DeSantis to transform New College of Florida into "Hillsdale of the South"

[dismalist]

The falsifiability criterion is rather more complex and contentious than it seems, and the discussion around it is ongoing, although my sense is that most philosophers of science nowadays think it's neither necessary nor sufficient, especially given how assumptions and theories nest across the sciences. One good counterexample, from Kuhn, is that astrology is plenty falsifiable--and much of it is plenty accurate, too. And yet...

I doubt DeSantis and his toadies are deploying a very sophisticated understanding of 'theory', though. What matters is probably whether that word occurs in the name.

It seems to me that post-Popperian philosophers of science are not refuting falsifiability, but perhaps exploring something additional. Kuhn's distinction between normal and revolutionary science is unthinkable without falsification. Lakatos' research programs evolve, and are or become progressive or degenerate, but along the way there is empirical refutation.  Merton is doing the sociology of science, which is fine.

I can't find a source for the claim that astrology has made plenty of accurate predictions. Kuhn apparently did say that astrology didn't offer up enough puzzles to solve.

Lakatos, the ex Marxist, claims that Marxism was once scientific, in that it made predictions [impoverishment of the working class, e.g.], but they have been refuted. Later Marxists added theory after the fact, becoming unfalsifiable. Critical Race Theory is a variant of Marxism and unfalsifiable.

Be that as it may, deSantis doesn't want to pay for this stuff. He's not doing the theory of knowledge. He just knows he doesn't want this flavor. Which is fine so long as there is competition. No need to worry about the left not having enough places to learn and teach. :-)

[pondering]

The falsifiability criterion is rather more complex and contentious than it seems, and the discussion around it is ongoing, although my sense is that most philosophers of science nowadays think it's neither necessary nor sufficient, especially given how assumptions and theories nest across the sciences. One good counterexample, from Kuhn, is that astrology is plenty falsifiable--and much of it is plenty accurate, too. And yet...

I doubt DeSantis and his toadies are deploying a very sophisticated understanding of 'theory', though. What matters is probably whether that word occurs in the name.

It seems to me that post-Popperian philosophers of science are not refuting falsifiability, but perhaps exploring something additional. Kuhn's distinction between normal and revolutionary science is unthinkable without falsification. Lakatos' research programs evolve, and are or become progressive or degenerate, but along the way there is empirical refutation.  Merton is doing the sociology of science, which is fine.

I can't find a source for the claim that astrology has made plenty of accurate predictions. Kuhn apparently did say that astrology didn't offer up enough puzzles to solve.

Lakatos, the ex Marxist, claims that Marxism was once scientific, in that it made predictions [impoverishment of the working class, e.g.], but they have been refuted. Later Marxists added theory after the fact, becoming unfalsifiable. Critical Race Theory is a variant of Marxism and unfalsifiable.

Be that as it may, deSantis doesn't want to pay for this stuff. He's not doing the theory of knowledge. He just knows he doesn't want this flavor. Which is fine so long as there is competition. No need to worry about the left not having enough places to learn and teach. :-)

CRT as actually articulated by academics (rather than the invented version demonized daily on Fox News) is no more "Marxist" than it is "Weberian" or "Durkheimian." Sure, it draws on thinkers about group difference, social structures, cultural hegemony, and the state, many of whom have been influenced by Marx - because, as one of the foremost theorists of the relationship between material conditions and human societies, consequent struggles for control of resources within those societies, and the shaping of culture to reflect the ideals of winners within those struggles, Marx's ideas are at the root of much modern social scientific and historical thought. But the same could be said of some of the other key thinkers of the 19th and early 20th centuries, whose ideas inevitably shape all analyses of social and political phenomena. Even if you don't realize it, as soon as you undertake such an analysis (as CRT does) you are likely to parrot some of the ideas of those founders of the various social scientific disciplines. This is not a sign of a political agenda, but an inevitable condition of social scientific inquiry.

But when Republicans talk about "Marx" they're not referring to Marx the social scientist (about whom they have zero knowledge or interest), but Marx the political activist, and - even more so - later politicians (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) who claimed the mantle of Marx and used it, amid other justifications, to carry out genocidal atrocities. It is a dishonest elision. I say this as a person with center-right politics who can nevertheless appreciate the contributions of Marx (and Durkheim, and Weber...) to the shared conceptual apparatus of the humanities and social sciences.

[dismalist]

The falsifiability criterion is rather more complex and contentious than it seems, and the discussion around it is ongoing, although my sense is that most philosophers of science nowadays think it's neither necessary nor sufficient, especially given how assumptions and theories nest across the sciences. One good counterexample, from Kuhn, is that astrology is plenty falsifiable--and much of it is plenty accurate, too. And yet...

I doubt DeSantis and his toadies are deploying a very sophisticated understanding of 'theory', though. What matters is probably whether that word occurs in the name.

It seems to me that post-Popperian philosophers of science are not refuting falsifiability, but perhaps exploring something additional. Kuhn's distinction between normal and revolutionary science is unthinkable without falsification. Lakatos' research programs evolve, and are or become progressive or degenerate, but along the way there is empirical refutation.  Merton is doing the sociology of science, which is fine.

I can't find a source for the claim that astrology has made plenty of accurate predictions. Kuhn apparently did say that astrology didn't offer up enough puzzles to solve.

Lakatos, the ex Marxist, claims that Marxism was once scientific, in that it made predictions [impoverishment of the working class, e.g.], but they have been refuted. Later Marxists added theory after the fact, becoming unfalsifiable. Critical Race Theory is a variant of Marxism and unfalsifiable.

Be that as it may, deSantis doesn't want to pay for this stuff. He's not doing the theory of knowledge. He just knows he doesn't want this flavor. Which is fine so long as there is competition. No need to worry about the left not having enough places to learn and teach. :-)

CRT as actually articulated by academics (rather than the invented version demonized daily on Fox News) is no more "Marxist" than it is "Weberian" or "Durkheimian." Sure, it draws on thinkers about group difference, social structures, cultural hegemony, and the state, many of whom have been influenced by Marx - because, as one of the foremost theorists of the relationship between material conditions and human societies, consequent struggles for control of resources within those societies, and the shaping of culture to reflect the ideals of winners within those struggles, Marx's ideas are at the root of much modern social scientific and historical thought. But the same could be said of some of the other key thinkers of the 19th and early 20th centuries, whose ideas inevitably shape all analyses of social and political phenomena. Even if you don't realize it, as soon as you undertake such an analysis (as CRT does) you are likely to parrot some of the ideas of those founders of the various social scientific disciplines. This is not a sign of a political agenda, but an inevitable condition of social scientific inquiry.

But when Republicans talk about "Marx" they're not referring to Marx the social scientist (about whom they have zero knowledge or interest), but Marx the political activist, and - even more so - later politicians (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) who claimed the mantle of Marx and used it, amid other justifications, to carry out genocidal atrocities. It is a dishonest elision. I say this as a person with center-right politics who can nevertheless appreciate the contributions of Marx (and Durkheim, and Weber...) to the shared conceptual apparatus of the humanities and social sciences.

Alas, that is wrong. CRT is Marxism with race substituted for class. Such ideas were not uncommon in the early 1900's, and one guy really picked up on them -- and succeeded in creating a catastrophe.

I don't see any institution able in the US of A to eliminate competition in thought -- in contrast to the times and places of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, so deSantis is merely saying: I'm not paying for this flavor of Cola. No one need scientifically justify why they don't buy Coke, but Pepsi instead. It's no different here. If there is any danger of eliminating competition, it comes form the other side.

There must not be a unitary political determination of what the correct, or even allowable, theories are. And the politics here are not a threat on account they're not unitary: We got lot's of colleges and many States. Plenty of competition in knowledge production. Go for it!

[Parasaurolophus]

This veers perhaps a little too far off-topic, so I'll confine myself to just a quick reply:

It seems to me that post-Popperian philosophers of science are not refuting falsifiability, but perhaps exploring something additional. Kuhn's distinction between normal and revolutionary science is unthinkable without falsification. Lakatos' research programs evolve, and are or become progressive or degenerate, but along the way there is empirical refutation.  Merton is doing the sociology of science, which is fine.

As I recall, early criticism (from the likes of Kuhn, Duhème, etc.) focused on the fact that falsifiability isn't a sufficient criterion. Since then, the issue has been more about whether it's necessary (and, indeed, the extent to which it's an appropriate criterion across the sciences). In the '90s and aughts, a fair bit of hay was made of the (perhaps uncharitable fact) that any theory that makes demonstrably false claims is, in fact, falsifiable (and, thus, a science).

That said, I'm not a philosopher of science, even if I dip in the occasional toe.

I can't find a source for the claim that astrology has made plenty of accurate predictions. Kuhn apparently did say that astrology didn't offer up enough puzzles to solve.

Most of astrology involves calculating the positions (or timing) of various celestial phenomena, which it does just fine. The fortune-telling that we associate with it is really just the tip of the iceberg.

[dismalist]

This veers perhaps a little too far off-topic, so I'll confine myself to just a quick reply:

It seems to me that post-Popperian philosophers of science are not refuting falsifiability, but perhaps exploring something additional. Kuhn's distinction between normal and revolutionary science is unthinkable without falsification. Lakatos' research programs evolve, and are or become progressive or degenerate, but along the way there is empirical refutation.  Merton is doing the sociology of science, which is fine.

As I recall, early criticism (from the likes of Kuhn, Duhème, etc.) focused on the fact that falsifiability isn't a sufficient criterion. Since then, the issue has been more about whether it's necessary (and, indeed, the extent to which it's an appropriate criterion across the sciences). In the '90s and aughts, a fair bit of hay was made of the (perhaps uncharitable fact) that any theory that makes demonstrably false claims is, in fact, falsifiable (and, thus, a science).

That said, I'm not a philosopher of science, even if I dip in the occasional toe.

I can't find a source for the claim that astrology has made plenty of accurate predictions. Kuhn apparently did say that astrology didn't offer up enough puzzles to solve.

Most of astrology involves calculating the positions (or timing) of various celestial phenomena, which it does just fine. The fortune-telling that we associate with it is really just the tip of the iceberg.

I suppose astronomy has taken over the tested parts of astrology. This sounds a very Lakatosian problem, well,  solution really.

Let's not forget Feyerabend: No single theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain! So there is no demarcation between science and non-science. Oh, my God. :-)

It's wrong to try to find definitions, which Popper himself said. Instead, look at this statement of his

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality."

Leave out the word "scientific" and the meaning does not change.

The people I have cited use demarcation in some way, though, I'm sure.

Anyway, all this is about why I don't mind deSantis' policy of not paying for cola he doesn't like, not deSantis' exploitation of epistemology. Turn this around: If deSantis didn't spend money on physics research, would we be up in arms? Some people actually would be! But there is no reason we should be so long as the research is allowed in other institutions. In my own field so long as the New School is allowed to exist [I have an affection for it], a certain kind of thinking can continue to compete. The stuff they produce will be subject to falsification. Then there's the American Institutionalist School, essentially the German Historical School, alive and well  in Texas. [I do not have affection for it.] Subject to the same falsification test.

Having read all these words again, it seems very Lakotosian. But he never denied falsification.

[pondering]

Alas, that is wrong. CRT is Marxism with race substituted for class.

This hackneyed talking point straight from the pseudo-intellectuals at National Review betrays your total lack of interest in what any kind of critical theory is actually about. Have you read Habermas? Adorno? Foucault? These are as much the foundational thinkers of critical theoretical approaches as Marx, and as I pointed out in my previous post, Durkheim and Weber and other foundational figures in the social sciences were just as important. What you have stated is simply wrong. Go and read Dialectic of Enlightenment if you don't believe me.

Dyed-in-the-wool Marxist scholars actually have a long history of critiquing Critical Race Theory, e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41485517

I can't believe I'm defending critical theory, as someone who is very far removed from that field in my own research. But I did my homework in grad school and read many of the foundational works of social science and historiography. Please do the same, and amend your reductive views accordingly.

I don't see any institution able in the US of A to eliminate competition in thought -- in contrast to the times and places of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, so deSantis is merely saying: I'm not paying for this flavor of Cola. No one need scientifically justify why they don't buy Coke, but Pepsi instead. It's no different here. If there is any danger of eliminating competition, it comes form the other side.

To return the conversation to the situation in Florida, you are essentially saying you are happy to see hundreds of faculty lose their jobs in the name of "competition." You know perfectly well that "just go and work in another state where your ideas are welcome" is not practicable advice given the job market in the humanities and social sciences.

[dismalist]

Alas, that is wrong. CRT is Marxism with race substituted for class.

This hackneyed talking point straight from the pseudo-intellectuals at National Review betrays your total lack of interest in what any kind of critical theory is actually about. Have you read Habermas? Adorno? Foucault? These are as much the leading thinkers of critical theoretical approaches as Marx, and as I pointed out in my previous post, Durkheim and Weber and other foundational figures in the social sciences were just as important. What you have stated is simply wrong. Go and read Dialectic of Enlightenment if you don't believe me.

Dyed-in-the-wool Marxist scholars actually have a long history of critiquing Critical Race Theory, e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41485517

I can't believe I'm defending critical theory, as someone who is very far removed from that field in my own research. But I did my homework in grad school and read many of the foundational works of social science and historiography. Please do the same, and amend your reductive views accordingly.

I don't see any institution able in the US of A to eliminate competition in thought -- in contrast to the times and places of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, so deSantis is merely saying: I'm not paying for this flavor of Cola. No one need scientifically justify why they don't buy Coke, but Pepsi instead. It's no different here. If there is any danger of eliminating competition, it comes form the other side.

To return the conversation to the situation in Florida, you are essentially saying you are happy to see hundreds of faculty lose their jobs in the name of "competition." You know perfectly well that "just go and work in another state where your ideas are welcome" is not practicable advice given the job market in the humanities and social sciences.

Pity it's in National Review. I was hoping I was being original.

Reductive is a cool adjective.

As for the labor market, yup, competition good. Which brings us back to the interest groups involved. Nothing more than an argument over job security is going on. Yet again, it doesn't matter who is right about Habermas, Adorno and Co. Competition in ideas is what matters. And I expect we won't have less with deSantis policies.

[pondering]

Nothing more than an argument over job security is going on.

You may be surprised to learn that, for the people whose jobs are on the line, that argument is extremely important.

[spork]

The discussion above is an example of how academic "experts" have made themselves irrelevant to policymakers and politicians.

[downer]

The discussion above is an example of how academic "experts" have made themselves irrelevant to policymakers and politicians.

I don't understand. From what I see of what is going on in Florida, it doesn't make any difference what any academic expert or "expert" says. The Republican politicians are just doing their politics and fabricating "facts" for their political convenience. Basically, they see academics as a challenge to them so they are aiming to recreate academics. Soon they will be mandating the teaching of the work of Heidegger.

[Parasaurolophus]

Soon they will be mandating the teaching of the work of Heidegger.

Only the Black Notebooks, though.

[Wahoo Redux]

NBC News: Michigan college ends partnership with school over David statue 'drama'

HILLSDALE, Mich. — A Michigan college has ended its partnership with a Florida charter school whose principal was forced to resign after a parent complained sixth graders were exposed to pornography during a lesson on Renaissance art that included Michelangelo's David sculpture.

A Hillsdale College spokesperson said Tallahassee Classical School no longer is affiliated with the small, Christian classical liberal arts college in southern Michigan, MLive.com reported Thursday.

What idiots.

[marshwiggle]

NBC News: Michigan college ends partnership with school over David statue 'drama'

HILLSDALE, Mich. — A Michigan college has ended its partnership with a Florida charter school whose principal was forced to resign after a parent complained sixth graders were exposed to pornography during a lesson on Renaissance art that included Michelangelo's David sculpture.

A Hillsdale College spokesperson said Tallahassee Classical School no longer is affiliated with the small, Christian classical liberal arts college in southern Michigan, MLive.com reported Thursday.

What idiots.

At which place? Or both?

[Wahoo Redux]

NBC News: Michigan college ends partnership with school over David statue 'drama'

HILLSDALE, Mich. — A Michigan college has ended its partnership with a Florida charter school whose principal was forced to resign after a parent complained sixth graders were exposed to pornography during a lesson on Renaissance art that included Michelangelo's David sculpture.

A Hillsdale College spokesperson said Tallahassee Classical School no longer is affiliated with the small, Christian classical liberal arts college in southern Michigan, MLive.com reported Thursday.

What idiots.

At which place? Or both?

Where do you think, Marshman?

[marshwiggle]

NBC News: Michigan college ends partnership with school over David statue 'drama'

HILLSDALE, Mich. — A Michigan college has ended its partnership with a Florida charter school whose principal was forced to resign after a parent complained sixth graders were exposed to pornography during a lesson on Renaissance art that included Michelangelo's David sculpture.

A Hillsdale College spokesperson said Tallahassee Classical School no longer is affiliated with the small, Christian classical liberal arts college in southern Michigan, MLive.com reported Thursday.

What idiots.

At which place? Or both?

Where do you think, Marshman?

Like many times when you answer with a question, I have no idea.