distinguishing between ducks

Re: unprovable propositions

Colleges haven't been acting "in loco parentis" in a very long time... While you seem in love with the "primal" and "authentic" I would like to point out that for many students, the most primal and authentic part of their face-to-face go away to college experience has more to do with lack of parental supervision than any kind of primal and authentic social interaction with Profs.

"In loco parentis" may be traditional, but free speech and freedom of expression...and the rights of technically "adult" 18 year olds are now thw rule on American campuses.

So I guess even traditional B&M education has moved beyond your ideal.

Elizabeth

 

Re: unprovable propositions

Personally, I don’t give a hoot how you, Mrs. Evans, choose to define a term ex post facto. Why don’t you cite how some dictionaries define the terms “live” or “living?” Do any consider these terms to be synonymous with “face-to-face?”

I also don’t care if you think the spoken word is superior to the written word; if you speak a language of your own design in which you ascribe meanings to words that no one else can fathom, communication becomes impossible.

Personally, I would love to hear your response to the bank teller’s suggestion that he or she doesn't have to give you a receipt for your deposit because the written word can be distorted and gives “a semblance of fixity which is basically false to the real” while the spoken word is superior anyway, and as long as the deposit is “dialogically determined by all parties to the interaction,” there shouldn't ever be a problem.

I have smelled many of my teachers in the past; to put it diplomatically, the experience is vastly overrated. Moreover, I prefer not to touch my teachers, and I’ll be damned if I’ll let them touch my kids or me. Once again, your preference for the methodologies of the Ancient Greeks and the priesthood are extremely disturbing.

I travel frequently, but I make it a point to call home to speak to my wife and kids every night. Are you suggesting that it is better that I simply not call at all because my telephone call is only a representation of the real thing? Why are you under the illusion that parenting and teaching are synonymous? Is that another one the definitions unique to your version of English?

The main problem with distance parenting (and all parents that travel frequently must, to some degree, engage in it) is that you cannot hug and kiss your kids. Surely you are not suggesting that, like the Ancient Greeks and (some misguided individuals in) the priesthood, teachers should also be able to do this. Is this the reason you prefer face-to-face teaching?

But we are not discussing parenting, are we? In English, parenting and teaching are not synonymous.

As I am sure you know, the term "in loco parentis" is Latin for, “you have to be crazy to be a parent.”

Seriously, the concept of "in loco parentis" (in the place of the parents) was never meant to imply that the institution or the teachers were replacements or substitutes for the parents. Neither the institution nor the teachers ever took on true parenting duties or responsibilities. Instead, the concept was solely for the benefit of the institution and the teachers, and was meant to elicit blind obedience from the students. Completely absent was any kind of give-and-take or loving tolerance that is typical of parenting. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), described the situation as follows:

• “The discipline of colleges and universities is in general contrived, not for the benefit of students, but for the interest, or more properly speaking, for the ease of the masters. Its object is, in all cases, to maintain the authority of the master, and whether he neglects or performs his duty, to oblige the students in all cases to behave to him as if he performed it with the greatest diligence and ability. It seems to presume perfect wisdom and virtue in the one order, and the greatest weakness and folly in the other.”

Fortunately (or unfortunately for those who believe as you do), The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Third Edition. 2002) contains the following entry for "in loco parentis."

• ” At one time, colleges and universities acted in loco parentis for their students, but this is no longer true.”

 

"I don't give a hoot..."

It's very difficult to argue sincerely with you since you insist on the use of a reductio ad absurdum of most of my propositions. You clearly don't like the use of anaolgy, even when relevant. But most of all, you just don't give a hoot about the true nature of language (in its relationship to reality) which is totally critical to all educational processes--and that's ok, too, since attending to the truth is just value--can't be measured.

Just make sure that next time Uncle Janko or Jimmy Clifton start with a topic based on their utterly unprovable proposition that God exists, you give them the same treatment.

P.S. It wolud seem highly likely that parenting is (anthropologically) the origin of education, which means etymologically, by the way, " rearing, bringing up, forming," etc.

 

Re: "I don't give a hoot..."

Wait a minute!

First, Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd") is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. As I am definitely not trying to prove your contentions, I am not extracting absurdities from the denial of your propositions. I am simply pointing out how absurd your propositions are, prima facie. Now, if I were to derive an absurdity from the denial of one of my own contentions in an attempt to establish it, then I would be engaging in reductio ad absurdum.

Second, even if I were to indulge in reductio ad absurdum, why would you have a problem with that? Reductio ad absurdum is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy since classical antiquity, and was often used by Aristotle (the name should be familiar to you).

I have to wonder whether you truly didn’t understand the meaning of reductio ad absurdum, Mrs. Evans, or if you are once again simply going out of your way to convince us that you are not your husband, Dr. Richard Evans (who supposedly is fluent in Latin).

I love analogies (when relevant). Clearly it is you who doesn’t like it when others, quite articulately, prove the irrelevancy of your analogies.

Truly you jest, Mrs. Evans. I speak four living (which doesn’t mean “face-to-face”) languages fluently. I have many more faults that are easier and truer targets than being accused of not understanding “the true nature of language." My eloquence speaks for itself.

I don’t get it. Are you trying to equate your cockamamie educational propositions with the existence of God? I guess you are oblivious to the fact that you don’t need help from anyone making your contentions seem absurd.

This is a distance education forum; I try to focus my posts on distance education issues. I’ll ask you once again, Mrs. Evans. Given your contempt for distance education, what are you doing here and what do you hope to accomplish?

What’s your point? Of course parents educate. Does that mean that teachers should or actually parent their students? I think not. Why is that some “teachers” want to do everything but teach? Why do they have such a hard time sticking with what they are being paid to do?