Philosophy Now Forum

I caught an article saying that the Univ. of Toronto is teaching an anti-vaccination course. I presume this institution is accredited (unless someone can tell me otherwise).

Who actually sets the standard for an accredited institution on what can be taught? Can any course be offered IF it doesn't lead to a degree?

Here's the article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... ice=mobile

There's more to this story:

http://boingboing.net/2015/07/13/univer ... holds.html

PhilX

well its not like an anthropology department is going to teach anything other than bullshit anyway

as long as you assume that it is ok to have an anthropology department, then its ok teach any short of shit as long as its done by the anthropology department

U of T can measure up to any university in the world, as can McGill. Don't judge a school by it's tolerance of academic freedom, except in a positive light, no matter how quirky outlying courses may be. Schools teach you to research and think critically, first and foremost. And crap courses like this will test and develop those skills by allowing students to accept or reject what they may hear in it, based on those skills.

Think about it for a moment. If you are exposed to only truth as we see it, how do you learn critical skills, unless exposed to falsehoods, or shaky theories, and the opportunity to dismantle them? ie. Be exposed to bullshit in order to recognize it, and cut through it. Think of it as a bullshit 'vaccine'. Ironic, isn't it?

Kayla wrote:well its not like an anthropology department is going to teach anything other than bullshit anyway

as long as you assume that it is ok to have an anthropology department, then its ok teach any short of shit as long as its done by the anthropology department

Anthropology has its place in academia, Kayla. Why the low opinion of it?

Dalek Prime wrote:U of T can measure up to any university in the world, as can McGill. Don't judge a school by it's tolerance of academic freedom, except in a positive light, no matter how quirky outlying courses may be. Schools teach you to research and think critically, first and foremost. And crap courses like this will test and develop those skills by allowing students to accept or reject what they may hear in it, based on those skills.

Think about it for a moment. If you are exposed to only truth as we see it, how do you learn critical skills, unless exposed to falsehoods, or shaky theories, and the opportunity to dismantle them? ie. Be exposed to bullshit in order to recognize it, and cut through it. Think of it as a bullshit 'vaccine'. Ironic, isn't it?

using this reasoning, academic freedom would allow a biology professor to teach young earth creationism

or an engineering professor teach that putting honey in internal combustion engines makes them working better

what you are saying might have made sense if there was a course, say, where students were told upfront that half of it is bullshit and they would be marked on the ability to identify it

i remember reading my older brother's anthropology textbook

there it talked about how western imperialist colonizers condemned head-hunting, because they did not understand its cultural significance

if that is not bullshit i dont know what is

Kayla wrote:i remember reading my older brother's anthropology textbook

there it talked about how western imperialist colonizers condemned head-hunting, because they did not understand its cultural significance

if that is not bullshit i dont know what is

And there you have it, Kayla. You just used critical thinking to cut through bullshit when you see it. So, where's the harm in academic freedom?

I'm a fairly laid-back guy, but I fear for the future when people who claim to be liberal actually want to control exactly what you learn, and the way you learn it. You really believe you're one of the few who can see through bullshit, while most others can't? That makes you very special indeed. Now, off you go to protect the rest of us, then....

Hey, if I want to learn about the Chinese zodiac in an academic setting, who are you to say no?

And don't give me crap about engineering. It gets pretty clear pretty fast if a structure collapses because they neglected to teach gravity's involvement.

depends on what you mean by academic freedom

surely there must be some measure of quality in teaching? how do you reconcile that with academic freedom?

if an engineering professor teaches that honey makes internal combustion work better, surely we can say that he donesnt know what he is talking about

likewise for a medicine professor who teaches that homeopathic medicine actually works better than placebo

seems like there have to be some limits on academic freedom (kind of like here have to be limits on other kinds of freedom - no one but a lunatic advocates unlimited freedom in all things

Hey, it's your choice. Go protest the U of T. I'm sure others are. Go tell your fellow students "No! I must protect your little minds!"

i had a high school science teacher who told the class that the reason the deep-water fish are flat is because of the water pressure

should she be permitted to teach this because academic freedom

or fired for incompetence?

or am i being arrogant for so casually believing in my superior knowledge of science?

the same teacher also threw a fit of temperament when she asked the class how the deep-water fish deal with the pressure, and i said "lots of vodka and valium"

Kayla wrote:depends on what you mean by academic freedom

surely there must be some measure of quality in teaching? how do you reconcile that with academic freedom?

if an engineering professor teaches that honey makes internal combustion work better, surely we can say that he donesnt know what he is talking about

likewise for a medicine professor who teaches that homeopathic medicine actually works better than placebo

seems like there have to be some limits on academic freedom (kind of like here have to be limits on other kinds of freedom - no one but a lunatic advocates unlimited freedom in all things

And where does your limiting of freedom stop, Kayla?

Kayla wrote:i had a high school science teacher who told the class that the reason the deep-water fish are flat is because of the water pressure

should she be permitted to teach this because academic freedom

or fired for incompetence?

or am i being arrogant for so casually believing in my superior knowledge of science?

the same teacher also threw a fit of temperament when she asked the class how the deep-water fish deal with the pressure, and i said "lots of vodka and valium"

Incompetence does not equal academic freedom.

Dalek Prime wrote: And where does your limiting of freedom stop, Kayla?

i would say limiting the freedom of professors of medicine teaching that magic (which is what homeopathy amounts to) works is a pretty good place

or calling one's ex wife and threatening to kill her and her child

or yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre

hope this gives you some idea

Dalek Prime wrote: Incompetence does not equal academic freedom.

thats kind of what i was getting at

teaching that homeopathy works or that honey makes engines run better or deepwater fish are flat because of water pressure - that indicates incompetence

Kayla wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: And where does your limiting of freedom stop, Kayla?

i would say limiting the freedom of professors of medicine teaching that magic (which is what homeopathy amounts to) works is a pretty good place

or calling one's ex wife and threatening to kill her and her child

or yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre

hope this gives you some idea

Let's leave it at academic freedom, shall we? Why don't you audit the course and hear what's actually said? Or, just don't take the course and let it fade into obscurity, as stupid courses will? Point being, if I wanted to take it, why the heck should you be allowed to stop me?