Sherri Shepherd - the World is flat // The Fighting 44s

36 Responses

AfroIndo

3:28 pm | Sep 20, 2007

Boy, sigh, it’s scary, this lack of basic knowledge. At least she knows how to be “fruitful and multiply!”. Hmmmm………..

Xian

7:56 pm | Sep 20, 2007

To be fair, I don’t agree with her approach, but she is right–the knowledge that the world is round has done little for most of us. The knowledge of how to bone a fish, for example, is far more useful and probably plenty of the folks mocking her don’t know how to do that.

lycheng

8:18 pm | Sep 20, 2007

This is really really stupid. And what’s worst, she uses the excuse that she’s too busy raising her child to think about stuff like that. That’s really an insult to ALL mothers, as if one can’t both have a 3rd grade understanding of the world and raise a child?

YouTube removed her rebuttal video, but as I understand it, she says she had one of those senior moments aka “brain fart” because she felt her religion was under attack.

Senior moment my ass — she’s only 40 years old. And thinking your religion was under attack? No, Whoopi wasn’t attacking your religion; she was challenging your thought process.

You know, I think Ms. Shepherd actually knew the world was round. Whoopi asked the question after Ms. Shepherd said she didn’t believe in evolution. And continuing to play the role of a good fundamentalist Christian, she wanted to tow the party line that scientific beliefs should be treated like a religious belief.

In other words, the validity of scientific beliefs, like evolution or whether the world is flat, operates on the same level as religion – it should be taken as a principle of faith. This is what’s terribly wrong about the rise of fundamental Christianity. Forget about evidence because everyone has their own version of evidence – all belief is about faith.

lycheng

8:30 pm | Sep 20, 2007

Xian,

I don’t think this is about useful knowledge versus book knowledge. I mean if Whoopi asked her if she understands Newton’s law of gravity, and her response is it she hasn’t thought about it, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. That’s because most people don’t know anything about Newton’s law of gravity; all you need to know is that there’s this thing that keeps your feet planted to the ground called gravity.

The question was whether the world was round. This is such basic knowledge that it’s worked it’s way into our normal language in the form of phrases like “around the world”. Or or how about the existence of globes? Unless she doesn’t have an elementary school education, she’s had to have seen a globe. How about pictures of the Earth from space? Okay, maybe she thinks they’re fake, which is entirely another problem.

As I said previously, she probably thought she was adding to the debate by challenging science, instead she ended up looking stupid.

Cattygurl

9:08 pm | Sep 20, 2007

I’m scurrying out of my retirement…. to post this comment, because I was talking about this with someone else.

Good response, lycheng. I agree with you on most things, but I’m really going to have to disagree with you on this one, Xian.

The issue I have is that these statements kind of give rise to the notion that …

it’s OK to ignore science, ignore scientific thinking, and ignore facts- and that science is NOT important or useful.

The world is becoming a more scientific and technologically advanced one. Ignorance prevents people from making informed choices. People will be voting on technological issues in the field of science, medicine, genetics, etc- stem cell research is one that come to mind as a current topic- and the fact that a misonformed and willfully ignorant population will have a say in those matters scare the shit outta me. Comments like that of Ms. Shepherd encourages ignorance and education, and exploration.

In this video, Ms. Shepherd clearly shows her ignorance about evolution, full-stop. Evolution is NOT about how life started- the MOST important part of evolution is the process of change over time. Repeat- change over motherfucking time. There is no doubt that evolution exists- take the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Next time I hear someone tell me they don’t believe in evolution, I’m going to scream. It’s not a matter of belief. It’s a matter of FACT.

blockthebox

9:09 pm | Sep 20, 2007

This is why women, like children, should be seen and not heard.

kwak76

9:36 pm | Sep 20, 2007

What I don’t get is how she end up in TV?

Cattygurl

9:36 pm | Sep 20, 2007

Okay, I have not seen the rebuttal.

Xian, I tend to agree with you for the most part, but I really have to disagree with you here.

I’m coming out of retirement to post this, then I’ll scurry back under the rock.

Lycheng, good post. In either case, the problem is that comments like Ms Shepherd here is an indication that:

Science and facts are not important, or at least, not important to your average person.

Completely false. They are, and they’re becoming moreso, with the world making technological advances based on science. The fact that a very misinformed and ill-informed public will begin to vote on issues regarding science- esp. in the field of medicine, genetics, etc. Unless you believe that people ignorant of an issue can decide wisely on that particular issue, the disregard of science should SCARE you not prompt you into defense of ignorance. Maybe I read too many sci-fi books, but how we decide on these matters of science can have an enormous impact on life on this planet. Stem cell research and Global Warming is one that comes to mind in terms of current topics that requires a basic working idea of scientific knowledge for people to be able to make an informed decision.

As for the mention of evolution, the debate over the basic tenets of evolution has been hashed out over and over. The core theory of evolution is now FACT. What is the core concept of evolution? Evolution is the process of CHANGE over Time. Repeat. Process and mechanics of change over motherfucking time. Antibiotic resistant bacteria is very much a process of evolution that can been seen, tracked, measured, verified, and reproduced. The process of evolution is no longer theory.

Granted, I’m not religious, I’m an atheist. I have a distaste for people that willfully promote, defend and retain clear misinformation, whether it’s based on religion, incompetence or plain lunacy.

Okay, I’ll go back under my rock.

kimtae

10:03 pm | Sep 20, 2007

Stephen J Gould wrote countless articles on why science education was more and more important, on why a science literate society was fundamental to the development of a nation and the world. He had a myriad of reasons. Among them were that science gives us perspective (morally and socially as well as logically which is why the religious types should and do fear science), helps us to fight off superstitions and the malaise of religious fundamentalism and the ignorance that it breeds, as well allowing us to make the greatest advantage of our short time on this earth (by greatest advantage we are not talking the exploitation of resources or gaining persnal wealth either).
Xian, you should rethink your statement. Knowing that the world is round may not literally have made much of a difference in and of itself (though none of us for betteror worse would ever have stepped foot on N. America if the ignorance of a flat world persisted) but the body of scientific knowledge has and will continue to shape our world whether we like it or not. Understanding it will help us to make choices so the direction of change can be guided by an intelligent and purposeful population.
As for Shepherd’s assertion that she never thought about it because she was too busy thinking about feeding her kids, well, given that she is a highly paid TV personality, one would think that those worries ceased to exist some time ago. Did it never occur to her to feed her kids’ intellects and curiosity?

#10

kimtae

10:04 pm | Sep 20, 2007

Forgot to add, hi catty!

#11

Xian

10:18 pm | Sep 20, 2007

Well, I respect your thoughtful points-of-view, but they’ve done little more than reinforce my confidence in my position. As I said in the original post, I don’t agree with her approach toward faith/religion.

Perhaps you would agree that that was her whole point–that science is worthless. Sure, that’s a stupid idea. I was probably wrong to say “I agree” with the point about flat/round.

But my point is that scientific facts and scientific expertise and insight are not remotely equivalent. You might need to understand that the Earth is round in order to develop scientific expertise and insight, but this is really no different than when the “You can’t find Iraq on a map!?!??!” point is brought up.

Most people who CAN find Iraq on a map cannot understand its geopolitics, culture, or history, and knowledge about where it is on a map is, for all intents and purposes worthless by itself.

I’d argue that the number of people ignorant of trivial facts and the amount of damage they inflict in this era far pales in comparison with number of people and amount of damage they inflict by wallowing in trivial facts without understanding their significance.

I believe the dynamic of people propping up their own intelligence by mocking Ms. Teen SC or whomever else is many thousands of times worse in magnitude than the original transgression.

Simply put, the desire to mock and demonize others for their ignorance creates a deeper, darker ignorance.

#12

Cattygurl

11:04 pm | Sep 20, 2007

Xian,

I think there’s a difference between mocking somone and taking a stand. I don’t think anyone here at least has demonized or mocked her- they’ve sincerely called her out on a *specific* statement that she tried to defend.

Re: your map argument:

You CANNOT get insight unless you have data and facts. Period. Insight begins by stringing facts together on multiple levels. Knowing where Iraq is on the map does NOT mean you understand the history or other issues in Iraq- but geography is one of the VITAL starting point in a well-rounded understanding of ANY country (and one of the more easy facts to start from in many ways). I’m not going to go into influence of geography since I’m sure you know.

It can be asinine to mock someone for not knowing where Iraq is on a map in most cases. I agree with you.

That’s different from taking the stand if someone says “I don’t believe geography is important.” Rather, it’s important to express sincerely and strongly and deeply WHY it IS IMPORTANT, and to talk about it.

There are people being snarky and mocking, TRUE. That said, expressing honest and sincere dismay over a particular subject should not be lumped in with the people just wanting to be mocking. I don’t think I, lycheng, or kimtae have been mocking of her.

What is her ignorance was over race? what if she said race X is better than other races and used religion Y to defend it? There’s tons of scientific fact that negate genetic superiority of race. Yet, would speaking out against that statement in a strong and sincere manner create a deeper, darker ignorance?

If we lived in a society where science education was supported, encouraged, and respected- then I wouldn’t really be concerned about what some random personality says on TV. Just like if we race problems were an extreme rarity/exception, some random idiot on TV making racist jokes would not bother me as much. The fact is that science is VERY disregarded, and in fact, under ATTACK in this country. Considering the CURRENT trend and environment, I think that NOT standing up to ignorance in this matter creates a deeper, darker ignorance.

#13

Cattygurl

11:06 pm | Sep 20, 2007

Man, I can’t type today.

#14

Cattygurl

11:17 pm | Sep 20, 2007

Okay, let me clarify my rambling.

We should not mock people for not knowing facts. I agree that it’s counterproductive.

It’s important to take a stand against someone when they say that facts aren’t important, or that verified, proven, and evident truths are unimportant.

It’s vital to consider the current societal trend. A strong stance MUST be taken if the defense of misinformation is in support of a current trend that encourage and support misinformation.

I feel that it’s possible to do so sincerely and without mockery. It’s neccessary to recognize the separation of those that are interested in mocking and those that actually have genuine concern and not lump them together.

#15

Xian

11:49 pm | Sep 20, 2007

I guess I’m not seeing it. I watched the video again just to double check and the only part that really irks me is the section with the crazy reactionary. I’m confused as to why she didn’t receive more attention.

I mean it’s a stupid show and they say stupid things constantly. What Shepard said didn’t seem any worse than most thing they say, and certainly better than the other woman–I’m sorry I don’t follow the show.

It would help me if you could point to what the problem was in what she said. She said she simply didn’t think about whether the world is round or not. So what? I sure can’t name a single time I thought about it.

She said that if her kid asked she would take him to read books or whatever. Isn’t that the “right” answer? It’s vague, but it’s certainly better than “I would tell him that the world is round!”

I don’t dispute that we are in a dark time where people treat critical thinking like it was some type of nasty infectious disease.

I just think it’s worth separating people who have faith and an open approach–even if on a personal level, that means rejecting some scientific information–from those who are waging a war against critical thought. They are not and will not be the same unless we demand the “right answers” in the way that the establishment always has.

If we are right, we shouldn’t need to be outraged at people believing in their real or imaginary friend in the sky.

#16

Cattygurl

2:51 am | Sep 21, 2007

Let me clarify.

I agree that the view is not the brightest show, and people do say stupid things on that show (*koff* Rosie *koff*). Lots of stupid anti-asian jokes come from stupid movies. It’s really not the stupidity of the show/movie/radio host/DJ that’s important, but rather that it enforces and encourages a larger stupidity.

My biggest problem with her statement isn’t reflected on this segment of the video- but rather, her assertion that started this whole shenanigan- Sherri “doesn’t believe in evolution, period.” To me, her attempt to wiggle out of having to defend that statements by turning to “I’ve never thought about it” is, IMHO, not a defensible one.

The problem is that people DON’T “think about” a lot of things The problem is that people are COMFORTABLE about making sweeping decisions on subjects without EVEN UNDERSTANDING IT.

I believe that certain things need to be explained thoroughly and the information made accessible so the child/person could understand the mechanics and details through extensive inquiry.

Let’s take the map example.

Person A tells her child: Personally, I think geography is bullshit, and I don’t understand it, and I never thought about it much, but you can decide for yourself whether geography is relevant at all or not for yourself.”

Person B tells her child: Geography is so important to understanding complex issues of the world today. Let me show you show examples and explain HOW geography affects one’s understanding of politics, history, society, culture, language, etc. Ask me questions.

Honestly, which child is going to learn more and benefit? It’s hands down going to be Child B.

My point is that I’m just not interested in people defending ignorance with more ignorance only to top the whole thing off with religion. In fact, it makes me burn in anger.

It’s completely possible for people to believe in science and to have faith. They’re apple and oranges, to use a generic term. Religion and science can co-exist, and co-exist very well and enrich people’s lives in different ways. You CAN have both scientific knowledge/curiosity/critical thought while maintaining religious faith. I’ve had several college professors that were brilliant examples of that.

Unfortunately, the trend is strongly aimed at making people choose only one or the other- that one must remain ignorant, and not care to “think about those things”- or that you can think about things but reject religious faith. The woman’s comments are both reflective, indicative and also supportive of the former trend.

#17

Cattygurl

3:13 am | Sep 21, 2007

I mean, telling kids that they can decide for themselves is VERY IMPORTANT. On the other hand, they need a base of information before they can make an *informed* decision. There’s a way to give foundations of knowledge that stimulate creative and critical thinking.

None of us are Athena- a result of our daddies’ migrane and born with brains filled with the Encyclopedia Brittanica. We need to be given a certain amount of information before we can realistically make informed choices. Can we agree on this?

Someone that “doesn’t believe” in a subject, someone “that never thought about” a topic, someone “that doesn’t understand” the information, is probably not going to be able to even guide others in making an informed decision. Can we agree on this?

So…when a person makes such statements then tells the kids “they’re going to help them decide for themselves” - I don’t applaud.

#18

lycheng

4:31 am | Sep 21, 2007

Hey Catty, good to see you posting again.

I just have a couple of things to add. My basis for attacking Ms. Shepard is from other clips of the incident which clearly showed Barbra Walters probing her stance on evolution because Shepard said she doesn’t believe in it based on her fundamentalist Christian belief. This is the context in which Whoopi (a very smart woman, by the way), took another approach, this time asking Shepard about her understanding of whether the world was flat or not.

However, instead of genuinely engaging Whoopi in the discussion about science and religion, she changed the subject by saying she’s never thought about it because she’s busy thinking about raising her kids.

Again, I actually think Shepard knew the world was flat. She just didn’t want Whoopi to lead her into a line of reasoning that would end up with her agreeing that science can reveal truths outside of the Bible. And by dodging the question with her “I don’t know, I’ve never thought about it” answer, she thinks she’s coming across as someone who’s got more practical considerations, like raising her child, than to “think” about something so esoteric as whether the world is flat. In doing so, she exposes her own bias and ignorance of the role science in our modern society.

Quite frankly, the thought that once a woman becomes a mother, she’s so preoccupied with raising her child as not to think about the world is incredibly demeaning to all women.

I’m sorry, but I have no sympathy for Ms. Shepard. She’s not some random person off the street answering questions (like what they do on Jay Leno). She’s a highly host on a TV show. She’s paid to give her opinions to millions of viewers. And I’ll bet Barbara Walter’s hired her because she was a Christian fundamentalist in order to add “balance” to the panel.

#19

t-tocs

9:48 pm | Sep 21, 2007

Damn, even a 5 year old knows the world is round.

#20

Xian

12:09 am | Sep 22, 2007

Well, having not seen the rest of the video, I must say that makes more sense. But I still think that a stupid (or racist or whatever) African American woman on TV gets a lot more criticism than someone who happens to be white. I mean from what Liz has said, the reactionary crazy has said things 100 times worse than defending scienceless faith on the show ten times til Tuesday, and she seems to not evoke the same reaction.

Also, the “geography” analogy is moving the goal posts. That’s really unfair. The Earth being round or flat or where Iraq is on a map, is not the same as “Geography” or “Biology” or other fields of science. Content is crap. It’s not worth anything. Every culture has different core knowledge, and the main people who are useful in a society are people who possess different core knowledge or highly developed skills to utilize that knowledge.

I don’t care whether the world is flat or round, nor where Iraq is on a map. Why? Because I understand geopolitics, and physics and psychology and education, and social justice, and a little about technology, and math, and history, and in myriad dimensions and directions. I have the skills required to manipulate information and if I don’t know where to find it, I can find someone who does. I can knock anyone out the box with those skills and the main reason why is because I know that the glitzy SAT score is not worth the paper it’s printed on.

So to answer that analogy, but with the original concept, I would rather be the parent who says, “Sure, memorize the map if you enjoy it, but remember that it’s the broader skills that will empower you.”

So parent C says, “Here’s what Geography is trying to do and here’s some ways of approaching it, which ones do you think are crap and which ones are useful? What’s wrong with existing styles of geographic exploration? Why don’t they deliver us from all that’s wrong with the world?”

And that kid is going to run circles around kid A and B.

So yes, given your accounts, I agree that I have little sympathy for Ms. Shepard. But I don’t believe that science or social science or mathematics or language arts deserves any special place on their faces. They should be critiqued and attacked and questioned for their utility and when we do so, we’ll find that a lot of our approaches are utterly wrong. And it will hurt. And we will grow.

#21

jaehwan

2:35 am | Sep 22, 2007

Xian,

I too usually agree with you, but in this case, I too disagree.

Basically there are two approaches to education. One relies on facts, the other on theory. Asian educations, for example, are usually heavy on facts, while Americans are heavy on theory. Ask an average Chinese student the years in which War War II took place, and he’ll tell you everything, including the years and figures of the major battles. Most American kids don’t know jack about details (or where to find Iraq on a map). But ask the average American kid about the social ramifications and the reasoning behind the Marshall Plan, and he’ll do much better than the average Chinese kid. Chinese students more often study facts, while American kids more often study theories.

When you personally say you understand geopolitics, it means that you have more than just a pure “American” theoretical framework; it means you also understand the facts of history. If you were participating in a televised debate on what to do with poor kids in schools, you would need to come armed with facts about cost per child, historical efforts at reform, etc. You couldn’t just argue on theory alone. You would need to know the dates, details, and everything else. It’s kind of like when you discuss white privilege on this board–you have historical facts that you point out as examples.

I understand your point about Kid C, and I agree that kids should explore, but there comes a point as an adult where you need to make up your mind based on the evidence. With some more complex issues, you just need to be able to work to refine an accepted model–for example, Bohr had a model of the atom, followed by someone else, followed by someone else, etc, but for something obvious and simple, it’s crazy just to say that “I’ve never thought about it.” It’s unreasonable that any intellectually curious person in a global information age would think about whether the earth is flat. Maybe one doesn’t think about it all the time, but the question should’ve been considered, even if it was long ago in kindergarten.

Similarly, it’s crazy for a grown adult not to understand the basic history behind man’s concept of the earth. Note that I say “history,” not science. An educated person should be familiar with the historical significance of the discovery of a round earth (and yes, the details of whether it was Columbus or Aristotle who made the discovery are probably less important). If Shepherd doesn’t believe in a round earth, she should be able to articulate the reasoning behind her position, especially given the historical significance of the discovery that she is contesting. I don’t think anyone is disagreeing that people should question everything they hear, but for a grown woman not to have even thought about whether the earth is flat or round is ridiculous. I don’t think she’s stupid; I think she’s just hiding behind her religion and doesn’t want to say anything that contradicts the Bible.

And when people are stuck in the past like that, that is when bad things happen.

#22

Cattygurl

5:59 am | Sep 22, 2007

Elizabeth Hasselbeck is a fucking tool and an utter UTTER and complete crazy-ass moron loon. I have no respect for that woman whatsoever. That woman is like the whine and limp version of Ann Coulter. You are COMPLETELY right that the HB needs to have her ass smacked down along with, and more than Sherri- since that brand of ignorance has been on the View for longer and has had more time to make asinine and utterly clueless remarks.

I also agree with you that it’s rather unfair that Sherri Shepherd is getting more negative press than Elizabeth. We’re in agreement with that one.

Continuing in that vein, I think Sherri was put in as crazy #2 for the show, and also to add a minority face to the conservative views.

A’ight, I disagree with Ms. Shepherd, and I disagree with Ms. Hasselbeck for defending Ms. Shephed and also for her myriad of crazy-ass dumb shitspews.

Now, back to some other points…

I don’t think content is crap. Content =/= understanding, but understanding is hard to come by without content.

“Every culture has different core knowledge, and the main people who are useful in a society are people who possess different core knowledge or highly developed skills to utilize that knowledge.”

every culture has different core knowledge- and the most important thing we can do is share that knowledge to add to the knowledge base, not refuse to “believe in it, period”- because it’s something you’re not familiar with.

““Here’s what Geography is trying to do and here’s some ways of approaching it, which ones do you think are crap and which ones are useful? What’s wrong with existing styles of geographic exploration? Why don’t they deliver us from all that’s wrong with the world?””

Actually, this is a GREAT NEXT LEVEL question to ask after teaching how geography can help kids better understand the world. A child that has a very good background on the general concepts of geography (even if he doesn’t necc. know all the details) will probably gain more insight and participate in the discussion of a question like this than a child that does not. So by all means, kids that have advanced to this level will run circles around kids in group A or B- because they’ve advanced to another level of understanding- the critical analysis and application, rather than simple absorbtion. You can’t make informed criticisims in subject you don’t understand.

“I don’t believe that science or social science or mathematics or language arts deserves any special place on their faces. They should be critiqued and attacked and questioned for their utility and when we do so, we’ll find that a lot of our approaches are utterly wrong. And it will hurt. And we will grow.”

I don’t think anyone is saying that science or any academic subjects should have a SPECIAL place free of criticism. Nobody is saying that HERE.

You can be very religious and be a scientist or a critical thinker. Again, religion doesn’t not have to make people promote, peddle, and defend ignorance. It’s ignorant people that do that. In fact, I think religion deserves MORE public figures that actively speak out against their religion being USED to peddle ignorance and critical thinking. I hate to see this divide of knowledge vs religion/spirituality, where you pick one or the other. It’s a disservice to BOTH, and I refuse to give any leeway for people that try to push that type of divide publicly.

#23

AfroIndo

7:01 am | Sep 22, 2007

Freaking awesome rebuttals Cattygurl and Jaehwan. Made me jump up and stick my fist in the air with enthusiasm. Man, I love this board, even if I joined, initially, for selfish, superficial reasons, but you guys make me not regret this totally eyeopening learning experience. Take a bow. THANK YOU and some other posters for so deligently seeking discourse…….I feel so darn lucky!!!.

Off now to print out this article with the comments to forever have on hand as proof that sound, grounded people exist……

#24

lycheng

1:38 pm | Sep 22, 2007

I absolutely agree with Xian and Catty that Elisabeth Hasselbeck is a complete idiot. She’s said some awfully stupid things defending the Iraq war. So I’m not letting her off the hook.

#25

Dialectic

1:33 am | Sep 23, 2007

Oh, blockthebox, your adorability never ceases to amaze. You are wonderful.

#26

Xian

10:15 am | Sep 23, 2007

CG, not surprisingly, I find your argument above compelling. I certainly overreached with some of the quoted sections above.

But let’s examine where I think we’ve arrived (and feel free to correct me):
1. EH is not just an idiot, but a dangerous moron.
2. SS is nearly as bad, but probably catches it worse because she’s a large African American woman, and not a little annoying white woman.
3. Part of what she said–some of it outside of this excerpt–was not just a personal testimony of her choosing her own worldview–right or wrong–but also an attack on science that fits with a troubling trend of our time.
4. There is some need for at least the skill of content gathering in order to practice other vital skills in various areas of life. So you are right, content isn’t entirely “crap”.

But I’d still like to nail down the main thing I was getting at:
5. “Necessary content” is different in every society.
6. There is a dynamic in every society I’ve studied that attempts to ethnocentrically emphasize the power group’s core-content as important and devalue Others’ core content and values.
7. That dynamic is especially strong in this society, and perhaps strongest in quasi-liberal academic communities, even those that claim to value ethnic minority view. For example, take something we are all pretty familiar with: what passes for study of Japanese culture within American academia. The white filter of what Japanese culture is is indeed valued, and the quantity of specialists who embrace that filter far outnumber the quantity engaged in empathetic study and dissemination.
8. As this dynamic plays out in broader society, it tends to focus on individual bits of content with no logical framework to support why those bits are emphasized over other content information.
9. I responded based on the dynamic in the remaining cited video which seemed to be that she was dismissing, not science in general, but the simply knowledge that the Earth is round. To me, this qualifies in the category of facts like “Where such-and-such is on a map”, “People from such-and-such place are equal to __________”, “Columbus discovered America”, “There are 180 degrees in a triangle”–fact that have utility in specific situations, and only with further understanding. As you’ll notice, most of the “facts” above need clearly be qualified to have any truth or meaning to them whatsoever, just as the Earth is not really round, but also not unround in the way the anti-science folks are implying.
10. Given the crises facing our society, and global community, it is unclear which of these dynamics: ethnocentrism or anti-science are more troubling. It’s clear they are both major problems. I choose ethnocentrism.

#27

nightshade

11:44 am | Sep 23, 2007

The View is a hotbed of retardation. I am impressed that this debate came out of that clip. Sometimes I imagine that Barbara Walters goes home and thinks, why the fuck am I a woman?

I had a roommate once who didn’t who how to boil water. I still make fun of her now.

#28

jaehwan

5:07 pm | Sep 23, 2007

“To me, this qualifies in the category of facts like “Where such-and-such is on a map”, “People from such-and-such place are equal to __________”, “Columbus discovered America”, “There are 180 degrees in a triangle”–fact that have utility in specific situations, and only with further understanding.”

To me, it’s in the category of “Let me drive an SUV because I don’t care, or I don’t care to know, that carbon pollution hurts the atmosphere.” Or “I’ll give my kid a Snickers bar for breakfast because it’s cheaper than cereal.”

There comes a point where anti-science is destructive. Ethnocentrism is bad, but I don’t think you need to rank them in order to be against both.

Now not knowing that the earth is spherical is probably not as destructive as ignoring global warming–though I would think that the word “global” would imply a spherical shape to anyone who heard the term, and I’m sure they must have at least touched on the topic on “The View.” But it’s destructive nevertheless because it’s ignorance. It’s not just a cultural interpretation: the earth IS spherical. To not know that the earth is a planet that revolves around the sun, to not know that the moon is an orbiting body and not just a piece of Swiss cheese, seems to me to be the epitome of ignorance, especially for a host on a TV network whose reach is, in every use of the word, global.

#29

Xian

8:16 pm | Sep 23, 2007

But that ignores the point of knowledge in the first place: function. Surely, we shouldn’t limit our pursuit of knowledge to that which we already know where and how to apply it, but we also shouldn’t attack ignorance of trivial knowledge.

Take your examples above: More people are ignorant of the fact that China and Japan are not the same place than that the moon is not made of cheese, and the latter bit of data is valued far more by society. The cause and effect on that are pretty inextricably tied.

But it’s hella clear which is more functional knowledge. So I’m sick of seeing folks of all kinds, but especially self-proclaimed white liberals mocking my kids for not knowing their crappy way of writing a paper and then lecturing me about their vast bullshit knowledge of Asian American culture (you didn’t really face any racism blah blah blah).

This fits with the above example: sure SUVs are bad. But there’s plenty of folks who mock SUV drivers and then go fill up at BP. Or swig a Coca-Cola. Or pour all of their resources into I-Pod accessories.

Recycling and gas mileage aren’t popular now because people care about the planet. They are popular because we have a lot of crappy conventional wisdom and it so happens that it’s trendy to worry about those things. But how many folks have actually sat down and itemized their lives to be environmental or healthy or empathetic or whatever?

For me, a lot of this is other folks’ splinters vs. my plank.

I can say, “Sure, all things being equal, you SHOULD know that the Earth is round!” But I’d rather people sent their kids to inner-city schools or stopped ingesting corporate media and consumables or ate decent or treated each other well.

It’s not an either/or thing, but in this case one: having trivial knowledge is being used by one group to bludgeon another.

#30

Dialectic

6:28 am | Sep 24, 2007

I think some of you are missing the point entirely.

It’s not about types of knowledge, or knowledge at all.

It’s about a cognitive apparatus that stably supports the ability to reason. And if you don’t accept that the world is round, or you put “facts” presented in the Bible on equal or greater footing than facts presented through self-reflective scientific inquiry, then you do not have stable access to reason. If you do not have stable access to reason, or you do not fundamentally understand what reason is about, then you are going to have some irrational/ nationalistic/ racist/ sexist/ whatever-ist beliefs, and you become a threat to rational and moral structures like democracy and multiculturalism.

Xian says that if we know the world is round, then we shouldn’t get worked up about someone who says it isn’t, or who says the answer is in a Bible. That is wrong. We have to fight to reinforce and spread reason, or otherwise you end up with more of the Kansas school board and the Bush Administration and the NRA and the KKK.

#31

Xian

7:10 am | Sep 24, 2007

Not exactly. I agree with everything you are saying, but what I’m saying is not that we shouldn’t counter ignorance–obviously I believe in engaging those who disagree–look at my behavior on this site.

What I am arguing is that the skills that we both agree are critical do not lead to a single set of “correct” facts. Even in cases where you have something that is for all intents and purposes factual, it is destructive to demonize those who don’t share that belief. Engage them sure, but the second it reaches the “you’re ignorant if you don’t know X” stage, it has moved from spreading reason to creating litmus tests to qualify or disqualify whole people over trivials. And we all know who that’s going to favor in the society–those with SES privileges.

#32

jaehwan

12:43 pm | Sep 24, 2007

Xian,

The point of knowledge is not always function. Sometimes it is, but not always. Entire fields–including theoretical mathematics and astronomy–are dedicated mostly to knowledge which isn’t useful in the present and may not ever be useful. Look at right triangles, for example. You can prove that a squared plus b squared equals c squared, but how useful is that? Generally it’s only useful to mathematicians who use it as a premise to prove even more useless things.

It’s knowledge for knowledge’s sake. There is no function outside of it increasing man’s understanding of the world. It has nothing to do with culture; triangles still add up to 180 degrees whether you’re in China or Ghana, and the world is spherical period. Sending a man into space or a probe to Jupiter gives us knowledge but really doesn’t do much in terms of our lives down here. If certain cultures devalue or trivialize science–as fundamentalist Christian culture does when science contradicts parts of the Bible–I’d say it’s a problem with the culture, not the emphasis on knowledge. The culture needs to change.

I do think there is function in knowing that the earth is spherical, and it’s much the same as knowing how to locate Iraq on a map. By knowing that the earth is spherical, you know that, for example, pollution in China could hurt both the U.S. and Europe. You can see how the fact that Iraq is for the most part landlocked affects how the people of Iraq need to cooperate with their neighbors.

That being said, though, the larger issue is knowledge for knowledge’s sake. You wrote, “Even in cases where you have something that is for all intents and purposes factual, it is destructive to demonize those who don’t share that belief. ” Xian, in this case, we’re not discussing a “belief.” We’re talking about basic knowledge proven by rational science. While we shouldn’t demonize her, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to criticize her ignorance–especially since she’s a celebrity.

#33

Cattygurl

5:01 am | Sep 25, 2007

Xian,

We agree on a lot of things. :D Let’s try to has out some of the differences that we’re having.

5. “Necessary content” is different in every society.

I agree with that, to a degree, but it’s changing, and rapidly. The world is becoming increasingly interactive. Technology is starting to become the common thread between cultures, and technology is built upon science. Not understanding- not promoting- not encouraging science is going to be a disadvantage, not an advantage, for everyone, at some point. The “neccessary content” - whether we like it or not, is becoming more homogenous, due to the interactivity.

For kids in the US, not encouraging science, math and all types of education in general is clearly going to be a disadvantage to them and their future opportunities- whether it’s their access to jobs or ability to make informed decision about research that could affect their medical treatment in the near future, or laws that could influence their living condition due to pollution.

6. There is a dynamic in every society I’ve studied that attempts to ethnocentrically emphasize the power group’s core-content as important and devalue Others’ core content and values.

I agree that it’s a problem. I mean, imagine if the church didn’t stifle Copericus or Galileo’s notion that the earth revolved around the sun or burn/suppress the heretic astronomical information of the Mayans, - we may be much further along in astronomy than we are today.

If I’m wrong here- correct me. I feel that Elizabeth and Sherry’s position (E and S for short) is more aligned with the position of the book-burning , Galileo-exocommunicating folks than the opposite. Their dynamic is a huge part of a powerful core that devalue Others’ core content and values.

Again, if Sherri or Elisabeth was an exception, rather than the rule- then I would not be upset. My school disctict now has a lovely (non) sex ed curriculum that teaches that makes a heavy implication that contraceptives are ineffective against STDs and pregnancy, and they may cause cancer, etc. That’s not happening because quasi-liberal academics are in power- this is happening because extremist religious people in power want to devalue Others’ core content and values.

7. That dynamic is especially strong in this society, and perhaps strongest in quasi-liberal academic communities, even those that claim to value ethnic minority view. For example, take something we are all pretty familiar with: what passes for study of Japanese culture within American academia. The white filter of what Japanese culture is is indeed valued, and the quantity of specialists who embrace that filter far outnumber the quantity engaged in empathetic study and dissemination.

I believe that the dynamic is strong in this society, but I wouldn’t say it’s strongest in quasi-liberal communities. I’d say it’s strong across the board, strongest in extremist communinies, with varations of the dynamic undeniably present in different forms in other communities.

8. As this dynamic plays out in broader society, it tends to focus on individual bits of content with no logical framework to support why those bits are emphasized over other content information.

I do think there is a reason for the framework- whether I agree with it is a completely different matter (I don’t with a lot of it). I think most people don’t understand the frameowrk, making the system of education that much harder to change.

9. I responded based on the dynamic in the remaining cited video which seemed to be that she was dismissing, not science in general, but the simply knowledge that the Earth is round. To me, this qualifies in the category of facts like “Where such-and-such is on a map”, “People from such-and-such place are equal to __________”, “Columbus discovered America”, “There are 180 degrees in a triangle”–fact that have utility in specific situations, and only with further understanding. As you’ll notice, most of the “facts” above need clearly be qualified to have any truth or meaning to them whatsoever, just as the Earth is not really round, but also not unround in the way the anti-science folks are implying.

I think we have a difference here- I believe you think Ms. Shepherd was trying to take a sincere position. I believe Ms. Shepherd was being insincere. She was trying to avoid answering the question, because she was not wanting to have to expound on her assertion that she didn’t “believe in evolution, period.” She gave an erronous answer in the process of not wanting to discuss a subject.

10. Given the crises facing our society, and global community, it is unclear which of these dynamics: ethnocentrism or anti-science are more troubling. It’s clear they are both major problems. I choose ethnocentrism.

I don’t believe that it’s either/or. I agree that there is a tendency of the dominant ideology to ignore and belittle others that do not fit into their system.

I believe that it’s possible to criticize certain trends that bode against progress- without being ethnocentric.

I think it’s FAR more important to figure out HOW to best get that done, rather than take a position against people that have sincere citique of the matter.

So, my question to Xian is how we best counter this trend against the pursuit of knowledge and process?

Addressing D’s point:
“It’s about a cognitive apparatus that stably supports the ability to reason. And if you don’t accept that the world is round, or you put “facts” presented in the Bible on equal or greater footing than facts presented through self-reflective scientific inquiry, then you do not have stable access to reason.”

I agree that the accumulation of knowledge encourages a stable access/foundation of reason. I don’t think this is definitive in practice/end result- for example, some small-scale cultures were quite egalitarian in structure compared to their more knowledgable counterparts. However, I do admit I’m talking apples and oranges. I agree with you and believe that knowledge is definitely a tool that should be constantly nourished and encouraged, as it is one of the most powerful tool in order to reach an end goal of a most reasonsable stance.

Some comments on jaewhan’s comments:
“There is no function outside of it increasing man’s understanding of the world.” Often, we find no function due to the lack of understanding. A lot of knowledge seems unpractical to you or me, but the fact that a triangle is 180 degrees is a base of knowledge that allows people to drive bridges I drive on to get to places.

And that’s the point- we don’t know the use of things until we keep pushing further. We shouldn’t abandon something because it may not make sense at first glance. That’s the exciting thing about knowledge- is that we still don’t know, and there’s still more to learn.

#34

Xian

5:57 am | Sep 25, 2007

I’m drowning in school right now, so let me get back on the deeper issue of how to solve these problem.

As I said before, I agree that pursuit of knowledge is the pinnacle. However, there’s a side issue of how we give precedence to one bundle of facts vs. another that has little or nothing to do with whether or not we are pursuing knowledge.

The irony is that Pythagorean Theorem-based thought is clearly in evidence daily on the sports page and has developed into a more accurate version of the chi-square test–a highly useful application of math.

Of course, I would also argue that if you are going to get trivial, you better also know that the shortest distances between points is NOT a straight line and there are 180-270 degrees in a triangle. Furthermore, how many of us know the relationship between the Sum of the Angles in a triangle and 180= the number of steradians enclosed by the triangle?

Finally, I would appeal to Dr. King: “Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.”

Advances in length of lifespan do little if quality of life declines. We DO poor tons of money into scientific research and little into social science.

You complain that we have advanced less because of anti-scientific thought. I would claim we have regressed since the time of the Arawak–we work more and love less.

#35

jaehwan

12:48 am | Sep 27, 2007

Xian,

If we’re talking about Euclidean geometry, a triangle ALWAYS has exactly 180 degrees, and the shortest distance between two points IS a straight line. I don’t know what a steradian is, but assuming it has something to do with three dimensional or four dimensional space, I wouldn’t say that it’s trivial–it’s just a higher understanding of geometry. It’s a good thing that the concept exists, and it’s a good thing that people understand it and know how to apply it to other theoretical or even practical problems. Unlike in the case of Sherri Shepherd though, one would not expect most people to know what a steradian is.

“You complain that we have advanced less because of anti-scientific thought. I would claim we have regressed since the time of the Arawak–we work more and love less.”

Work and knowledge are two different things. It hardly takes any work to live in this day and age and to know that the earth is spherical. What most people are criticizing isn’t the fact that she didn’t know the Earth is round. Instead they are criticizing the ridiculous, possibly insincere, assertion that she didn’t know it was round.

What about educated and relaxed? I think that’s the new philosophy of a lot of the retiring baby boomers. It would seem to me to be the lifestyle that makes the most sense. We can work less, love more, AND love more intelligently.

Catty,

“Often, we find no function due to the lack of understanding. A lot of knowledge seems unpractical to you or me, but the fact that a triangle is 180 degrees is a base of knowledge that allows people to drive bridges I drive on to get to places.”

I agree with you on that. However, I would say that even if there never is any kind of practical use, knowledge could still be worthwhile.

I remember reading something about the Pythagorean theorem. It said something along the lines of the Chinese actually discovered the principle hundreds of years before Pythagoras, but they never sought to actually prove it mathematically. The Chinese actually used the principle to build stuff, but they didn’t know with 100% reliability that the hypotenuse squared equaled the sum of the squares of the other two sides. They only knew it was true because it seemed to be true in all of the cases they had seen. Yet despite the fact that the Chinese didn’t have the proof, their technology was still superior to the rest of the world until around the 1500’s. They lacked the mathematical proofs, but it didn’t affect their innovation since mathematical proofs were not practical for real world applications.

Even today, I don’t know that the proof of the Pythagorean theorem ever had an useful value other than the satisfaction of knowing that it is true in 100% of cases (in Euclidean geometry, of course). Perhaps with modern science, it eventually found some application, but I don’t know of any. Stuff like this could possibly be useless forever. Fermat’s theorem went unsolved for hundreds and hundreds of years, and now that it’s been proven, who knows whether it’ll ever be useful. Do prime numbers even exist in nature?

So I would say that you’re right, tons of stuff may have practical applications in the future. But even if they don’t, they’re still worthwhile. While the proof of the Pythagorean theorem probably never helped anyone in the real world, I’d say that it is an intellectual feat that remains worthwhile just so that we know. And perhaps knowledge of something as abstract as a triangle could inspire thoughts in other fields–practical or not.

#36

Ronski

11:01 am | Sep 27, 2007

The sad situation is that probably at least 80% of the world’s population is only marginally better off than their ancestors were 2000 years ago. They still live in stone, mud, wood or thatch huts: they still cook on a wood fire and live off the land: they don’t have electricity and it’s cutesy toys, and they walk or ride a bicycle were they need to go. Spin a globe slowly and think about what you know or perceive about the ordinary people in each country as it rolls past. Africa, Middle East, India, the Causasus, China, Malaysia, South/Central America - many peasants living on the edge. What has our precious science done to help them?

Most people are born with an IQ of 100 or less - that is what nature gave them to work with, and they can only do the best they can with it. They simply cannot grasp what may seem so easy to others, conversely, drop your butts naked into the middle of the African or Burmese jungle, and you might not feel so smart anymore. Instead of making fun of people who are far less fortunate than us, we should thank or lucky stars to have been so blessed.

For all our superior knowledge, is the human conditiion really much better? We still have wars, famine, disease, poverty and ultimately death. What’s the old saying? - Life’s a bitch and then you die. So much for our vaunted knowledge. The only thing I see that’s really improved is the comfort index in developed countries. Yes we are much more comfortable and MUCH lazier than our forefathers. Other than that, it’s pretty much a wash.

Please pardon typos and bad grammer - it’s late…

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The Fighting 44s