Guest guest Posted October 13, 1998 Report Share Posted October 13, 1998 AMEN AMEN & AMEN Thanks Donna Great Quote!!! The Lord is the Great Physician is so true, the Almighty Healer! God Bless, Sandy (~.~) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 1998 Report Share Posted October 13, 1998 Hi Sandy, Thanks for the support. My daughter and I were able to get in to see Dr. yesterday by way of a cancelled appt. He was great. He thinks she might be co-infected with Babesiosis. Put her on Zithromax and Mepron, he also increased her Doxy to 300mg a day. Don't know if she'll need the IV yet. He took her off the Co-enzyme Q10, he says that the Babesiosis seem to like it a lot, Lyme too. I'll keep reading and keep you posted. Hopefully we can get her out of bed and back into life. Dona Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Hi Renate, > " There is a time to admire the grace and persuasive power of an > influential idea, and there is a time to fear its hold over us. The > time to worry is when the idea is so widely shared that we no longer > even notice it, when it is so deeply rooted that it feels to us like > plain common sense. At the point when objections are not answered > anymore because they are no longer even raised, we are not in control: > we do not have the idea; it has us. " > > by Alfie Kohn, " Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, > Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes " Did you just start reading this? I love this quote and have used it before. I read the book a couple years ago. Very thought-provoking. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Renate- > " There is a time to admire the grace and persuasive power of an > influential idea, and there is a time to fear its hold over us. The > time to worry is when the idea is so widely shared that we no longer > even notice it, when it is so deeply rooted that it feels to us like > plain common sense. At the point when objections are not answered > anymore because they are no longer even raised, we are not in control: > we do not have the idea; it has us. " That's interesting, but while it appears that the book is about something else, I think it's often more useful to consider taboos. Some ideas aren't questioned, true, but it's not considered taboo to question them, like the idea that the earth is roughly spherical rather than flat, or the idea that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa. Doubters or disbelievers would be considered foolish and stupid, yes, but not subject to hatred or vitriol. Questioning the notion that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease, however, was effectively taboo for a long time and still is even today in many circles, and doubters are subject to vicious scorn and aspersion. The idea that being vegetarian or especially vegan is good for the environment and eating meat is destructive is rapidly gaining the same kind of protection. The difference is that the notions that the earth isn't flat and that it revolves around the sun don't need the protection afforded by making questioning them taboo. Their truth is readily evident. The cholesterol hypothesis and the supposed environmental benefits of vegetarianism, by contrast, don't actually hold up if they're examined too closely, but some of their proponents stand to benefit mightily from them, so the only solution is to make competing ideas taboo. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Yes, I just got it yesterday. I was looking for some more information on the parenting method Elder Porphyrios talked about in the parenting section of " Wounded by Love " and on the homeschool list someone recommended this book. Oddly enough, my brother-in-law works at IBM and was just here, talking about the policy where they identify the bottom 10% to put on probation or some such, so it's working out much more interesting as an indictment against business policies than Skinner-based parenting so far. > > Hi Renate, > > > " There is a time to admire the grace and persuasive power of an > > influential idea, and there is a time to fear its hold over us. The > > time to worry is when the idea is so widely shared that we no longer > > even notice it, when it is so deeply rooted that it feels to us like > > plain common sense. At the point when objections are not answered > > anymore because they are no longer even raised, we are not in control: > > we do not have the idea; it has us. " > > > > by Alfie Kohn, " Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, > > Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes " > > Did you just start reading this? I love this quote and have used it > before. I read the book a couple years ago. Very thought- provoking. > > Chris > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 But you see, it's all related to the topic of the book! Those with the highest grades, and who survive the rigorous elimination process of the universities are the most dedicated to university-brand science, where they've been praised into giving up their own curiosity to play the party line and instead of questionning the things that don't make sense to them they've learned to accept that any idiot would see that's true - perhaps a defense of the faculty who also have been forced to stop questionning even though the answers may not be readily apparent. So they are experiencing either a wounding of their natural selves or a great deal of cognitive dissonance over that bit of themselves they're suppressing (curiosity, doubts) and their venomous answers are a result. This hit me like a lightbulb today as I realized this " punished by rewards " idea is the answer to why scientists are some of the most awful, venomous, and difficult to talk with when it comes to alternative views. IN " The Underground History of American Education " author Gatto mentions that those who are singled out (falsly) as the " best and brightest " are the ones most likely to be co-opted into the system. By the way, have you heard of the new film coming out, Ben Stein's " Expelled " ? --- In , Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > > Renate- > > > " There is a time to admire the grace and persuasive power of an > > influential idea, and there is a time to fear its hold over us. The > > time to worry is when the idea is so widely shared that we no longer > > even notice it, when it is so deeply rooted that it feels to us like > > plain common sense. At the point when objections are not answered > > anymore because they are no longer even raised, we are not in control: > > we do not have the idea; it has us. " > > That's interesting, but while it appears that the book is about > something else, I think it's often more useful to consider taboos. > Some ideas aren't questioned, true, but it's not considered taboo to > question them, like the idea that the earth is roughly spherical > rather than flat, or the idea that the earth revolves around the sun > rather than vice versa. Doubters or disbelievers would be considered > foolish and stupid, yes, but not subject to hatred or vitriol. > Questioning the notion that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart > disease, however, was effectively taboo for a long time and still is > even today in many circles, and doubters are subject to vicious scorn > and aspersion. The idea that being vegetarian or especially vegan is > good for the environment and eating meat is destructive is rapidly > gaining the same kind of protection. The difference is that the > notions that the earth isn't flat and that it revolves around the sun > don't need the protection afforded by making questioning them taboo. > Their truth is readily evident. The cholesterol hypothesis and the > supposed environmental benefits of vegetarianism, by contrast, don't > actually hold up if they're examined too closely, but some of their > proponents stand to benefit mightily from them, so the only solution > is to make competing ideas taboo. > > - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 I LOVE what you said here! This is why, though I love the whole college environment, and the vast world that opens up there -- well, the *idea*, the *possibility* of the vast world opening up... -- I'm afraid I might not ever get very far in that academic world (even at my age, I want to go back-to-school). I'm not a game-player, I won't just go along with things just because the teacher is already invested in certain ideas and their ego can't bear to question those ideas. That is human nature, though; it will always be a struggle to overcome it. Joy --- In , " haecklers " <haecklers@...> wrote: > > But you see, it's all related to the topic of the book! Those with > the highest grades, and who survive the rigorous elimination process > of the universities are the most dedicated to university-brand > science, where they've been praised into giving up their own > curiosity to play the party line and instead of questionning the > things that don't make sense to them they've learned to accept that > any idiot would see that's true - perhaps a defense of the faculty > who also have been forced to stop questionning even though the > answers may not be readily apparent. So they are experiencing either > a wounding of their natural selves or a great deal of cognitive > dissonance over that bit of themselves they're suppressing > (curiosity, doubts) and their venomous answers are a result. This > hit me like a lightbulb today as I realized this " punished by > rewards " idea is the answer to why scientists are some of the most > awful, venomous, and difficult to talk with when it comes to > alternative views. IN " The Underground History of American > Education " author Gatto mentions that those who are singled out > (falsly) as the " best and brightest " are the ones most likely to be > co-opted into the system. > > By the way, have you heard of the new film coming out, Ben > Stein's " Expelled " ? > > --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 On 4/8/08, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote: > Yes, I just got it yesterday. I was looking for some more > information on the parenting method Elder Porphyrios talked about in > the parenting section of " Wounded by Love " and on the homeschool list > someone recommended this book. Oddly enough, my brother-in-law works > at IBM and was just here, talking about the policy where they > identify the bottom 10% to put on probation or some such, so it's > working out much more interesting as an indictment against business > policies than Skinner-based parenting so far. I was about to say earlier that the book is quite complimentary to Wounded by Love, at least the sections on the dangers of feeding people's addictions to praise and on childrearing, though it hadn't occurred to me till today. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 On 4/8/08, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote: > IN " The Underground History of American > Education " author Gatto mentions that those who are singled out > (falsly) as the " best and brightest " are the ones most likely to be > co-opted into the system. We need to start a book club! I've been meaning to read this -- I think I've read parts of it online, but I've read some of his other stuff and seen him speak, and he's another great thought-provoker. His thoughts on the value public school are radically different than Kohn's, but I always put them together on my list of worthwhile education writers. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 , > That's interesting, but while it appears that the book is about > something else, I think it's often more useful to consider taboos. > Some ideas aren't questioned, true, but it's not considered taboo to > question them, like the idea that the earth is roughly spherical > rather than flat, or the idea that the earth revolves around the sun > rather than vice versa. Doubters or disbelievers would be considered > foolish and stupid, yes, but not subject to hatred or vitriol. > Questioning the notion that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart > disease, however, was effectively taboo for a long time and still is > even today in many circles, and doubters are subject to vicious scorn > and aspersion. The idea that being vegetarian or especially vegan is > good for the environment and eating meat is destructive is rapidly > gaining the same kind of protection. The difference is that the > notions that the earth isn't flat and that it revolves around the sun > don't need the protection afforded by making questioning them taboo. > Their truth is readily evident. The cholesterol hypothesis and the > supposed environmental benefits of vegetarianism, by contrast, don't > actually hold up if they're examined too closely, but some of their > proponents stand to benefit mightily from them, so the only solution > is to make competing ideas taboo. I think these are both good, but different, points. Kohn is basically referring in the book to the idea that rewards encourage good behavior and punishments discourage bad behavior. There isn't really any taboo against questioning it or vested interest behind it, but it seems so obvious that it is taken for granted. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Renate- > This > hit me like a lightbulb today as I realized this " punished by > rewards " idea is the answer to why scientists are some of the most > awful, venomous, and difficult to talk with when it comes to > alternative views. Actually, this is mostly true where there's lots and lots of money involved. Sure, sometimes there's venom and heated argument in physics (and to be fair sometimes big money is at stake there too) but the field is much more civil than medicine and nutrition tend to be. It's not universities per se that are the root of the problem so much as the co-opting of universities by big business. Though people will defend their prestige quite vigorously too... but again, the more legitimate the threat, the more vigorous and violent the defense. The only major exception I can think of to this relationship is genuine moral antipathy, and I'm not even sure that qualifies, because it only becomes aroused to violence (figurative and otherwise) when acts and beliefs which are believed to be deeply wrong are widespread and threaten to gain ascendence. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Joy- > This is why, though I love the whole > college environment, and the vast world that opens up there -- well, > the *idea*, the *possibility* of the vast world opening up... -- I'm > afraid I might not ever get very far in that academic world (even at > my age, I want to go back-to-school). I'm not a game-player, I won't > just go along with things just because the teacher is already invested > in certain ideas and their ego can't bear to question those ideas. > That is human nature, though; it will always be a struggle to > overcome it. In general, middle school and high school are much more doctrinaire and closed to debate than the university system, though there are exceptions, of course, like religious institutions and departments with strong ties to industry. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 > We need to start a book club! While it has fallen into disuse, isn't there already a book club over on NT_Politics for people from this list? -- " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. " Max Planck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 > > This > > hit me like a lightbulb today as I realized this " punished by > > rewards " idea is the answer to why scientists are some of the most > > awful, venomous, and difficult to talk with when it comes to > > alternative views. > > Actually, this is mostly true where there's lots and lots of money > involved. Sure, sometimes there's venom and heated argument in > physics (and to be fair sometimes big money is at stake there too) but > the field is much more civil than medicine and nutrition tend to be. > It's not universities per se that are the root of the problem so much > as the co-opting of universities by big business. Though people will > defend their prestige quite vigorously too... but again, the more > legitimate the threat, the more vigorous and violent the defense. The > only major exception I can think of to this relationship is genuine > moral antipathy, and I'm not even sure that qualifies, because it only > becomes aroused to violence (figurative and otherwise) when acts and > beliefs which are believed to be deeply wrong are widespread and > threaten to gain ascendence. > > > - Actually, I think intellectual vested interests play the predominant role in keeping the status quo rather than continual open minded testing when it comes to the physical sciences, and that sort of vesting occurs in *all* the disciplines, while perhaps more pronounced in some over others, and certainly is exacerbated by money. The implications of that, and the idealized version of science that under girds it, are far and deep, but probably best left for another thread. On the other hand, this tendency gets really messy in the social sciences, because of the *obvious* infusion of emotions, value judgements and political ideologies into the scientific process. In happens in the physical sciences but, in theory at least, is not so obvious and can be more easily rooted out. -- " Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine messianic force, to be a sort of policeman of the whole world... " - Luther King Jr. " The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the end, make his way regardless of race. " - Booker T. Washington (1856–1915) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 > > This is why, though I love the whole > > college environment, and the vast world that opens up there -- well, > > the *idea*, the *possibility* of the vast world opening up... -- I'm > > afraid I might not ever get very far in that academic world (even at > > my age, I want to go back-to-school). I'm not a game-player, I won't > > just go along with things just because the teacher is already invested > > in certain ideas and their ego can't bear to question those ideas. > > That is human nature, though; it will always be a struggle to > > overcome it. > > In general, middle school and high school are much more doctrinaire > and closed to debate than the university system, though there are > exceptions, of course, like religious institutions and departments > with strong ties to industry. > > > - Really? That certainly wasn't my experience in academia. I would highly suggest _The Shadow University_ by Harvey Silvergate to get a different take on the " openness " of the modern university. -- " Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine messianic force, to be a sort of policeman of the whole world... " - Luther King Jr. " The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the end, make his way regardless of race. " - Booker T. Washington (1856–1915) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 , I in no way meant ALL scientists, there are some wonderful ones out there! But on other, not as nice as this groups I've participated in, even mentioning darkfield microscopes would draw heavy attacks from scientists - those in the field and those in colleges. What's wrong with being interested in a kind of microscope? Just that those " in the know " said it was impossible to view viruses or living bacteria back when it was invented and were proved wrong? > > But you see, it's all related to the topic of the book! Those with > > the highest grades, and who survive the rigorous elimination process > > of the universities are the most dedicated to university-brand > > science, where they've been praised into giving up their own > > curiosity to play the party line and instead of questionning the > > things that don't make sense to them they've learned to accept that > > any idiot would see that's true - perhaps a defense of the faculty > > who also have been forced to stop questionning even though the > > answers may not be readily apparent. So they are experiencing either > > a wounding of their natural selves or a great deal of cognitive > > dissonance over that bit of themselves they're suppressing > > (curiosity, doubts) and their venomous answers are a result. This > > hit me like a lightbulb today as I realized this " punished by > > rewards " idea is the answer to why scientists are some of the most > > awful, venomous, and difficult to talk with when it comes to > > alternative views. IN " The Underground History of American > > Education " author Gatto mentions that those who are singled out > > (falsly) as the " best and brightest " are the ones most likely to be > > co-opted into the system. > > Ouch. You don't describe any of my scientific colleagues with your > words below. Their approach is to follow where the results of > experimentation lead them, adding new tools/methods of exploration as > such techniques become available. > > If there are academics who don't pursue or entertain alternative > views, blame that on the nature of the beast (research in academia) > entirely. Peer review and public taxpayer funding impose some pre- > thought before one undertakes an expensive research program. > Increasingly, private funding (through foundations mostly) is becoming > as restrictive as public funding, with fewer funds for risky projects > that pursue " alternative " hypotheses. If you can't pay the workers or > pay for the supplies, how can you build the bridge? > > Venomous? Probably only about the nature of academia - these days, > faculty are being saddled with committee upon committee, to the point > that they rarely get a chance to ask those pertinent research questions. > > > > > > > By the way, have you heard of the new film coming out, Ben > > Stein's " Expelled " ? > > The producer interviewed PZ Myers under false pretenses, selectively > used interview material - completely out of context - and then didn't > even let him into the prescreening (though ironically, the producer > did let Dawkins in, unchallenged). http://tinyurl.com/2az7ll > and http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php > > -jennifer > (lovin' that soft-funded, non-faculty science job) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.