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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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