Barack Obama wins the Nobel Peace prize

[FBM]

Well, uh, back on topic?

So, who in your minds should have won the Nobel Prize this year?

Can't think of anybody whose done anything peaceful in recent history...

[Hermit]

when we speak of the ills of "indoctrination" we need to be specific about which kind of indoctrination we're talking about.

Yes, and I thought in the context of what we are talking about here it is quite clear that we are objecting to this meaning of indoctrination: "the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. As such it is used pejoratively, often in the context of political opinions, theology or religious dogma." rather than the alternate, archaic one. "Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and sceptical scrutiny of one's own ideas." It has been pointed out earlier that we object to brainwashing, to telling people what to think rather than how to think, and I wish you'd take that distinction into account already when participating in this particular discussion.

[FBM]

Yes, and I thought in the context of what we are talking about here it is quite clear that we are objecting to this meaning of indoctrination: "the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. As such it is used pejoratively, often in the context of political opinions, theology or religious dogma."...It has been pointed out earlier that we object to brainwashing, to telling people what to think rather than how to think, and I wish you'd take that distinction into account already when participating in this particular discussion.

Teaching values is indoctrination. When and where you apply the definition pejoratively depends on the values you start with. Right-wingers will accuse liberals of indoctrinating their children, whilst describing what they do to their own as 'education', and vice versa.

When you educate a child, you're developing skills in that child. When you teach the child to value education itself, as well as equality, fair play, peace, compassion or open-mindedness or their opposites, that's indoctrination.

The pejorative quality is not inherent in the definition; it's applied post hoc to criticize the teachings that we disagree with. It's a word game that any side can play, and it's just rhetoric. The values we teach are all equally subject to being labelled 'brainwashing' and despite the assumptions some people here apear to be making, it's not at all clear that there is an objective 'truth' or 'right' towards which we can indoctrinate our children in the first place.

That is, we unwittingly teach subjective values as if they were objective truths, and this is at least partially the result of not discerning the act of education/indoctrination clearly.

If you (generic use) want to see the bigger picture more clearly, it's necessary to detach yourself from your assumptions, suspend pre-judgements and preferences, and be willing to accept conclusions that you don't like. This is at the heart of scientific enquiry, and that's what I'm trying to encourage here.

But if I'm just being pedantic and annoying (wouldn't be the first time ), I'll STFU and go play elsewhere. No sweat.

[Hermit]

Yes, and I thought in the context of what we are talking about here it is quite clear that we are objecting to this meaning of indoctrination: "the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. As such it is used pejoratively, often in the context of political opinions, theology or religious dogma."...It has been pointed out earlier that we object to brainwashing, to telling people what to think rather than how to think, and I wish you'd take that distinction into account already when participating in this particular discussion.

Teaching values is indoctrination. When and where you apply the definition pejoratively depends on the values you start with. Right-wingers will accuse liberals of indoctrinating their children, whilst describing what they do to their own as 'education', and vice versa.

When you educate a child, you're developing skills in that child. When you teach the child to value education itself, as well as equality, fair play, peace, compassion or open-mindedness or their opposites, that's indoctrination.

The pejorative quality is not inherent in the definition; it's applied post hoc to criticize the teachings that we disagree with. It's a word game that any side can play, and it's just rhetoric. The values we teach are all equally subject to being labelled 'brainwashing' and despite the assumptions some people here apear to be making, it's not at all clear that there is an objective 'truth' or 'right' towards which we can indoctrinate our children in the first place.

That is, we unwittingly teach subjective values as if they were objective truths, and this is at least partially the result of not discerning the act of education/indoctrination clearly.

If you (generic use) want to see the bigger picture more clearly, it's necessary to detach yourself from your assumptions, suspend pre-judgements and preferences, and be willing to accept conclusions that you don't like. This is at the heart of scientific enquiry, and that's what I'm trying to encourage here.

But if I'm just being pedantic and annoying (wouldn't be the first time ), I'll STFU and go play elsewhere. No sweat.

There is a lot in this post that I agree with. Ultimately, for instance, any values we inculcate in our children is subjective.

Nevertheless, regardless of what particular subjective values you wish to instill in your children, there is a difference between teaching children what to think and teaching them how to think.

[charlou]

Yes, and I thought in the context of what we are talking about here it is quite clear that we are objecting to this meaning of indoctrination: "the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. As such it is used pejoratively, often in the context of political opinions, theology or religious dogma."...It has been pointed out earlier that we object to brainwashing, to telling people what to think rather than how to think, and I wish you'd take that distinction into account already when participating in this particular discussion.

Teaching values is indoctrination. When and where you apply the definition pejoratively depends on the values you start with. Right-wingers will accuse liberals of indoctrinating their children, whilst describing what they do to their own as 'education', and vice versa.

When you educate a child, you're developing skills in that child. When you teach the child to value education itself, as well as equality, fair play, peace, compassion or open-mindedness or their opposites, that's indoctrination.

The pejorative quality is not inherent in the definition; it's applied post hoc to criticize the teachings that we disagree with. It's a word game that any side can play, and it's just rhetoric. The values we teach are all equally subject to being labelled 'brainwashing' and despite the assumptions some people here apear to be making, it's not at all clear that there is an objective 'truth' or 'right' towards which we can indoctrinate our children in the first place.

That is, we unwittingly teach subjective values as if they were objective truths, and this is at least partially the result of not discerning the act of education/indoctrination clearly.

If you (generic use) want to see the bigger picture more clearly, it's necessary to detach yourself from your assumptions, suspend pre-judgements and preferences, and be willing to accept conclusions that you don't like. This is at the heart of scientific enquiry, and that's what I'm trying to encourage here.

If you mean a generic 'we' along with the generic 'you', I agree with you that this can and does happen. I think you underestimate me if you think this needs explaining to me, or that I don't bear that in mind in my approach to raising children. But I appreciate that it is indeed something that many people may not, so a good idea to mention it for their information.

I think children learn best through experience, exploration, example and discussion. It's learning by developing the most pragmatic and functional way to get along in life. Would you describe that method of learning indoctrination of a notion of objective 'truth' or 'right'? If so, I'd say your definition of indoctrination is broader than mine, because I see no application of such a notion in that approach at all.

[FBM]

Hmm...Korean children aren't encouraged much to explore and learn by trial-and-error. They're taught more to swallow what the teacher/parent/textbook says, and the more you do so, the better person you are. So it does seem that it's a culturally-dependent value and it would fit into the broader definition of 'indoctrination'. While I agree with you that that's the superior approach to childraising, I can't say that it's an objective truth.

Oh, and if I did appear to underestimate you or insult your intelligence, mea culpa. It wasn't intentional.

[charlou]

Hmm...Korean children aren't encouraged much to explore and learn by trial-and-error. They're taught more to swallow what the teacher/parent/textbook says, and the more you do so, the better person you are. So it does seem that it's a culturally-dependent value and it would fit into the broader definition of 'indoctrination'. While I agree with you that that's the superior approach to childraising, I can't say that it's an objective truth.

Oh, and if I did appear to underestimate you or insult your intelligence, mea culpa. It wasn't intentional.

I don't think anyone is claiming there is an 'objective truth' here, let alone that they can impart that to children. If anyone thinks so, your comments are timely.

I'm glad you brought it up, FBM ... it is a good point and now we each seem to have a better understanding of where the other is coming from ...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[maiforpeace]

Obama could have done so much more with that Nobel Peace prize by followed not Kissinger's lead but instead Lê Ðức Thọ's, who declined to accept the award that same year because "there still was no peace" in his country.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Obama could have done so much more with that Nobel Peace prize by followed not Kissinger's lead but instead Lê Ðức Thọ's, who declined to accept the award that same year because "there still was no peace" in his country.

How is Obama following Kissinger's lead, please?

[maiforpeace]

Obama could have done so much more with that Nobel Peace prize by followed not Kissinger's lead but instead Lê Ðức Thọ's, who declined to accept the award that same year because "there still was no peace" in his country.

How is Obama following Kissinger's lead, please?

Obama accepted his Nobel peace prize, like Kissinger. I was suggesting he could have refused it like Lê Ðức Thọ, since, after all there is still no peace in the Middle East.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Obama could have done so much more with that Nobel Peace prize by followed not Kissinger's lead but instead Lê Ðức Thọ's, who declined to accept the award that same year because "there still was no peace" in his country.

How is Obama following Kissinger's lead, please?

Obama accepted his Nobel peace prize, like Kissinger. I was suggesting he could have refused it like Lê Ðức Thọ, since, after all there is still no peace in the Middle East.

Ah. Thanks.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Drewish]

This thread is still alive? Oh and Charlou I do believe in objective morality just so you know.