tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post6123875659284207005..comments2023-06-15T09:13:45.467-04:00Comments on Liberty's Torch: AntibodiesFrancis W. Porrettohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-48337148568705593112018-11-12T19:01:13.992-05:002018-11-12T19:01:13.992-05:00“Without agreement on the meanings of the words we...“Without agreement on the meanings of the words we use, effective thought and discourse are impossible.”<br /><br />So true! I am a school bus driver for a private company under contract with a wealthy suburban Portland, Oregon school district. The district made its entire staff undergo implicit bias training over the past summer and decided we bus drivers and office staff needed it too last month.<br /><br />I was aware of the bias training garbage but had not seen it up close and personal. The district equity official leading the ‘training’ and using Oregon dept. of ed. materials, started with general stuff about needing us to come to agreement and consensus. That was my opening.<br /><br />So I started asking him to define bias, implicit, and implicit bias. Of course, neither he nor the state official who wrote the darn thing [and to whom I wrote and exchanged a couple emails] could ever come close to providing a clear definition. Let alone how to detect and measure them. Let alone how to define, detect and measure the cause-effect relationship between the alleged implicit bias and the alleged bad things that it allegedly causes.<br /><br />How do we reach agreement and consensus if the words we use have no agreed meaning? I don’t believe it’s possible. There can never be a ‘meeting of the minds.’ [Admittedly, I’m assuming the implicit bias advocates have minds, a fact not yet supported by evidence.]<br /><br />We haven’t had the follow up meeting or been forced to take the implicit bias test/survey yet. Can’t wait for the fun!<br /><br />John Liljegren<br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125534123524622387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-62369617899440020062018-11-12T18:47:13.346-05:002018-11-12T18:47:13.346-05:00“How can we reassert these antibodies of the prepa...“How can we reassert these antibodies of the prepared mind in the educational institutions of today?”<br /><br />We should inculcate in all people, young and old, the practice of asking “How do you know that?”<br /><br />That five-word question has two parts. <br /><br />[1] The last word “that” is a trigger to ask people to state precisely what they are claiming to be true; to dig through the vapid generalities and platitudes to get to something concrete and specific. "What do you mean by that?"<br /><br />[2] “How do you know” pushes the advocate of some ‘truth’ to clarify which of four possible ways of knowing something to be true he is claiming: <br />[2.1] I know it’s true because God revealed it to me;<br />[2.2] . . . because I trust so and so who says it’s true;<br />[2.3] . . . based on the following deductive reasoning; <br />[2.4] . . . based on the following evidence from which I have made the following reasonable inferences.<br /><br />I think asking such a question will reveal that many, many statements of 'fact' are pure nonsense or at least are completely unsupported by evidence or reasoning. This will show that the advocate of such 'facts' has no clue how to prove them to be true.<br /><br />The advocates won't usually rely on #1 [God told me]. And #2 [I trust so and so], just allows us to ask, "Well, then, how does so and so know that it's true?" And ultimately we get to the evidence and reasoning fields of play.<br /><br />One advantage to having this question at hand is that is does not even require a prepared mind. You don't yet need to know history and counter arguments to at least push the advocate to prove his case. I don't mean that's all you need, the history and reasoning skills must be developed. But my five-word question is a good starting point.<br /><br />John LiljegrenUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125534123524622387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-25431187883236132662018-10-28T18:47:00.791-04:002018-10-28T18:47:00.791-04:00"The phenomenon of large numbers of persons d..."The phenomenon of large numbers of persons demanding to be protected from encountering ideas they dislike is a recent thing."<br /><br />I would say it's phenomenon recent in America but not recent per se. I've seen films of Bolshevik show trials, Nazi show trials and Chinese and Cambodian show trials which clearly halted ideas they disliked. They wouldn't even let the defendant speak lest he hurt their virgin ears. I've watched tapes of communist trials where the defendant was verbally and psychologically abused so badly even after admitting his guilt he ran to receive his welcome punishment. BTW, just as the victim was usually an ardent party person who made (or was just accused) one error and this was the result. Kyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16399082135529920025noreply@blogger.com