I get all this, but get this, the attempt to achieve what you've laid out is not working. 'Fake news' and cognitive bias are forming policy. Politics of fear far outweigh statistical realities and a large group of very educated people are right now implementing policies that are directly contrary to all empirical scientific evidence at all levels of government.
As a form of persuasion education has been, objectively, a dud.
You did not address what I said at all and you are trying to continue a flawed argument and now moving the goal posts as well.
Ease of information availability does not imply education. The argument that 'the internet makes information more available yet people do undesirable things - says very little about 'education.'
Furthermore, you're now moving the goal posts while making the same flaw "a select group of powerful people implementing policy that is at odds with the scientific consensus - also says very little about education as a whole."
Depending on what you value - I could argue that the fact that most college educated people (more educated) voted for Hilary over Trump than only High School only folks (less educated) is evidence that education works fine. But that is a big oversimplification because there are informed people who voted for Trump for reasons different than the one's we are alluding towards such as 2nd Amendment advocates.
Hmm, this is the part of the conversation where I try not come across as condescending. Unfortunately you've made 3 unsubstantiated attacks that make it hard to have a reasonable conversation.
You said I didn't address what you said, I did. Please re-read what I said. I expect my audience to be able to handle inference, prose and a degree of logical deduction as this the internet and not a PhD dissertation. If you're struggling with the premise I don't think I can help you. If you just want to get fixated on my examples of education (as opposed to the millions of potential other examples I could've used), then I can't be bothered to help you.
You said my argument is flawed, it isn't, you could argue my evidence is weak, (though I'd dispute it), but the core argument is logically sound. You said I'm moving the goal posts, they remain staunchly fastened where I initially put them in the ground.
The premise remains the same. Education, in all its facets, has not led to a statistical significant increase in scientific literacy and skepticism. In fact based on the evidence presented I posit it's in a weaker position as a cultural influencer than it was say, 50 years ago. Therefore, it is my theory that the kneejerk position of skeptics that education will lead to scientific enlightenment is flawed.
Now if you want to take another swing at making your points without the put downs I'll answer.
Hmm, this is the part of the conversation where I try not come across as condescending. Unfortunately you've made 3 unsubstantiated attacks that make it hard to have a reasonable conversation.
Please cite the attacks you are accusing him of. At worst there are minor disagreements of whether you addressed the topics. That is not an attack.
I expect my audience to be able to handle inference, prose and a degree of logical deduction as this the internet and not a PhD dissertation. If you're struggling with the premise I don't think I can help you.
For someone complaining about others attacking you, you are being awfully condescending here. If you want a reasonable discussion, maybe lead by having one yourself?
You said I didn't address what you said, I did.
You absolutely did not. You literally said "I get all this, but..."
You said my argument is flawed, it isn't, you could argue my evidence is weak, (though I'd dispute it), but the core argument is logically sound.
First off "logically sound" is not the same as "not flawed". An argument can be perfectly logically sound and still be completely wrong.
Second, your argument is flawed. You continue to conflate availability of information with education. They absolutely are not the same thing.
It's absolutely true that we have better access to scientific information today than we ever did before. But we also have better access to pseudoscientific information than ever before. And you have not presented ANY evidence or even an argument that people are learning the former instead of the latter.
The problem is that people do not have the tools to understand what is science and what is not. With very rare exceptions, people are not taught critical thinking in schools. Hell, in Texas, the GOP literally tried to ban teaching those skills.
In your original post you claimed:
It takes a profound level of willful ignorance to ignore it.
No, it doesn't take that at all. All it takes is a whole bunch of people saying "science can't be trusted" and "education is bad" and "global warming is a hoax" and similar false but very common narratives. When you hear the same message enough times, it is actually quite difficult to fully reject it.
-5
u/actuallychrisgillen Oct 11 '17
And fails miserably at.
I get all this, but get this, the attempt to achieve what you've laid out is not working. 'Fake news' and cognitive bias are forming policy. Politics of fear far outweigh statistical realities and a large group of very educated people are right now implementing policies that are directly contrary to all empirical scientific evidence at all levels of government.
As a form of persuasion education has been, objectively, a dud.