It’s an April fool prop for an ethical dilemma I’m working on. Thought you might be amused. I guess not...
Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 11, 2019, at 09:26, Billy Rojas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > What is anyone supposed to make of this? > > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on > behalf of Centroids <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 6:26 AM > To: Centroids Discussions > Subject: [RC] Book Review: Quantum Philosophy and the End of Education (NOTE > THE DATE) > > > https://ihack.us/2019/03/11/book-review-quantum-philosophy-and-the-end-of-education-by-roo-pavan/ > > Book Review: Quantum Philosophy and the End of Education | iHack, therefore > iBlog > ihack.us > Quantum Philosophy and the End of Education, by Roo Pavan (self-published) > April 1st, 2019 This self-published book by a retired physicist turned tech > millionaire has taken the education establishm… > > > Book Review: Quantum Philosophy and the End of Education > Quantum Philosophy and the End of Education, by Roo Pavan (self-published) > > > > April 1st, 2019 > > > > This self-published book by a retired physicist turned tech millionaire has > taken the education establishment by storm — and not in a good way. Few > people had even heard of this book or its author, Roo Pavan, until President > Trump mentioned it approvingly in a tweet. It is doubtful whether our > Esteemed Leader actually read the book, but that didn’t stop him from > claiming he would use it as the blueprint for education policy in his second > term. Like most of the book’s critics, he probably only read the > sensationalist claims in the final chapter rather than the surprisingly > thoughtful analysis that preceded it. > > > > Which is a shame, because that would have been a conversation worth having. > The author’s main thesis is contrarian but hardly new: that Western > philosophy in general — and higher education in particular — are more about > perpetuating a cultural elite than actually pursuing truth and serving > society, though he concedes that those have often been a useful byproduct. > > > > His main innovation is cloaking this critique in a veneer of scientific > respectability. Pavan’s basic premise is that Aristotle and the early Greeks > started with a flawed view of nature (especially human nature) as composed of > essential substances rather than complicated relationships. This > unsurprisingly led aristocratic citizen-philosophers to assume they were > intrinsically made of nobler substance than the women, children and slaves > they ruled over. They justified this claim on the basis of their superior > ability to engage in rational debate and reflective decision making. > > > > To his credit, Pavan concedes this claim is party true, but still argues it > is fundamentally flawed. He compares it to Newtonian physics, whose > controversial claim of “instantaneous action at a distance” eventually turned > out to be false, but was still close enough to be useful in many contexts. > > > > That is the basis of his call for a “quantum philosophy” that reinterprets > and challenges classical philosophy the way quantum physics challenged > Newtonian mechanics a century ago. His thesis is that we need to start from > the view that nature — especially human nature — is fundamentally relational > and contextual, and leverage this insight to rethink all our cultural > assumptions and the institutions built upon them. > > > > If he had stopped there, he probably would have been on safe ground. His > provides a plausible (albeit selective) reading of cultural history, and one > worthy of intellectual debate. Then again, context-free intellectual debate > is precisely the sin he accuses classical philosophy of condoning, so it is > not surprising he chooses to go on the attack. And to be fair, that is > probably the only reason anyone is paying attention to him at all. > > > > He argues that Aristotle’s original hierarchy of city > village > family was > precisely backwards. He makes a surprisingly persuasive case that personal > and social well-being is driven far more by healthy families rather than > economic or academic achievement. From there, echoing The Case Against > Education, he claims the main benefit of schooling for underprivileged > individuals is providing them a surrogate family that redefines their > relationships and value. > > > > What is shocking (and the direct cause of the present controversy) is that he > then proceeds to attack this benefit as a bad outcome. He claims that this is > actually a tool of the elite for recruiting and subverting the brightest > members of oppressed populations, by impressing upon them the “innate > superiority and worthiness” of the dominant culture. His most savage attacks > are directed against humanities departments, which he claims teach learned > helplessness under the guise of self-actualization. He is not much kinder > towards technical or professional disciplines, though, claiming they also > condition people to focus on narrow mastery of received wisdom rather than > larger questions of social good. > > > > Contrary to what many critics claim, he does not actually call for abolishing > universities altogether. His actual proposal, though, is even more radical. > He wants to convert universities into “muni-versities” that function as > miniature cities that structurally embody (rather than just talk about) the > values they are trying to promote. These bear a striking resemblance to the > self-contained medieval monasteries that preceded universities, with two key > differences. > > > > First, membership is primarily composed of families rather than individuals. > He believes the “end of education” (an evocative, but probably unfortunate > phrase) should actually be to elevate whole communities, and that the best > (and only) way to do that is by reinforcing existing relationships rather > than extracting people away from them. > > > > Second, he appears to substitute worship of Data for worship of God. Each > muni-versity is monitored by a secular priesthood he dubs the “metricians,” > who have no power other than to collect and publish data about the precise > goals of each Service (a cross between a municipal function and an academic > department) and how effectively and efficiently they are being fulfilled. > > > > Critics have had a field day listing all the ways this utopian vision could > go horribly, horribly wrong; and their concerns are well-founded. On the > other hand, the author deserves credit for at least trying to design a > solution to the very real problems he has identified. Public trust in our > institutions is at an all-time low. We spend far more on education than we > ever did, yet our society is more fragmented and unequal than when we started. > > > > Doing more of what we’ve always done seems unlikely to improve the situation. > Maybe it is time to at least consider doing something different… > > > > Sent from my iPhone > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
