Poor Snowflake - Whaaaa

[aleshanee]

well.... you gotta remember ... this is the generation that put electric motors on their bicycles...
scooters... and even their skateboards - and calls it exercise when they go out to ride on them...
. .. but ..wow!.... i guess i;m really getting old now - talking smack about a younger generation...
.......... what is the world coming to?.....

 

[ALAYMAN]

Don't be so sure.

Homepage

Resources and guidance to support Black, LatinX, and Multilingual students to thrive in grades 6-8 A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction is an integrated approach to mathematics that centers Black, Latinx, and Multilingual students in grades 6-8, addresses barriers to math equity, and aligns...

equitablemath.org

Remember Francis Schaeffer's "line of despair." Ideas that have their start in philosophy (or, more generally, the humanities) find their way in to art, then music and the theatre and so forth, then the general world, and finallly into theology.

I don't think he was 100% right about that. The particular expression of Marxism underlying DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity) that you're calling "woke ideology" got to the church earlier--but now it's penetrated the STEM fields, which you would think were immune (what does multiplication have to do with race?) But we're just on the wrong side of Schaeffer's line, so we still think in absolutes.

You and others in this thread have made me rethink my original statement. I was thinking in terms, as you pointed out, of absolutes (2+2 doesn’t care about gender or ethnicity). And though the content of science in pure scientific pursuits at its core and essence cannot be philosophically massaged by subjective ideology into affirming contradictory propositions (ie, relativism) there are other considerations about how science is to be done as a process that can be affected by woke ideology. So rather than spilling more ink/type, and boy do I ever wanna do just that, I’ll simply say “who says the FFF doesn’t ever change people’s minds?”

 

[Ransom]

That's pretty accurate. If you want an example of this kind of woke "thinking" pervading the sciences (not withstanding evolutionary biology) look at how far medical science has gone off the rails with a whole faction of medical practitioners thinking that gender reassignment "therapies" are appropriate for children.

Or that gynecologists need to be able to treat trans "women."

 

[Ransom]

And though the content of science in pure scientific pursuits at its core and essence cannot be philosophically massaged by subjective ideology into affirming contradictory propositions (ie, relativism) there are other considerations about how science is to be done as a process that can be affected by woke ideology.

However, science itself is the product of Western hegemony and needs to be decolonized. There are other "ways of knowing": for example, take these South African university students who think that science needs to be reconstructed from an African perspective, which is to say, magic...

 

[ALAYMAN]

However, science itself is the product of Western hegemony and needs to be decolonized. There are other "ways of knowing": for example, take these South African university students who think that science needs to be reconstructed from an African perspective, which is to say, magic...

I have no words.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Would it be improper to say that science began its “woke” descent back in the 1800s with Darwin?

 

[abcaines]

Would it be improper to say that science began its “woke” descent back in the 1800s with Darwin?

Not entirely. Because humans have always been in rebellion to God, we have to understand that our view of science has always been biased towards leaning against God. I don't think Darwinism was the start of the decent. Something has always been corrupted.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Not entirely. Because humans have always been in rebellion to God, we have to understand that our view of science has always been biased towards leaning against God. I don't think Darwinism was the start of the decent. Something has always been corrupted.

Good point. I guess I was just thinking in terms of the more recent history in academia, but you’re correct, there’s always been rebellion across different eras and cultures.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Good point. I guess I was just thinking in terms of the more recent history in academia, but you’re correct, there’s always been rebellion across different eras and cultures.

I was reading this website yesterday after thinking about what Ransom and you all had to say about woke ideology infecting STEM, and though it is thoroughly secular and non-religious in it’s views it generally disdains the subjective philosophy inherent to woke-ism. The article I linked above is an interesting read on Darwin and woke-sters contempt for Darwin’s science.

 

[Ransom]

Would it be improper to say that science began its “woke” descent back in the 1800s with Darwin?

Darwin was a modernist, a product of the Enlightenment. He believed in the inherent goodness of knowledge and that reason and the scientific method could reveal objective truth about the world.

It's the postmodern worldview that the so-called "woke" get their assumptions from. It doesn't believe in objective truth, or that the purpose of science is to discover it. Science is merely one way of knowing amongst many. There is no such thing as universal truth: all human interpretations are equally good. An interpretation of reality is an assertion of power, and hence competing interpretations of the world are the products of competing power structures.

Hence we get the idea of "standpoint theory"--which is to say that one's social position relative to power confers special insight. This is why those African students can claim that a shamanistic worldview (in which "black magic" exists and enables you to call down lightning on someone) is just as valid as a scientific worldview for explaining the world. So there is no loss for ridding a South African university of European theories of knowledge like the scientific method.

We can thank the postmoderns for valid criticisms (e.g. of certainty or objectivity of knowledge), but as Christians we live in a world created by a rational, good, and changeless God, and hence we can see that truth is external, obtainable, rational, and non-arbitrary, as a reflection of God's own person and character. I think we ought to be closer to the modernist worldview than the postmodernist one.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Darwin was a modernist, a product of the Enlightenment. He believed in the inherent goodness of knowledge and that reason and the scientific method could reveal objective truth about the world.

It's the postmodern worldview that the so-called "woke" get their assumptions from. It doesn't believe in objective truth, or that the purpose of science is to discover it. Science is merely one way of knowing amongst many. There is no such thing as universal truth: all human interpretations are equally good. An interpretation of reality is an assertion of power, and hence competing interpretations of the world are the products of competing power structures.

Hence we get the idea of "standpoint theory"--which is to say that one's social position relative to power confers special insight. This is why those African students can claim that a shamanistic worldview (in which "black magic" exists and enables you to call down lightning on someone) is just as valid as a scientific worldview for explaining the world. So there is no loss for ridding a South African university of European theories of knowledge like the scientific method.

We can thank the postmoderns for valid criticisms (e.g. of certainty or objectivity of knowledge), but as Christians we live in a world created by a rational, good, and changeless God, and hence we can see that truth is external, obtainable, rational, and non-arbitrary, as a reflection of God's own person and character. I think we ought to be closer to the modernist worldview than the postmodernist one.

Excellent post. “Woke,” of course, has a history in the racial injustice realm, but in more recent years, it has been adopted by the LGBTQ crowd, and, I’d argue, among the anti-religious groups, particularly atheists (there are some articles floating around about this). I fall into that camp which views wokeness as the rejection of western values and, ultimately, the Christian God. I realize not all those who consider themselves woke would agree with that statement, but I believe that’s where the ultimate definition of the word will encompass: one cannot be “woke” and also a Christian, because Christianity is inherently racist and patriarchal.

Anyway, this is why I posed the question about Darwin and wokeness.

 

[ALAYMAN]

…,

We can thank the postmoderns for valid criticisms (e.g. of certainty or objectivity of knowledge),

How did you mean this? In what respect should we give credit to postmodernism for contributing to issues of certainty or objectivity?

 

[Ransom]

How did you mean this? In what respect should we give credit to postmodernism for contributing to issues of certainty or objectivity?

They've hit upon an insight that the Enlightenment modernists wouldn't have.

The modernists saw the universe as a giant machine that can be observed and understood with certainty thanks to our rational capacities. Along came Werner Heisenberg and told us that we can know either the position of an electron or its momentum, but never both at the same time. The model of the atom as a miniature solar system, where we can accurately predict the positions of its orbiting bodies, was inadequate. There is knowledge that is beyond our capacity to know with certainty.

The modernists also posited that the pursuit of knowledge was objective and dispassionate. They failed to recognize that they, too, are a part of the world and have a particular temporal, social, and political context within it that colours their perceptions. Objectivity is real in the sense that there is a truth "out there" that is independent of our own understanding. But we can't see and interpret that truth outside of our own presuppositions and biases. The Fall has clouded our minds.

For example, I've got a friend who fancied himself a bit of a creation apologist. If he were to point out some data that he said favours a young earth, I would ask him how. He would frequently answer, "Just look at the evidence!" as though data simply speaks for itself without interpretation, and therefore a young earth was a foregone conclusion. And then I would point out to him that an atheistic biologist (like Jerry Coyne, whom you linked to earlier) would look at the same evidence and interpret it in favour of Darwinism. My friend can make no guarantee that his interpretation of the evidence is the objective one and Coyne's is coloured by his presuppositions, rather than the other way around. The truth is, they're both biased.

 

[ALAYMAN]

They've hit upon an insight that the Enlightenment modernists wouldn't have.

The modernists saw the universe as a giant machine that can be observed and understood with certainty thanks to our rational capacities. Along came Werner Heisenberg and told us that we can know either the position of an electron or its momentum, but never both at the same time. The model of the atom as a miniature solar system, where we can accurately predict the positions of its orbiting bodies, was inadequate. There is knowledge that is beyond our capacity to know with certainty.

The modernists also posited that the pursuit of knowledge was objective and dispassionate. They failed to recognize that they, too, are a part of the world and have a particular temporal, social, and political context within it that colours their perceptions. Objectivity is real in the sense that there is a truth "out there" that is independent of our own understanding. But we can't see and interpret that truth outside of our own presuppositions and biases. The Fall has clouded our minds.

For example, I've got a friend who fancied himself a bit of a creation apologist. If he were to point out some data that he said favours a young earth, I would ask him how. He would frequently answer, "Just look at the evidence!" as though data simply speaks for itself without interpretation, and therefore a young earth was a foregone conclusion. And then I would point out to him that an atheistic biologist (like Jerry Coyne, whom you linked to earlier) would look at the same evidence and interpret it in favour of Darwinism. My friend can make no guarantee that his interpretation of the evidence is the objective one and Coyne's is coloured by his presuppositions, rather than the other way around. The truth is, they're both biased.

I get it that postmoderns astutely pointed out that the scientific dogma behind absolute certainty had some holes, but according to scientific principles of discovery there are philosophic accomodations and allowance for such new discovery, leading to more certainty than having been previously been understood. This blows holes in the postmodern platform that seems to want to relativize propositional truth claims at every turn, thereby weakening certainty and objectivity rather than strengthening confidence, IMNSHO. Put another way, their discovery that dogma of absolute certainty in science is occasionally and anecdotally flawed doesn't preclude the philosophic proposition of absolute truth.

 

[sword]

Well, I know right now my wife is working 7 days a week because of the "end of the quarter" for Dell and Ceva Logistics. She drives over an hour one way to work, and it's almost two hours to get home. She often works six days a week. Depending on her work schedule, we go to bed at 8:30 p.m. and get up at 2 or 3 a.m. It's called adulting.

Why in the world don't you move closer. How can you allow your wife to commute 3 hrs a day unpaid. Such a waste of the life God have given her. Not talking about her job, just the commute.

 

[sword]

$200,000? Where on earth did you go to college? In Florida, junior college costs about $3,000 a year and state university is about $6,000. Even law school didn’t cost me that kind of money.

I was quoting the price for a graduate degree. Undergrade average nation wide would be closer to $100,000. Note many students not only borrow money for tuition, room and board, plus spending money, car payment, gas and other misc. expenses.

Here is the average per year cost of a 4 year degree. Florida is one of the 3 cheapest places to attend college. Vermont not so much.

Per year cost of a 4 year degree.

Vermont	30,752​
New Hampshire	29,222​
Connecticut	28,425​
New Jersey	28,335​
Massachusetts	28,317​
Rhode Island	26,946​
Illinois	26,252​
Pennsylvania	26,040​
Virginia	25,761​
Delaware	24,862​
Michigan	24,777​
Arizona	24,681​
Oregon	24,517​
New York	24,231​
California	24,015​
South Carolina	23,181​
Ohio	22,860​
Maryland	22,380​
Kentucky	22,317​
Colorado	22,288​
Alaska	22,185​
Hawaii	22,012​
Minnesota	21,858​
Washington	21,027​
Alabama	20,993​
Maine	20,677​
Tennessee	20,639​
Indiana	20,572​
Louisiana	20,031​
Iowa	19,788​
Missouri	19,394​
Nebraska	19,352​
West Virginia	19,312​
Mississippi	19,221​
Kansas	19,082​
Georgia	18,711​
Texas	18,325​
Arkansas	18,262​
Nevada	18,065​
North Dakota	18,057​
Wisconsin	17,875​
North Carolina	17,779​
Oklahoma	17,283​
South Dakota	17,177​
New Mexico	17,113​
Montana	16,931​
Idaho	16,518​
Florida	15,543​
Utah	14,653​
Wyoming	14,584​

 

[Ransom]

Put another way, their discovery that dogma of absolute certainty in science is occasionally and anecdotally flawed doesn't preclude the philosophic proposition of absolute truth.

No, and the pomos have assumed too much in their conclusions there. But they have hit upon some truths about the pursuit of knowledge that should keep the rest of us a bit humble and cognizant of our own biases.

 

[4everfsu]

Get an apprenticeship at a trades union, they pay your associated degree courses, and pay you while you are learning the trade. College - You pay someone to teach you a subject. Apprenticeship - Someone pays you to learn a subject.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

I was quoting the price for a graduate degree. Undergrade average nation wide would be closer to $100,000. Note many students not only borrow money for tuition, room and board, plus spending money, car payment, gas and other misc. expenses.

Here is the average per year cost of a 4 year degree. Florida is one of the 3 cheapest places to attend college. Vermont not so much.

Per year cost of a 4 year degree.

Vermont	30,752​
New Hampshire	29,222​
Connecticut	28,425​
New Jersey	28,335​
Massachusetts	28,317​
Rhode Island	26,946​
Illinois	26,252​
Pennsylvania	26,040​
Virginia	25,761​
Delaware	24,862​
Michigan	24,777​
Arizona	24,681​
Oregon	24,517​
New York	24,231​
California	24,015​
South Carolina	23,181​
Ohio	22,860​
Maryland	22,380​
Kentucky	22,317​
Colorado	22,288​
Alaska	22,185​
Hawaii	22,012​
Minnesota	21,858​
Washington	21,027​
Alabama	20,993​
Maine	20,677​
Tennessee	20,639​
Indiana	20,572​
Louisiana	20,031​
Iowa	19,788​
Missouri	19,394​
Nebraska	19,352​
West Virginia	19,312​
Mississippi	19,221​
Kansas	19,082​
Georgia	18,711​
Texas	18,325​
Arkansas	18,262​
Nevada	18,065​
North Dakota	18,057​
Wisconsin	17,875​
North Carolina	17,779​
Oklahoma	17,283​
South Dakota	17,177​
New Mexico	17,113​
Montana	16,931​
Idaho	16,518​
Florida	15,543​
Utah	14,653​
Wyoming	14,584​

Not knowing the source of the statistics, I’m not sure if they’re combining private tuition and public tuition together or not. I know Florida publicly universities charge in the $6K - 8K range a year. Toss in a couple thousand a year for miscellaneous fees plus textbooks on top. Now, if we’re including room & board, that cost is probably pretty accurate for public universities. Regardless, my argument was that IF a kid is willing to do two years in junior college and commute from home for all four years, the cost can be drastically reduced. However, I also fully realize that despite the savings and common sense of this approach, kids are kids, and most don’t voluntarily want to live under parents’ roof during their college years.

 

[sword]

I looked at several sources and they all looked similar and the data I posted was for public 4 year colleges. They had another much larger collumn. In many fields two year community college then 2 year state college is much cheaper but that does not work for all states and all career fields.

Florida was 3rd cheapest for state colleges out of 50.