Science!

My thought about the current anti-education movement is that it could be seen as a reaction to the unwarranted hype that high-degrees get. Not everybody can achieve a BA, MA or PhD, not everybody wants to, and not everybody needs to. But many people feel pressured to do so, because there is a certain atmosphere in society that devalues a person who has not been to university, and that pays lower wages to lower-educated individuals. The logical reaction to this by people who cannot take the pressure is to demonise anything that has to do with science and higher education, and to fight a war against them that involves alternate science, conspiracy theories and the likes, because nothing feels more liberating to them than to say "the scientists are lying to you! Don't believe what you are taught!" because that provides a rationale for their failure to meet expectations that are too high and unfair.
 
I think it's especially important here to point out that not everybody needs a 'higher' education because most jobs (let's be real here) don't require it. It's simply not necessary and yet for some reason there is a very real societal pressure to continue in academia, thereby devaluing degree's and wasting both time and money. Perhaps it's not so much about failure to meet expectations but setting the wrong expectations entirely.
 
he logical reaction to this by people who cannot take the pressure is to demonise anything that has to do with science and higher education, and to fight a war against them that involves alternate science, conspiracy theories and the likes, because nothing feels more liberating to them than to say "the scientists are lying to you! Don't believe what you are taught!" because that provides a rationale for their failure to meet expectations that are too high and unfair.

Well put, though I'd argue that it's not merely a rationale but also a false equivalent. The whole "woke" crowd equates their conspiracy theories to the skepticism of scientists and philosophers. I think it's a way of saying "Hey, I'm smart too!" for people who aren't willing to dedicate themselves to scientific research.
 
I don't think we should put scientists on this kind of pedestal. There's different kinds of smarts. Succeeding in academia is a matter of dedication, a drive to keep learning, being in the right place at the right time (opportunity), and being more or less a nerd. That doesn't make you smart.

On the subject of opportunity, one critique leveled at academia's door is that it's an ivory tower, the province of the rich, privileged, male, and above all, white.
What say you?
 
Meh, if that doesn't make you smart, then the word smart doesn't matter. Would you like intellectual or knowledgeable instead?

The point was about the intention anyway so semantics don't really mean anything here.

On the subject of opportunity, one critique leveled at academia's door is that it's an ivory tower, the province of the rich, privileged, male, and above all, white.
What say you?

I don't live in the West so I only have an outside perspective, but I don't think anybody is stopping females or non-whites from advancing in academics. Less of them strive to do so, and that has to do with equal opportunity problems at lower levels of education, not academia.
 
My thought about the current anti-education movement is that it could be seen as a reaction to the unwarranted hype that high-degrees get. Not everybody can achieve a BA, MA or PhD, not everybody wants to, and not everybody needs to. But many people feel pressured to do so, because there is a certain atmosphere in society that devalues a person who has not been to university, and that pays lower wages to lower-educated individuals. The logical reaction to this by people who cannot take the pressure is to demonise anything that has to do with science and higher education, and to fight a war against them that involves alternate science, conspiracy theories and the likes, because nothing feels more liberating to them than to say "the scientists are lying to you! Don't believe what you are taught!" because that provides a rationale for their failure to meet expectations that are too high and unfair.
By this reasoning I am not sure about seeing people not meeting expectations as their failure.
If the expectations are wrong, these could be seen as some sort of failure in the first place. Then again, in advance, it's not always clear to see if such expectations are correct or not. People can do better and better while studying and the other way around as well.

This is a big problem:
"a certain atmosphere in society that devalues a person who has not been to university,"

We need people for lots of work that is not connected to university. So the demonizing of these people should stop, indeed.
 
If Planet Earth connects more people with nature, good thing! But (how) does it really connect?

Does it give a good impression of what is really happening with nature and wildlife?
= = = = = = =

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/01/bbc-planet-earth-not-help-natural-world

The BBC’s Planet Earth II did not help the natural world
Martin Hughes-Games
Producers claim such series encourage conservation – but in fact their brilliance and beauty breeds complacency about our destruction of the planet

It has been wonderful watching Planet Earth II. What a glorious, spectacular and fascinating series. Hats off to the production team, the camera crews, the film editors and the splendid music – and to David Attenborough himself for the marvellous commentary and script. We have surely never been so close to the action and never have the pictures looked so luxurious.

I have the greatest admiration for the teams who made Planet Earth II – whose final episode was broadcast last night on the BBC – but I fear this series, and others like it, have become a disaster for the world’s wildlife. These programmes are pure entertainment, brilliantly executed but ultimately a significant contributor to the planet-wide extinction of wildlife we’re presiding over.

The justification, say the programme makers, is that if people (the audience) become interested in the natural world they will start to care about the natural world, and will be more likely to want to get involved in trying to conserve it. Unfortunately the scientific evidence shows this is nonsense.

For instance, the World Wide Fund for Nature and Zoological Society of London’s authoritative 2016 Living Planet Report has concluded that between 1970 and 2012 there was a 58% decline of vertebrate population abundance worldwide. This encompasses the period in which Attenborough’s outstanding natural history series have been broadcast (starting with Life on Earth in 1979). The prime factor in this destruction is humankind’s insatiable need for space – destroying and degrading habitat at an appalling rate – coupled with species over-exploitation, pollution, invasive species, climate change and rampant poaching.

Yet these programmes are still made as if this worldwide mass extinction is simply not happening. The producers continue to go to the rapidly shrinking parks and reserves to make their films – creating a beautiful, beguiling fantasy world, a utopia where tigers still roam free and untroubled, where the natural world exists as if man had never been.

By fostering this lie they are lulling the huge worldwide audience into a false sense of security. “If David Attenborough is still making these sorts of wonderful shows then it can’t be that bad, can it?” Yes it can, and it’s going to get much, much worse. Even as Planet Earth II was being broadcast, it was reported that elephant and lion numbers were tumbling, and last month it became clear that the giraffe could be heading towards extinction, with numbers plummeting by 40% in the past 15 years. But no hint of the continuing disaster is allowed to shatter the illusion.

I’m not for one moment suggesting such shows should not be made. They are wonderful records of the beauty rapidly disappearing from our planet. I believe that in 100 years people will be amazed, and profoundly sad, that it was still possible to make such programmes. What I am suggesting is that the fantasy should be balanced by reality.

I would like to propose a “conservation tax” among natural history commissioners across all channels. This tax would insist that a fifth of natural history commissions are significantly conservation-oriented. As a matter of urgency, a development team should be set up to think how the reality of what’s happening to wildlife worldwide can be portrayed in innovative ways, integrated in dramas, in children’s shows – in collaborations with producers like Aardman Animations, perhaps, or video diaries of inspirational people working with animals, and cartoon characters.

Some shows could be overtly conservation-oriented, others more subtle – perhaps a detective drama where the villains are smuggling rhino horn or ivory. But why would any TV development team put effort into imaginative conservation programming when escapist productions are so successful – unless it were taxed?

The BBC is in a unique position to work with a conservation tax. It could do this as part of its public service remit, without having quite the financial pressure and need for profit that independents and commercial producers do. It would also be a very positive initiative for the BBC to be seen to be doing.

We cannot simply carry on producing escapist wildlife fantasy almost totally ignoring the manmade mass extinction raging around us.
The BBC treads a narrow path, and knows it'll lose the TV licence before too long.

It's under attack from people of all political persuasions, who each accuse it of bias in favour of an opposing standpoint. Planet Earth II was light on environmental messages, yes, but when TV viewers are obliged to pay for the BBC and a not insignificant chunk of the population dislikes feel-bad prime time TV, and many disagree with what they see as the preaching of environmentalists, I can see why the BBC kept it bland.
 
Actually no, the ship is called Sir David Attenborough. :( They gave the name Booty McBoatface to one of the underwater vehicles on it.
 
This bit from the above article is key: "But in a nod to the democratic process it allowed silliness to prevail by preserving the name [Boaty McBoatface] for the remotely operated sub-sea vehicle."

Which cracks me up because is it technically even a boat when it's a sub-sea vehicle?
 
I'd say they are vessels, and that boat has a narrower meaning. But hey, it's not my language
The term submarine comes from a contraction of the original term - submarine boat, that was in use when the type was first created. So yes, I would think so.

Vessel is good for any watercraft that carries people, though. And if there's one thing I've learned in my life - never screw with a submariner.
 
Ask any submariner what their vessel is called, and they'll tell you it's a boat.

This is correct. Even for a Typhoon.
Besides, naval terminology isn't quite specific. It doesn't account for evolution, and that's why you call a giant nuclear sub "a boat.". Other example is "Destroyer" and what it means in 1917 and 2017.
 
Back
Top