@parrhesia's banner p

parrhesia


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 07 01:48:25 UTC

https://parrhesia.substack.com

Verified Email

				

User ID: 910

parrhesia


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 07 01:48:25 UTC

					
				

				

				

				

				

					

User ID: 910

Verified Email

Thanks for your thoughts MathWizard. Let me clarify something: I do not say "this thing is useless" or that history classes have "no value to give." Those are not quotations from the article.

That sort of absolute statement would be unmeasured. However, I do defend the thesis that "History Classes Are Mostly Useless." When I am critical of education, I try to be critical of practices as they currently exist. Of course I agree that "improved" classes that "deliver more value per time" is better than the current arrangement.

Thanks. Makes sense. I also didn’t lay out all my beliefs because they aren’t all on the right or common among rationalist or ratadjacent people. I like some of those things too.

Liquid IV + 100% tequila pretty much does it for me. Water wasn’t enough.

Yes, I believe that is the point of this rhetoric either consciously or subconsciously. Some might intentionally do this while others find this argument persuasive because it conforms to their desire to be inclusive toward transwomen.

I have an article coming soon arguing that this applies to all areas. I think education is tremendously wasteful. I would be more in favor of history if it was taught in a rigorous and more scientific way rather than in a more narrative form.

I think that history classes are "mostly useless" but not entirely useless. I think history can unify people behind a culture, but unfortunately narrative style history can reinforce ideologies without rigorous checking on hypotheses. For example, elites now history now but their history would be often be framed as a class struggle between oppressors and oppressed. There is a lot of truth to this, to be fair, but I think selective exclusion of examples might give overconfidence.

This argument is also made against genetic enhancement and cochlear implants. From my article:

Singer (2003) excellently critiques these sorts of arguments:

If the use of cochlear implants means that there are fewer Deaf people, is this ‘genocide’? Does our acceptance of prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion mean that we are ‘drifting toward a eugenic resurgence that differs only superficially from earlier patterns’. If the use of the term ‘genocide’ is intended to suggest a comparison with the Holocaust, or Rwanda, it overlooks the crucial fact that cochlear implants do not have victims. On balance, it seems that they benefit the people who have them; if this judgment is contestable, it is at least not clear that they are worse off for having the implant. Imagine a minority ethnic group in which all the parents reach separate decisions that their children will be better off if they marry a member of the majority group, and hence urge them to do so. Is this encouraging ‘genocide’? If so, it is genocide of such a harmless form that the term should be divorced from all its usual moral associations.