified for a job over someone with a degree from a proper institution, it’s a great way to identify those who suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome.

A lot of people with degrees unemployed