Intelligent Design Naturalism science education

The war on knowledge seems quite serious at Cornell University

Spread the love

If you go by one of their summer courses:

If that question appears, well, worrisome, consider the following which “decolonial work in epistemology” must address (in addition to the questions about rationality and reason):

— Do social identities matter for knowledge claims? How, exactly?

— How is ignorance socially produced, and what is the solution?

— How can science be done in a decolonial way?

— How do we empower traditional and indigenous knowledges?

In order to “advance” the concept of decolonizing epistemology, the description continues, one must “explor[e] the ways in which the disenfranchised have been epistemically discredited [in order to] develop new insights and theories about the general nature of knowledge and of knowers.”

Knowledge itself must be questioned … in order to effect social change.


Dave Huber, “Cornell summer seminar asks: Should we still use concepts like ‘rationality’ and ‘reason’?” at The College Fix

Here. Search on: Alcoff

One driver might be an awareness of post-truth. But one suspects that it’s not really knowledge that is the enemy here, so much as rationality.

The purveyors of the course want to make acceptance of fact claims depend on their origin rather than their relationship with evidence. As for science, well, you can’t get there from here.

Views from what’s happening: Which side will atheists choose in the war on science? They need to re-evaluate their alliance with progressivism, which is doing science no favours.

Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself

and

Panpsychism: You are conscious but so is your coffee mug

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “The war on knowledge seems quite serious at Cornell University

  1. 1
    vmahuna says:

    “— How is ignorance socially produced, and what is the solution?”

    I figured I’d take the easy one. “Ignorance” is merely the ABSENCE of knowledge. So the default case is “we’re all ignorant of X”, without anything PRODUCING it.
    I have noticed that many Americans think “ignorant” means STUPID, which just shows their ignorance of ignorance.
    In French, the verb “ignorer” means “to NOT KNOW”, and there is a famous line from French history about the King “ignoring” some important man at a reception or somesuch. What the French writer of course meant was “and so King Louis DID NOT KNOW that Monsieur de Pip-squeak was in the room.” It was then of course most embarrassing when the King suddenly saw de Pip-squeak standing right in front of him, non?

  2. 2
    vmahuna says:

    “The purveyors of the course want to make acceptance of fact claims depend on their origin rather than their relationship with evidence.”
    Well, a whole lot of History works exactly that way. There are “settled truths” that depend on a restricted set of facts and the approved interpretation of those facts. For example, repeated European contact with the Americas prior to Columbus CAN’T be true. And so it isn’t true. End of discussion.

Leave a Reply