Issue 6
"Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated."
The speaker's claim is actually threefold: (1) ensuring the survival of large cities and, in turn,
that of cultural traditions, is a proper function of government; (2) government support is needed
for our large dries and cultural traditions to survive and thrive; and (3) cultural traditions are
preserved and generated primarily in our large cities. I strongly disagree with all three claims.
First of all, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a proper role of govemment. Admittedly,
certain objectives, such as public health and safety, are so essential to the survival of large
dries and of nations that government has a duty to ensure that they are met. However, these
objectives should not extend tenuously to preserving cultural traditions. Moreover, government
cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as cultural patron. Inadequate resources call for
restrictions, priorities, and choices. It is unconscionable to relegate normative decisions as to
which cities or cultural traditions are more deserving, valuable, or needy to a few legislators,
whose notions about culture might be misguided or unrepresentative of those of the general
populace. Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of
their home towns and states, or of lobbyists with the most money and influence.
Secondly, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a necessary role of government. A lack of
private funding might justify an exception. However, culture--by which I chiefly mean the fine
arts--has always depended primarily on the patronage of private individuals and businesses,
and not on the government. The Medicis, a powerful banking family of Renaissance Italy,
supported artists Michelangelo and Raphael. During the 20th Century the primary source of
cultural support were private foundations established by industrial magnates Carnegie, Mellon,
Rockefeller and Getty. And tomorrow cultural support will come from our new technology and
media moguls----including the likes of Ted Turner and Bill Gates. In short, philanthropy is alive
and well today, and so government need not intervene to ensure that our cultural traditions are
preserved and promoted.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the speaker unfairly suggests that large cities serve
as the primary breeding ground and sanctuaries for a nation's cultural traditions. Today a
nation's distinct cultural traditions--its folk art, crafts, traditional songs, customs and
ceremonies--burgeon instead in small towns and rural regions. Admittedly, our cities do serve
as our centers for "high art"; big cities are where we deposit, display, and boast the world's
preeminent art, architecture, and music. But big-city culture has little to do any- more with one
nation's distinct cultural traditions. After all, modern cities are essentially multicultural stew pots;
accordingly, by assisting large cities a government is actually helping to create a global culture
as well to subsidize the traditions of other nations' cultures.
In the final analysis, government cannot philosophically justify assisting large cities for the
purpose of either promoting or preserving the nation's cultural traditions; nor is government
assistance necessary toward these ends. Moreover, assisting large cities would have little
bearing on our distinct cultural traditions, which abide elsewhere.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public
"It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the
public."
I agree with the speaker that it is sometimes necessary, and even desirable, for political
leaders to withhold information from the public. A contrary view would reveal a naivetd about
the inherent nature of public politics, and about the sorts of compromises on the part of
well-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further the public's ultmaate interests.
Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders undue freedom to with-hold information,
otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinnings
of any democratic society.
One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to gain the
opportunity for effective public leadership, a would-be leader must fzrst gain and maintain
political power. In the game of politics, complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and
naivete, neither of which earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which
those opponents will use to every advantage to defeat the politician. In my observation some
measure of pandering to the electorate is necessary to gain and maintain political leadership.
For example, were all politicians to fully disclose every personal foibles, character flaw, and
detail concerning personal life, few honest politicians would ever by elected. While this view
might seem cynical, personal scandals have in fact proven the undoing of many a political
career; thus I think this view is realistic.
Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that fully disclosing to the public
certain types of information would threaten public safety and perhaps even national security.
For example, if the President were to disclose the government's strategies for thwarting
specific plans of an international terrorist or a drug trafficker, those strategies would surely fail,
and the public's health and safety would be compromised as a result. Withholding information
might also be necessary to avoid public panic. While such cases are rare, they do occur
occasionally. For example, during the first few hours of the new millennium the U.S.
Pentagon's missile defense system experienced a Y2K- related malfunction. This fact was
withheld from the public until later in the day, once the problem had been solved; and
legitimately so, since immediate disclosure would have served no useful purpose and might
even have resulted in mass hysteria.
Having recognized that withholding informarion from the public is often necessary to serve
the interests of that public, legitimate political leadership nevertheless requires forthrightness
with the citizenry as to the leader's motives and agenda. History informs us that would-be
leaders who lack such forthrightness are the same ones who seize and maintain power either
by brute force or by demagoguery--that is, by deceiving and manipulating the citizenry.
Paragons such as Genghis Khan and Hitler, respectively, come immediately to mind. Any
democratic society should of course abhor demagoguery, which operates against the
democratic principle of government by the people. Consider also less egregious examples,
such as President Nixon's withholding of information about his active role in the Watergate
cover-up. His behavior demonstrated a concern for self- interest above the broader interests of
the democratic system that granted his political authority in the first place.
In sum, the game of politics calls for a certain amount of disingenuousness and lack of
forthrightness that we might otherwise characterize as dishonesty. And such behavior is a
necessary means to the final objective of effective political leadership. Nevertheless, in any
democracy a leader who relies chiefly on deception and secrecy to preserve that leadership, to
advance a private agenda, or to conceal selfish motives, betrays the democracy-and ends up
forfeiting the polirical game.
public."
I agree with the speaker that it is sometimes necessary, and even desirable, for political
leaders to withhold information from the public. A contrary view would reveal a naivetd about
the inherent nature of public politics, and about the sorts of compromises on the part of
well-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further the public's ultmaate interests.
Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders undue freedom to with-hold information,
otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinnings
of any democratic society.
One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to gain the
opportunity for effective public leadership, a would-be leader must fzrst gain and maintain
political power. In the game of politics, complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and
naivete, neither of which earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which
those opponents will use to every advantage to defeat the politician. In my observation some
measure of pandering to the electorate is necessary to gain and maintain political leadership.
For example, were all politicians to fully disclose every personal foibles, character flaw, and
detail concerning personal life, few honest politicians would ever by elected. While this view
might seem cynical, personal scandals have in fact proven the undoing of many a political
career; thus I think this view is realistic.
Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that fully disclosing to the public
certain types of information would threaten public safety and perhaps even national security.
For example, if the President were to disclose the government's strategies for thwarting
specific plans of an international terrorist or a drug trafficker, those strategies would surely fail,
and the public's health and safety would be compromised as a result. Withholding information
might also be necessary to avoid public panic. While such cases are rare, they do occur
occasionally. For example, during the first few hours of the new millennium the U.S.
Pentagon's missile defense system experienced a Y2K- related malfunction. This fact was
withheld from the public until later in the day, once the problem had been solved; and
legitimately so, since immediate disclosure would have served no useful purpose and might
even have resulted in mass hysteria.
Having recognized that withholding informarion from the public is often necessary to serve
the interests of that public, legitimate political leadership nevertheless requires forthrightness
with the citizenry as to the leader's motives and agenda. History informs us that would-be
leaders who lack such forthrightness are the same ones who seize and maintain power either
by brute force or by demagoguery--that is, by deceiving and manipulating the citizenry.
Paragons such as Genghis Khan and Hitler, respectively, come immediately to mind. Any
democratic society should of course abhor demagoguery, which operates against the
democratic principle of government by the people. Consider also less egregious examples,
such as President Nixon's withholding of information about his active role in the Watergate
cover-up. His behavior demonstrated a concern for self- interest above the broader interests of
the democratic system that granted his political authority in the first place.
In sum, the game of politics calls for a certain amount of disingenuousness and lack of
forthrightness that we might otherwise characterize as dishonesty. And such behavior is a
necessary means to the final objective of effective political leadership. Nevertheless, in any
democracy a leader who relies chiefly on deception and secrecy to preserve that leadership, to
advance a private agenda, or to conceal selfish motives, betrays the democracy-and ends up
forfeiting the polirical game.
The video camera provides such an accurate and convincing record of contemporary life...
"The video camera provides such an accurate and convincing record of contemporary life that
it has become a more important form of documentation than written records."
According to the speaker, the video recording is a more important means of document hag
contemporary life than a written record because video recordings are more accurate and
convincing. Although I agree that a video provides a more objective and accurate record of an
event's spatial aspects, there is far more to document ha life than what we see and hear. Thus
the speaker overstates the comparative significance of video as a documentary tool.
For the purpose of documenting temporal, spatial events and experiences, I agree that a
video record is usually more accurate and more convincing than a written record. It is
impossible for anyone, no matter how keen an observer and skilled a journalist, to recount ha
complete and objective detail such events as the winning touchdown at the Super Bowl, a
Ballanchine ballet, the Tournament of Roses Parade, or the scene at the intersection of
Florence and Normandy streets during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Yet these are important
events in contemporary life the sort of events we might put ha a time capsule for the purpose
of capturing our life and times at the turn of this millennium.
The growing documentary role of video is not limited to seminal events like those described
above. Video surveillance cameras are objective witnesses with perfect memories. Thus they
can play a vital evidentiary role in legal proceedings--such as those involving robbery, drug
trafficking, police misconduct, motor vehicle violations, and even malpractice in a hospital
operating room. Indeed, whenever moving images are central to an event the video camera is
superior to the written word. A written description of a hurricane, tornado, or volcanic eruption
cannot convey its immediate power and awesome nature like a video record. A diary entry
cannot "replay" that wedding reception, dance recital, or surprise birthday party as accurately
or objectively as a video record. And a real estate brochure cannot inform about the lighting,
spaciousness, or general ambiance of a featured property nearly as effectively as a video.
Nonetheless, for certain other purposes written records are advantageous to and more
appropriate than video records. For example, certain legal matters are best left to written
documentation: video is of no practical use ha documenting the terms of a complex contractual
agreement, an incorporation, or the establishment of a trust. And video is of little use when it
comes to documenting a person's subjective state of mind, impressions, or reflections of an
event or experience. Indeed, to the extent that personal interpretation adds dimension and
richness to the record, written documentation is actually more important than video.
Finally, a video record is of no use in documenting statistical or other quantitative information.
Returning to the riot example mentioned earlier, imagine relying on a video to document the
financial loss to store owners, the number of police and firefighters involved, and so forth.
Complete and accurate video documentation of such information would require video cameras
at every street corner and in every aisle of every store.
In sum, the speaker's claim overstates the importance of video records, at least to some
extent. When it comes to capturing, storing, and recalling temporal, spatial events, video
records are inherently more objective, accurate, and complete. However, what we view
through a camera lens provides only one dimension of our life and times; written
documentation will always be needed to quantify, demystify, and provide meaning to the world
around us.
it has become a more important form of documentation than written records."
According to the speaker, the video recording is a more important means of document hag
contemporary life than a written record because video recordings are more accurate and
convincing. Although I agree that a video provides a more objective and accurate record of an
event's spatial aspects, there is far more to document ha life than what we see and hear. Thus
the speaker overstates the comparative significance of video as a documentary tool.
For the purpose of documenting temporal, spatial events and experiences, I agree that a
video record is usually more accurate and more convincing than a written record. It is
impossible for anyone, no matter how keen an observer and skilled a journalist, to recount ha
complete and objective detail such events as the winning touchdown at the Super Bowl, a
Ballanchine ballet, the Tournament of Roses Parade, or the scene at the intersection of
Florence and Normandy streets during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Yet these are important
events in contemporary life the sort of events we might put ha a time capsule for the purpose
of capturing our life and times at the turn of this millennium.
The growing documentary role of video is not limited to seminal events like those described
above. Video surveillance cameras are objective witnesses with perfect memories. Thus they
can play a vital evidentiary role in legal proceedings--such as those involving robbery, drug
trafficking, police misconduct, motor vehicle violations, and even malpractice in a hospital
operating room. Indeed, whenever moving images are central to an event the video camera is
superior to the written word. A written description of a hurricane, tornado, or volcanic eruption
cannot convey its immediate power and awesome nature like a video record. A diary entry
cannot "replay" that wedding reception, dance recital, or surprise birthday party as accurately
or objectively as a video record. And a real estate brochure cannot inform about the lighting,
spaciousness, or general ambiance of a featured property nearly as effectively as a video.
Nonetheless, for certain other purposes written records are advantageous to and more
appropriate than video records. For example, certain legal matters are best left to written
documentation: video is of no practical use ha documenting the terms of a complex contractual
agreement, an incorporation, or the establishment of a trust. And video is of little use when it
comes to documenting a person's subjective state of mind, impressions, or reflections of an
event or experience. Indeed, to the extent that personal interpretation adds dimension and
richness to the record, written documentation is actually more important than video.
Finally, a video record is of no use in documenting statistical or other quantitative information.
Returning to the riot example mentioned earlier, imagine relying on a video to document the
financial loss to store owners, the number of police and firefighters involved, and so forth.
Complete and accurate video documentation of such information would require video cameras
at every street corner and in every aisle of every store.
In sum, the speaker's claim overstates the importance of video records, at least to some
extent. When it comes to capturing, storing, and recalling temporal, spatial events, video
records are inherently more objective, accurate, and complete. However, what we view
through a camera lens provides only one dimension of our life and times; written
documentation will always be needed to quantify, demystify, and provide meaning to the world
around us.
A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum...
"A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter
college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic
courses to offer."
The speaker would prefer a national curriculum for all children up until college instead of
allowing schools in different regions the freedom to decide on their own curricula. I agree
insofar as some common core curriculum would serve useful purposes for any nation. At the
same time, however, individual states and communities should have some freedom to
augment any such curriculum as they see fit; otherwise, a nation's educational system might
defeat its own purposes in the long tenn.
A national core curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects. First of all,
by providing all children with fundamental skills and knowledge, a common core curriculum
would help ensure that our children grow up to become reasonably informed, productive
members of society. In addition, a common core curriculum would provide a predictable
foundation upon which college administrators and faculty could more easily build curricula and
select course materials for freshmen that are neither below nor above their level of educational
experience. Finally, a core curriculum would ensure that all school-children are taught core
values upon which any democratic society depends to thrive, and even survive--values such
as tolerance of others with different viewpoints, and respect for others.
However, a common curriculum that is also an exdusive one would pose certain problems,
which might outweigh the benefits, noted above. First of all, on what basis would certain
course work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decision-maker? In all
likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are
likely to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to
children--notions that may or may not reflect those of most communities, schools, or parents.
Besides, government officials are notoriously susceptible to influence-peddling by lobbyists
who do not have the best interests of society's children in mind.
Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination of
propaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and one-sided nature undermines
the very purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain text
books, programs, and websites which provide information and perspectives that the
government might wish to suppress--as some sort of threat to its authority and power.
Although this scenario might seem far-fetched, these sorts of concerns are being raised
already at the state level.
Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion of
programs, courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local significance. For
example, California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history of
particular ethnic groups who make up the state's diverse population. A national curriculum
might not allow for this feature, and California's youngsters would be worse off as a result of
their ignorance about the traditions, values, and cultural contributions of all the people whose
citizenship they share.
Finally, it seems to me that imposing a uniform national curriculum would serve to
undermine the authority of parents over their own children, to even a greater extent than
uniform state laws currently do. Admittedly, laws requiring parents to ensure that their children
receive an education that meets certain minimum standards are well-justified, for the reasons
mentioned earlier. However, when such standards are imposed by the state rather than at the
community level parents are left with far less power to participate meaningfully in the
decision-making process. This problem would only be exacerbated were these decisions left
exclusively to federal regulators.
In the final analysis, homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amount
to a double-edged sword. While it would serve as an insurance policy against a future
populated with illiterates and ignoramuses, at the same time it might serve to obliterate cultural
diversity and tradition. The optimal federal approach, in my view, is a balanced one that
imposes a basic curriculum yet leaves the rest up to each state--or better yet, to each
community.
college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic
courses to offer."
The speaker would prefer a national curriculum for all children up until college instead of
allowing schools in different regions the freedom to decide on their own curricula. I agree
insofar as some common core curriculum would serve useful purposes for any nation. At the
same time, however, individual states and communities should have some freedom to
augment any such curriculum as they see fit; otherwise, a nation's educational system might
defeat its own purposes in the long tenn.
A national core curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects. First of all,
by providing all children with fundamental skills and knowledge, a common core curriculum
would help ensure that our children grow up to become reasonably informed, productive
members of society. In addition, a common core curriculum would provide a predictable
foundation upon which college administrators and faculty could more easily build curricula and
select course materials for freshmen that are neither below nor above their level of educational
experience. Finally, a core curriculum would ensure that all school-children are taught core
values upon which any democratic society depends to thrive, and even survive--values such
as tolerance of others with different viewpoints, and respect for others.
However, a common curriculum that is also an exdusive one would pose certain problems,
which might outweigh the benefits, noted above. First of all, on what basis would certain
course work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decision-maker? In all
likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are
likely to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to
children--notions that may or may not reflect those of most communities, schools, or parents.
Besides, government officials are notoriously susceptible to influence-peddling by lobbyists
who do not have the best interests of society's children in mind.
Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination of
propaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and one-sided nature undermines
the very purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain text
books, programs, and websites which provide information and perspectives that the
government might wish to suppress--as some sort of threat to its authority and power.
Although this scenario might seem far-fetched, these sorts of concerns are being raised
already at the state level.
Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion of
programs, courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local significance. For
example, California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history of
particular ethnic groups who make up the state's diverse population. A national curriculum
might not allow for this feature, and California's youngsters would be worse off as a result of
their ignorance about the traditions, values, and cultural contributions of all the people whose
citizenship they share.
Finally, it seems to me that imposing a uniform national curriculum would serve to
undermine the authority of parents over their own children, to even a greater extent than
uniform state laws currently do. Admittedly, laws requiring parents to ensure that their children
receive an education that meets certain minimum standards are well-justified, for the reasons
mentioned earlier. However, when such standards are imposed by the state rather than at the
community level parents are left with far less power to participate meaningfully in the
decision-making process. This problem would only be exacerbated were these decisions left
exclusively to federal regulators.
In the final analysis, homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amount
to a double-edged sword. While it would serve as an insurance policy against a future
populated with illiterates and ignoramuses, at the same time it might serve to obliterate cultural
diversity and tradition. The optimal federal approach, in my view, is a balanced one that
imposes a basic curriculum yet leaves the rest up to each state--or better yet, to each
community.
No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge...
I strongly agree with the assertion that significant advances in knowledge require expertise
from various fields. The world around us presents a seamless web of physical and
anthropogenic forces, which interact in ways that can be understood only in the context of a
variety of disciplines. Two examples that aptly illustrate this point involve the fields of cultural
anthropology and astronomy.
Consider how a cultural anthropologist's knowledge about an ancient civilization is
enhanced not only by the expertise of the archeologist--who unearths the evidence--but
ultimately by the expertise of biochemists, geologists, linguists, and even astronomers. By
analyzing the hair, nails, blood and bones of mummified bodies, biochemists and forensic
scientists can determine the life expectancy, general well-being, and common causes of death
of the population. These experts can also ensure the proper preservation of evidence found at
the archeological site. A geologist can help identify the source and age of the materials used
for tools, weapons, and structures--thereby enabling the anthropologist to extrapolate about
the civilization's economy, trades and work habits, life styles, extent of travel and mobility, and
so forth. Linguists are needed to interpret hieroglyphics and extrapolate from found fragments
of writings. And an astronomer can help explain the layout of an ancient city as well as the
design, structure and position of monuments, tombs, and temples--since ancients often looked
to the stars for guidance in building cities and structures.
An even more striking example of how expertise in diverse fields is needed to advance
knowledge involves the area of astronomy and space exploration. Significant advancements in
our knowledge of the solar system and the universe require increasingly keen tools for
observation and measurement. Telescope technology and the measurement of celestial
distances, masses, volumes, and so forth, are the domain of astrophysicists.
These advances also require increasingly sophisticated means of exploration. Manned and
unmanned exploratory probes are designed by mechanical, electrical, and computer
engineers. And to build and enable these technologies requires the acumen and savvy of
business leaders, managers, and politicians. Even diplomats might play a role--insofar as
major space projects require intemafional cooperative efforts among the world's scientists and
governments. And ultimately it is our philosophers whose expertise helps provide meaning to
what we learn about our universe.
In sum, no area ofinteUectual inquiry operates in a vacuum. Because the sciences are
inextricably related, to advance our knowledge in any one area we must understand the
interplay among them all. Moreover, it is our non-scienfists who make possible the science,
and who bring meaning to what we learn from it.
from various fields. The world around us presents a seamless web of physical and
anthropogenic forces, which interact in ways that can be understood only in the context of a
variety of disciplines. Two examples that aptly illustrate this point involve the fields of cultural
anthropology and astronomy.
Consider how a cultural anthropologist's knowledge about an ancient civilization is
enhanced not only by the expertise of the archeologist--who unearths the evidence--but
ultimately by the expertise of biochemists, geologists, linguists, and even astronomers. By
analyzing the hair, nails, blood and bones of mummified bodies, biochemists and forensic
scientists can determine the life expectancy, general well-being, and common causes of death
of the population. These experts can also ensure the proper preservation of evidence found at
the archeological site. A geologist can help identify the source and age of the materials used
for tools, weapons, and structures--thereby enabling the anthropologist to extrapolate about
the civilization's economy, trades and work habits, life styles, extent of travel and mobility, and
so forth. Linguists are needed to interpret hieroglyphics and extrapolate from found fragments
of writings. And an astronomer can help explain the layout of an ancient city as well as the
design, structure and position of monuments, tombs, and temples--since ancients often looked
to the stars for guidance in building cities and structures.
An even more striking example of how expertise in diverse fields is needed to advance
knowledge involves the area of astronomy and space exploration. Significant advancements in
our knowledge of the solar system and the universe require increasingly keen tools for
observation and measurement. Telescope technology and the measurement of celestial
distances, masses, volumes, and so forth, are the domain of astrophysicists.
These advances also require increasingly sophisticated means of exploration. Manned and
unmanned exploratory probes are designed by mechanical, electrical, and computer
engineers. And to build and enable these technologies requires the acumen and savvy of
business leaders, managers, and politicians. Even diplomats might play a role--insofar as
major space projects require intemafional cooperative efforts among the world's scientists and
governments. And ultimately it is our philosophers whose expertise helps provide meaning to
what we learn about our universe.
In sum, no area ofinteUectual inquiry operates in a vacuum. Because the sciences are
inextricably related, to advance our knowledge in any one area we must understand the
interplay among them all. Moreover, it is our non-scienfists who make possible the science,
and who bring meaning to what we learn from it.
We can usually learn much more from people...
Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in common than from those whose ideas contradict ours? The speaker daims so, for the reason that disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning. I concede that undue discord can impede learning. Otherwise, in my view we learn far more from discourse and debate with those whose ideas we oppose than from people whose ideas are in accord with our own.
Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductive to learning. For supporting examples one need look no further than a television set. On today's typical television or radio talk show, disagreement usually manifests itself in meaningless rhetorical bouts and shouting matches, during which opponents vie to have their own message heard, but have little interest either in finding common ground with or in acknowledging the merits of the opponent's viewpoint. Understandably, neither the combatants nor the viewers learn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles only serve to reinforce the predispositions and biases of all concerned. The end result is that learning is impeded.
Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamental assumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate. For example, a student of paleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under current study by debating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility of evolution to begin with. And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of a laissez-faire system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a centrv2ized power should control all economic activity.
Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker's claim. Assuming common ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing to debate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it is primarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal, community, or global level.
At the personal level, by listening to their parents' rationale for their seemingly oppressive rules and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certain undesirable consequences. At the same time, by listening to their teenagers concerns about autonomy and about peer pressures parents can learn the valuable lesson that effective parenting and control are two different things. At the community level, through dispassionate dialogue an environmental activist can come to understand the legitimate economic concerns of those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, the latter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid by ensuring job growth and a low unemployment rate. Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposing political or economic interests can reach mutually beneficial agreements by striving to understand the other's legitimate concerns for its national security, its political sovereignty, the stability of its economy and currency, and so forth.
In sum, unless two opponents in a debate are each willing to play on the same field and by the same rules, I concede that disagreement can impede learning. Otherwise, reasoned discourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very foundation upon which human knowledge advances. Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentally correct.
Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductive to learning. For supporting examples one need look no further than a television set. On today's typical television or radio talk show, disagreement usually manifests itself in meaningless rhetorical bouts and shouting matches, during which opponents vie to have their own message heard, but have little interest either in finding common ground with or in acknowledging the merits of the opponent's viewpoint. Understandably, neither the combatants nor the viewers learn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles only serve to reinforce the predispositions and biases of all concerned. The end result is that learning is impeded.
Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamental assumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate. For example, a student of paleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under current study by debating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility of evolution to begin with. And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of a laissez-faire system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a centrv2ized power should control all economic activity.
Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker's claim. Assuming common ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing to debate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it is primarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal, community, or global level.
At the personal level, by listening to their parents' rationale for their seemingly oppressive rules and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certain undesirable consequences. At the same time, by listening to their teenagers concerns about autonomy and about peer pressures parents can learn the valuable lesson that effective parenting and control are two different things. At the community level, through dispassionate dialogue an environmental activist can come to understand the legitimate economic concerns of those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, the latter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid by ensuring job growth and a low unemployment rate. Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposing political or economic interests can reach mutually beneficial agreements by striving to understand the other's legitimate concerns for its national security, its political sovereignty, the stability of its economy and currency, and so forth.
In sum, unless two opponents in a debate are each willing to play on the same field and by the same rules, I concede that disagreement can impede learning. Otherwise, reasoned discourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very foundation upon which human knowledge advances. Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentally correct.
Gorgeous Sentense
It is this hard life, forging its strong will, tempering its strong vitality.
正是这种艰苦的生活，锻造了藏獒坚强的意志，砥砺了顽强的生命力。
In the river of memories, I am a meandering fish summoning for ancient enticement with peerless beauty.
记忆的河流中，我是一条逶迤游动的鱼，用绝色的柔美呼唤亘古的诱惑
2. In nowadays American society, many persons juggle between their families and career commitments and spread themselves too thin in a single day.
在如今的美国社会，很多人都同时奔波在家庭和工作事物之间，试图在一天中做很多的工作。
3. As the Member of Parliament who was behind the Bill said that “the tension of trying to juggle paid work and family responsibility is taking a huge toll on families today.
诚如那位提出该项立法动议的绿党国会议员所说：“上班挣钱和家庭责任之间奔波，其中的压力已经让许许多多的家庭付出了代价。”
4. Those stories happened when one is young and rash are like freshly sliced lemons, and the acerbic fragrance they give out immerge slowly into the lines of history.
年少轻狂的故事，像一片片刚切下的新鲜的柠檬，散发出青青涩涩的清香，在岁月的字里行间淡淡飘逸。
1. The playwright allows an acerbic tone to pierce through otherwise arid or flowery prose.
剧作家允许在枯燥或华丽的散文中插入刻薄的语调。
2. Blunt and acerbic, Lindzen ill-tolerates na?veté.So it was with considerable trepidation recently that I parked in the driveway of his suburban home.
直言不讳且言辞犀利的林德生不太能容忍天真幼稚的看法，因此不久前当我在他郊区住家的车道上停车时，心里是非常战战兢兢的。
Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.
宗教的论争总是比来自其他原因的论争产生更多恶毒和不可协调的仇恨。
Love is a chord in life,not a solo.
爱是人生的和弦，不是孤独的独奏曲。
The refinery is nestled on a bank of hills right next to the San Francisco Bay. It's a Byzantine complex of tanks, steam boilers and 8,000 miles of piping. The refinery produces jet fuel, gasoline and diesel.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121974899
My most valuable personal merits are the immergence and outlook of technology,
我最大的优点是乐于助人，对事情专注，对技术追求。
No undercover air marshal was onboard the flight, and passengers and crew subdued the suspect and tamped out a fire after Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to set off the bomb.
A quite conscience sleeps in thunder, but rest and guilt live far asunder.
平静的良心能在雷声中入睡，而安宁和负罪则无法毗邻。
No gall , No glory; No cross , No crown !
没有磨难，何来荣耀；没有挫折，何来辉煌！
Is it a bit of a stretch to presume acidity would have been at different levels in prehistoric times. So it's not too much of a stretch to claim that pre-human forms of laughter may exist.
所以我们就不难延伸，人类初期也可能存在着表示笑声的方式。
Cavil will enter in at any hole, and if it finds none it will make one.
苛责简直无孔不入，没孔也能挖个洞；欲加之罪，何患无词。
Genuine innovations are often serendipitous and rudely challenge the established order.
真正的创新，往往来自偶然的发现，而且强烈地挑战现有秩序。
Don't jump to a conclusion before considering all the facts. Be circumspect.
没有考虑所有事实之前,不要匆忙下结论。要谨慎小心。
A person,who is imperious and tries to gloss over his fault,is bound to suffer in the end.
专横跋扈、文过饰非的人到头来总是要吃亏的。
Be tolerant to others within the lines of your principle? Never push others to dead end.
She dubs her most popular racer Frankenstein because he wears a hideous mask to cover supposedly mutilated, stitched-together features.
The potent oxytoic effect of prostaglandins has been used to induce abortion and labor in women.
The award was a fitting tribute to her years of devoted work.
这项嘉奖是对她多年辛勤工作恰如其分的致敬。
China has too many missed opportunities, the Internet Age, the Chinese can not afford to miss.
中国已经错过了太多的机会，网络时代，中国不可以再错过。
正是这种艰苦的生活，锻造了藏獒坚强的意志，砥砺了顽强的生命力。
In the river of memories, I am a meandering fish summoning for ancient enticement with peerless beauty.
记忆的河流中，我是一条逶迤游动的鱼，用绝色的柔美呼唤亘古的诱惑
2. In nowadays American society, many persons juggle between their families and career commitments and spread themselves too thin in a single day.
在如今的美国社会，很多人都同时奔波在家庭和工作事物之间，试图在一天中做很多的工作。
3. As the Member of Parliament who was behind the Bill said that “the tension of trying to juggle paid work and family responsibility is taking a huge toll on families today.
诚如那位提出该项立法动议的绿党国会议员所说：“上班挣钱和家庭责任之间奔波，其中的压力已经让许许多多的家庭付出了代价。”
4. Those stories happened when one is young and rash are like freshly sliced lemons, and the acerbic fragrance they give out immerge slowly into the lines of history.
年少轻狂的故事，像一片片刚切下的新鲜的柠檬，散发出青青涩涩的清香，在岁月的字里行间淡淡飘逸。
1. The playwright allows an acerbic tone to pierce through otherwise arid or flowery prose.
剧作家允许在枯燥或华丽的散文中插入刻薄的语调。
2. Blunt and acerbic, Lindzen ill-tolerates na?veté.So it was with considerable trepidation recently that I parked in the driveway of his suburban home.
直言不讳且言辞犀利的林德生不太能容忍天真幼稚的看法，因此不久前当我在他郊区住家的车道上停车时，心里是非常战战兢兢的。
Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.
宗教的论争总是比来自其他原因的论争产生更多恶毒和不可协调的仇恨。
Love is a chord in life,not a solo.
爱是人生的和弦，不是孤独的独奏曲。
The refinery is nestled on a bank of hills right next to the San Francisco Bay. It's a Byzantine complex of tanks, steam boilers and 8,000 miles of piping. The refinery produces jet fuel, gasoline and diesel.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121974899
My most valuable personal merits are the immergence and outlook of technology,
我最大的优点是乐于助人，对事情专注，对技术追求。
No undercover air marshal was onboard the flight, and passengers and crew subdued the suspect and tamped out a fire after Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to set off the bomb.
A quite conscience sleeps in thunder, but rest and guilt live far asunder.
平静的良心能在雷声中入睡，而安宁和负罪则无法毗邻。
No gall , No glory; No cross , No crown !
没有磨难，何来荣耀；没有挫折，何来辉煌！
Is it a bit of a stretch to presume acidity would have been at different levels in prehistoric times. So it's not too much of a stretch to claim that pre-human forms of laughter may exist.
所以我们就不难延伸，人类初期也可能存在着表示笑声的方式。
Cavil will enter in at any hole, and if it finds none it will make one.
苛责简直无孔不入，没孔也能挖个洞；欲加之罪，何患无词。
Genuine innovations are often serendipitous and rudely challenge the established order.
真正的创新，往往来自偶然的发现，而且强烈地挑战现有秩序。
Don't jump to a conclusion before considering all the facts. Be circumspect.
没有考虑所有事实之前,不要匆忙下结论。要谨慎小心。
A person,who is imperious and tries to gloss over his fault,is bound to suffer in the end.
专横跋扈、文过饰非的人到头来总是要吃亏的。
Be tolerant to others within the lines of your principle? Never push others to dead end.
She dubs her most popular racer Frankenstein because he wears a hideous mask to cover supposedly mutilated, stitched-together features.
The potent oxytoic effect of prostaglandins has been used to induce abortion and labor in women.
The award was a fitting tribute to her years of devoted work.
这项嘉奖是对她多年辛勤工作恰如其分的致敬。
China has too many missed opportunities, the Internet Age, the Chinese can not afford to miss.
中国已经错过了太多的机会，网络时代，中国不可以再错过。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)