Being that I am on a college campus I see signs and posters advertising "Diversity" everywhere I go. My school even has a an office for 'Student Diversity and Multicultural Affairs' and the student body president who was just elected used diversity as one of her platforms.
I wanted to get the guys' input on 'diversity'. From what I've read (admittedly from conservative sources) 'diversity' carries with it the inherent flaw that racism is made up of, namely that the color of one's skin or one's ethnic background determines a person's thoughts. In other words, a black person will have 'black' thoughts, an Asian will have 'Asian' thoughts, and so on. And the more I think about this, the truer it is. The people who push 'diversity' on campus truly believe in this school of thought that a person's worldview is determined by their skin color or ethnicity. Truer still, at least in my mind, is how similar this is to the blatant racism this country once knew- that blacks were different, and had a different mental capacity, by virtue of being black.
The more I read into 'diversity' the more flawed I see it. However, I believe that people have bought into it and actually do think they have a different world view because they're different. There are undoubtedly black people on my campus who believe they have a different thoughts because they are black; the same goes for other groups who aren't white. But how absurd this is- "you think differently because you're black"- crazy! We're all human- we think the same! Our mental capacity is not different based on our skin color and to think otherwise is insane as I see it.
Here's a good (conservative) source on the subject: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1076&page=NewsAr...
What do you gentleman think of diversity? Is it a good thing or should it be done away with? Thoughts?
Proving my point--he mouthed off into the larger politicized forum. Did that change the actual make-up of full professors in the natural sciences? Nope, not a bit. It's the same as ever.
That conclusion seems to be a bit of a stretch. The fact that the sitting head of a university whose motto translates as "Truth" was censured by a faculty that included the professors of the "natural sciences" for daring to place a hypothesis into discussion at a conference speaks more to the academic elites' worship of "Diversity" than it speaks to the ethnic, social, religious, etc., diversity of the senior "natural sciences" faculty.
It is a stretch. But he has proved that asking scientific questions among those dedicated to knowledge, at the country's - & the world's - top university can open you to political accusations that can destroy you. That by itself suggests that the influence of politics on science should not be discounted, although it would take a lot to prove that natural science - which is science proper - has come under the empire of the democracy.
Before calling for a caudillo, junta, or a dictator, you might consider that the natural sciences have always been dominated by various political and religious dogma.
For several centuries, cosmology was influenced by the creation stories that placed the Earth as the center of the universe.
Prior to the 19th century, the "natural sciences" were referred to as "natural philosophy", since considering the nature of the physical world was merely an extension of inquiry into the nature of man.
In the 19th century, the "natural sciences" became enthralled with the theories of dispassionate experimentation and a corruption of Darwin's Theory of Evolution...which led eventually to Eugenics. Eugenics was used to justify various racist laws, forced sterilization of the "mentally unfit", medical experimentation on humans, and the Nazi Death Camps.
Gee, in that case, since natural science is DOMINATED by such dogmas, we might as well throw the whole process away and let opinion polls handle how medicines are developed.
You're close, just not close enough. Democracy is the main reason medicine is so popular-
I believe corrections are in order. First, what creation stories placed Earth in the center of the universe? Greek astronomers are said to have considered that the sun was in the center of the system of planets, but on what proof? I am no astronomer, but apparently the ancient Ptolemaic system was hard to prove wrong...
The natural sciences were called natural because they offered knowledge of nature. Natural philosophy is redundant, by implication, for philosophy is inquiry into nature. The original philosophers were not political philosophers. They were physicists, to mock the Greek. They are responsible for the introduction of the word nature, whence physics. The later political philosophers, whose original was Socrates, extended the conception of nature to human nature, which has always been doubtful.
But the Latin phrases English has inherited are inevitably imperfect; we take nature to mean physis; science to mean sophia. Perhaps natural history, another Latin phrase, retains the original meaning of history - investigation, inquiry, not necessarily what we call political history.
Now, modern science, the most famous child of Bacon & Descartes & like-minded people, was not in any way an extension of inquiry into human affairs. The modern sciences, both natural & political, were supposed to evolve together, in Bacon's phrase, to relieve man's estate, or in Descartes', to master nature for man's benefit. But they were different things. & they evolved differently. In the age after Newton, it was never required of a scientist in the new sense to understand anything about politics or philosophy. Nor were politic philosophers great scientists after Descartes & Bacon. -- Eventually, the distinction went so far as to suggest that only natural science offered knowledge, but not philosophy. The two were originally one, because they brag about only one model of causation: effective causes. -- To go back to Aristotle, there are two other causes - material & teleological - & a third thing that looks like a cause - the formal cause - that should be understood. Of course, modern science knows no such.
As to details, eugenics was perhaps the last attempt to put scientific & political progress together. It shows the ugliest, but not the most dangerous effect of turning the conquest of nature into conquest of human nature.
As to fundamental principles, scientists like Descartes & Bacon, Hobbes & Locke & Spinoza, or Leibniz & Goethe for that matter, they are not dominated by any kind of political system, because they are first of all serious thinkers, of which there are always very few. But they all agreed science needs to serve a new kind of political science & a new political arrangement. This was still credible to D'Alembert, when he called Descartes, in the Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopedie, a chief of conspirators & the man who broke radically with the Scholatics. It has since become incredible that there is much of a connection between political science & natural science, but it's worth noting that the Enlightenment philosophes saw themselves as heirs to the originators of modern science & considered modernity in thought to be a - successful - conspiracy.
Titus, old son,
I'm not taking your bait.
Fair enough. Until next time, have a good one-
We’re all very different people; we’re not Watusi, we’re not Spartans. We’re Americans, with a capital “A”, huh?
You know what that means? Do ya?
That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every out every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We’re underdogs, we’re mutts! Here’s proof: his nose is cold. But there’s no animal that’s more faithful, that’s more loyal, more loveable than the mutt.
Who saw “Old Yeller?” Who cried when Old Yeller got shot at the end? Nobody cried when Old Yeller got shot?
I cried my eyes out. So we’re all dog faces, we’re all very, very different, but there is one thing that we all have in common: we were all stupid enough to enlist in the Army. We’re mutants, there’s something wrong with us, there’s something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us. We’re soldiers, American soldiers! We’ve been kicking a** for 200 years, we’re 10 and 1. Now we don’t have to worry about whether or not we practiced. We don’t have to worry about whether Captain Diller wants to have us hung. All we have to do-oo is to be the great American fighting soldier that is inside each one of us. Now do what I do, and say what I say. And make me proud.
As an individual within the group, American, it isn't an insult to refer to be as a dog, a junkyard dog even. Guess an individual would need to truly understand diversity to know that to some it is an insult and to others it is sign of endearment. I rest my case in how Diversity is still usefull, when a third party doesn't understand group dynamics and how they will shape an individual and how another individual should, in the general, act and react to them.
Ugly assed mutt, loyal almost to a fault. Never called a coward, impeachable integrity where you know what the dog will do when tasked to do something. He won't win a beauty award, he won't win best in show, hell, your wife will make him stay off the sofa, but you still let him up when she is gone. I've got no problem with that.
the color of your skin does not determine your THOUGHTS.
Of course, and I think we all know that. But those who push 'diversity' as a guise for affirmative action think that skin color gives you special thoughts that other (read: white) people don't inherently have.
Think about it: affirmative action is supposed to admit 'representatives' of non-white races so there's more 'diversity'. It's thought by liberal academics that these 'representatives' share a special viewpoint that needs to be valued. And where does this special viewpoint come from? Well, the color of their skin of course. See what I'm saying?
Peter Schwartz wrote a good article about this titled "The racism of 'diversity'". I posted it in the OP.
For quite a few, it is a competition over who has it worse. War on women. War on black people. War on Christians. War on Muslims. War on the poor. American life is an Oppression Hold 'em Tournament. Let the most downtrodden win.
Atheists may get a chip or two in the game -- but, since most of them seem to be white guys, they're not holding enough cards to stay at the table for too long. Muslims will probably outlast them. Christians keep trying to buy in, but can't yet afford any chips, having long since squandered the capital they got from the lion feedings in Rome. Same with the "reverse racism/sexism" crowd -- all talk, no chips, no cards. White feminists are all-in, but bluffing -- trying to draw an inside straight. Black people, Native Americans and LGBTQ are in for the long haul.
Smart money is on the Schizophrenic Gay Native-American Satanist Transgenders. Holding a royal flush ... she's diverse all by himself.