On Feb 27, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Michael Perelman wrote:
The debate on schools has been interesting, but it is becoming
redundant.
David's perspective is unassailable. He looks at the situation from
the
perspective of an individual child. Given that setup, offering more
choices to the child must be better.
Sean, Max, Joanna .... have emphasized how charter schools affect
others,
but methodological individualism rules out such consequences.
Michael,
I think his position is unassailable if we accept his premises. Sean
and I question those premises in our responses. Some thoughts:
* Sean points out, once again in brilliant detail, the individualistic/
existential assumptions (not just methodological) in David's argument.
These assumptions are not at all "self-evident".
* I point out that if the goal (David's that is) is for Johnny to get
the best education he can, the burden of proof rests as much on him
(David) to show that choice is what determines that outcome. In fact,
the burden rests more on him than on his opponents, which is made
obvious if we compare this idea of "choice" with similar ones that
some are clamouring for in healthcare or education, in particular
vaccination and the teaching of evolution. Parents, we are told by
these parties, should have the choice to vaccinate their children. But
if the desired outcome is the health of these children (as opposed to
serving up choice for its own sake), then its clear that offering such
a choice to some parents runs counter to this goal.
--ravi
--
Support something better than yourself ;-)
PeTA => http://peta.org/
Greenpeace => http://greenpeace.org/
If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
