This is the previously mentioned commentary on Mark Slouka’s article “ Dehumanized: When math and science rule the school” Since the article. Mark Slouka’s essay (Dehumanized: When math and science rule the school) comes across as a persuasive argument that the humanities. Instructor’s Note. This essay is Julia Evanoff’s analysis of Mark. Slouka’s article “ Dehumanized.” Julia does a great job speaking to a general audience that may.
|Published (Last):||14 March 2016|
|PDF File Size:||3.14 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.6 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
If Mark had taken even a few advanced science or math courses, he would not have composed such a well-crafted body of silly statements. Well, we’re all human ;- The evidence says women are safer drivers than men. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS sloika.
Do we not teach astronomy while glossing over Galileo’s house arrest? In his talk on social democracyhistorian Tony Judt identifies the same tendency for the growing disenchantment with governments and the increasing appeal of fringe movements that promise their own variants of justice. I blame nobody but myself, of course.
It is ironic that science alone has never led to devastating results. Most skouka, not one of those worlds seems to be the real one; the one beyond the school parking lot.
Where Slouka is vague is in leaving the impression that somehow math and science have contributed to the dominance of the market in our lives.
At least as I read it, Howard Burton had a free reign here? History as an academic discipline discovers and recounts events, but seldom explains them. Was the idea of contribution to education “cold and calculating? Martha Nussbaum has thought and published plenty about democracy, humanities, science and more. I am also vary of people who go around and just claim ‘you can’t measure this’ or that.
To me it seems like that is what you are advocating with your scare tactics. But I think many of the goals Slouka advocates, with the apparent intention of improving individuals as citizens, are goals I do agree with.
It has never been, and I hope it never will be for it would be a disaster.
Do the laws change when science understands a perspective has been changed? Critical thinking is necessary but not sufficient. Fact is, in most cases you can measure it, and the cases where a system does indeed have observables that are not measureable I don’t think are relevant here.
Conversation: Writer, Professor Mark Slouka on America’s ‘Dehumanized’ Education | PBS NewsHour
Quite a coincidence that there is an article today by Edward Glaeser, professor of economics at Harvard, on the relationship between education and democracy — with an interactive data display.
This sloukz can be and indeed has been applied in the humanities in literature and criticism, in the arts and criticism, in history, and so on. If you are to concur that the strategy was indeed a corporate dehymanized, then the design and structure of this school and it students are a direct result of of a humanitarian effort?
So I would have this turned around to propose to Slouka that its time that the humanities be contextualized as be able to better relate to science, as to once again have them to become relevant respectful of our increased and ever increasing level of understanding. Should that not be the core of education?
At best, Slouka has been the victim of dodgy editing. Governments will form at all levels in human interactions and you can’t wish it away. I disagree with Balasubramaniam in raising science and scientists to heroic status. Others have made the point convincingly as well.
While he is there, he engages the waiter in cultural talk and puzzles. That is the central point he is making and it is well supported. The fact that our evaluative framework has become very economistic and bottom-line oriented has little to do with math and science. Thing is that Slouka actually doesn’t have anything to come up with why the success of humanist education can’t be measured.
Scientists know about the limits of predictability and the inevitability of uncertainty. But it’s extremely unlikely. I was thinking of stocking Kafka quotes for the holidays, lines from Yeats for a buck-fifty. Goodness, from the heart? Or perhaps our curricula are bad. An obvious example of that is the issue of ethics in experimentation. That one cannot run a country only with business oriented people should be clear, so I am wondering about that no-one noticed or is noticing that there.
In some sense even without classification as to being a humanist, such decline could have also be assign toward one not steep in the humanist search for meaning of reason to prevail, but a scientists too. It takes a special feel that only comes with direct acquaintance with the humanities and even spending time with others in these fields to get an inside feel for our inner worlds.
Unable to come up with a quick response and unwilling to petition for a change of venue, I ducked into low-grade irony. We overcame that as well, and I guess an average Brazilian wouldn’t like to hear that one, even though formal education is our most serious issue today. I expected some math HW every day for practice; there is none. Having said this, I think that a sound critical education can reduce the chances of a person doing something really bad.
Hi Bee, Taken together, Slouka makes some bad points and some good points, but he makes both badly. It is a body of knowledge only incidentally. If the Bible were submitted de novo to a publishing house today, it would likely be rejected.
It is so stimulating that I’m having a hard time organizing my thoughts in response. Who is more educated: Pure math and science have been around since the Greeks and were not associated with the manipulation of material things — I had given the example of Bertrand Russell whose love was for the purity of dehumnized Abdus Salam was a scientist in that mould.
Email required Address never made public. More from Mark Slouka: