Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:12 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:15 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 10:19 am
Lefties don't "denigrate teaching history in schools".
Around here, they do. They advocate less and less of it all the time, and only revisionist nonsense they've come up with themselves. They hate history, because it exposes their own history.
Lefties are generally much in favour of history as an academic discipline especially when it is associated with anththropology, geography, and archaeology.
More like the disciplineless "disciplines," like Queer Studies, Women's Studies, Educational Studies...and just about half of the new Humanities pseudo-studies, none of which have an actual specific methodology of their own, but instead try to pirate the various methods of other disciplines and turn them to propagadistic uses. They insist that disciplined subjects, subjects that use logic, data, evidence, science, and so on are just "white privilege" or "male privilege" subjects, and thus should be disregarded. Likewise history: so long as they can play fast-and-loose with the historical facts that are allowed, they'll refer to it selectively; but the minute it crosses them, they'll accuse it of being "too male" or "too white" "being written by the winners" or "supporting colonialism," and deny its value altogether.
As for reportage, higher secondary and tertiary education aims to give students the mental tools to sort the lies from the truths.
That's hilarious. No, that's not what it does. It used to claim to do that. Now it just indoctrinates with "critical consciousness" (their term) which is actually the opposite of critical thinking, though they want you to think it's the same. "Critical consciousness" is nothing but Marxist analysis. Your academic prowess is now measured by your ability to repeat, in various forms, the errant doctrines of a dead, upper-middle-class white male.
Where is "around here" ? Your sample is not large enough .
You don't know that. You don't know where "here" is, or how large.
Humanities disciplines are usually history-based.
That's an odd claim...and not true, of course.
History as an academic discipline has a large component of scientific rigour.
It used to have. Now, it does not. It's been taken over by the Woking Dead. They propose a "new historiography," in which truth doesn't matter. The 1619 Project is a fine example of that.
Your own point of view seems to be that all historians are engaged in trying to influence people.
I never said that. As with all disciplines, there are good and bad, ethical and unethical proponents.
Social sciences are rigorous and psychology in particular makes much use of statistical analysis.
Again, it used to...but now, does not.
Instead, it, like so many other professions, bows to the dictates of a politically-correct ethos in which no truth matters. That's why they're punished by law, in many places, for failing to provide "affirming therapy" to the mentally ill. It has nothing to do with truth, data, science or facts; it's all about political correctness now.
No anthropologist is unaware of the limitations of the craft during fieldwork and there are strategies such as participant observation for making the findings more objective.
Anthropology, even at its best, is extremely unscientific and speculative. It's always been that way. It's a very marginal discipline.
In terms of "hardness" of science, like logic, factuality, data, and evidence, it goes roughly like this: the "hard sciences" are first physics, then chemistry, then biology; then maybe history, psychology, sociology...on the other extreme end used to be anthropology. It's never been a true "hard science." It's always been a bit shady.
Nowadays, it's completely shady. It's deeply infected with neo-Marxist nonsense, and almost nothing that doesn't play that tune gets tenure, publication, lectures, and other academic privileges. Just try to be a conservative thinker in the "soft sciences" today! Good luck if you want any opportunities at all.
And I wasn't talking about you personally. I was just sharing how the academy operates these days. Especially in the Humanities and Education, it's basically a propaganda machine and little more.