Academic freedom in the real world…

5 Replies to “Academic freedom in the real world…”

1. 1
   polistra says:

   March 17, 2022 at 10:58 am

   “Ruling that academic freedom does not reside in the teacher, but rather in the institution, goes against the very definition and purpose of academic freedom.”

   Well, not really. Academic freedom is parallel to press freedom. Publishers are free to CHOOSE and edit what they publish, with the usual limits of libel and violence. Authors don’t have the right to BE published. If no publisher will pay them, they do have the right to BECOME a publisher for their own work.

   Similarly, the teacher and the curriculum are chosen and edited by the school. Academic freedom means that a private school should be able to say anything it wants, within the same limits of libel and violence. A school can fire or edit its teachers just as a magazine can fire or edit its authors.

   If a teacher can’t find a school that will ‘publish’ his thoughts, he can express them outside of a school through public lectures or writings; or create his own school-like organization.
2. 2
   Seversky says:

   March 17, 2022 at 2:31 pm

   Does academic freedom include the right to teach your own religious views to students in a science classroom as if those views were scientific?
3. 3
   kairosfocus says:

   March 17, 2022 at 3:40 pm

   Sev,

   Does academic freedom include the right to teach your own religious [–> ideological, especially a priori materialistic] views to students in a science classroom as if those views were scientific?

   KF

   PS, in case you do not know,

   . . . to put a correct [–> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people’s heads

   [==> as in, “we” the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making “our” “consensus” the yardstick of truth . . . where of course “view” is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

   we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> “explanations of the world” is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised “demon[ic]” “supernatural” being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

   [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

   and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

   [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

   . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

   [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

   that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

   It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

   and:

   All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. [–> yes but a question-begging ideological imposition is not an accurate view] Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation [–> correct so far]. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts [–> evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed] and the laws and theories related to those [–> i.e. ideologically loaded, evolutionary materialistic] concepts . . . . science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products [–> censorship of anything that challenges the imposition; fails to appreciate that scientific methods are studied through logic, epistemology and philosophy of science, which are philosophy not science] . . . .

   Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science [–> a good point, but fails to see that this brings to bear many philosophical issues], a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations [–> outright ideological imposition and censorship that fetters freedom of responsible thought] supported by empirical evidence [–> the imposition controls how evidence is interpreted and that’s why blind watchmaker mechanisms never seen to actually cause FSCO/I have default claim to explain it in the world of life] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument [–> ideological imposition may hide under a cloak of rationality but is in fact anti-rational], inference, skepticism [–> critical awareness is responsible, selective hyperskepticism backed by ideological censorship is not], peer review [–> a circle of ideologues in agreement has no probative value] and replicability of work . . . .

   Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic [= evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed by definition, locking out an unfettered search for the credibly warranted truth about our world i/l/o observational evidence and linked inductive reasoning] methods and explanations and, as such [–> notice, ideological imposition by question-begging definition], is precluded from using supernatural elements [–> sets up a supernatural vs natural strawman alternative when the proper contrast since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is natural vs artificial] in the production of scientific knowledge. [US NSTA Board, July 2000, definition of the nature of science for education purposes]
4. 4
   Silver Asiatic says:

   March 17, 2022 at 4:00 pm

   The Problem of “God-talk” in Biology Textbooks
   https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-problem-of-god-talk-in-biology-textbooks/

   The authors trace and analyze theological content in science textbooks
   https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44/44
5. 5
   Seversky says:

   March 18, 2022 at 11:00 am

   Kairosfocus/3

   Does academic freedom include the right to teach your own religious [–> ideological, especially a priori materialistic] views to students in a science classroom as if those views were scientific?

   No, I would say the restriction applies to the promotion of any religion or ideology an the science classroom.