…even the natural sciences are increasingly subject to being rendered a means to a “progressive” end.

Well, ain’t that a cryin’ shame? Isn’t it just too damn bad that learning how man-made pollution causes climate change makes us “liberals” want to do something about it? And what a travesty that the increasing proof that we are related to every other species on earth makes those with consciences increasingly reluctant to kill them. Damn, those progressive scientists just suck the all the fun out of life for conservatives, don’t they?

the media in general and of reporting specifically is to promote social justice and the social transformation of society

Also, what other type of transformation would one make on society? Definitely bad writing right there.

Again: “teachers must use their classroom to produce young people who will wish to engage in society-transforming work for social justice”. IF ONLY!

If I read this right, he thinks teachers should use their classrooms to produce young people who will wish to engage in society-transforming work for social injustice? Or maybe he thinks teachers should want their students to be absolutely apathetic about all of society…. that’s a stunning way to produce jack-shit.

I’d be more eloquent but I think some of the dumb rubbed off.

That graph shows a significant uptick marked ‘Roman” Can you show me some scientific advances (even technological improvements) Romans were responsible for?

Do the aquaducts count? No architectural improvements? Wasn’t the arch and/or dome a roman concept, or am I mistaken? Roads were certainly refined during the Roman era. How about the concept and refinement of the Senate and representational government in general? Not really science, but I’m just throwing out the things I know of from my very, very lay knowledge of history (IANAH).

Sure, Rome co-opted a hell of a lot of stuff (afterall, they were an empire that absorbed most of the rest of the world at the time so the question ‘what is roman’ can be thrown out on a lot of progress), but to say they didn’t contribute anything is absurd. And whether it was Roman or not, the time period did advance.

I had an oppressive liberal professor (I mean, obviously) once tell me that if not for the Dark Ages, Shakespeare would have likely written his works on a laptop.

I don’t know where your liberal arts inferiority complex comes from. Dennis Prager is the one you need to talk to.

You’re right that the scientific method as we know it did not exist in the ancient world. Some aspects certainly did exist, but so did methods that were counter-productive. Many of the Greek philosophers, for example, had the wrong approach. They sat around and voted on how things worked.

The chart is an oversimplification, but it makes a valuable point. No, science did not stop during the Dark Ages. However, there is a strong inverse correlation between scientific advancement and proximity to religious power centers in Europe at the time. Not much was coming out of Rome in those days, or any place where the Pope had any influence. There were some isolated enclaves in Europe where the religious intolerance was weakest, and those were the places where science survived. My memory fails me on which cities these were. Maybe somebody who has studied that era more recently can fill me in.

Your other point about India and Arabia just proves my point. While the Europeans were scrambling around eating mud, the civilizations that were free of fundamentalism at the time were flourishing.

Then that graph about the history of science! its about as stupid as something the DI would put out!.

1. Science in ancient civilization was going exactly nowhere. There is no indication at all of any movement toward the scientific method. The high point of ancient science was probably Archimedes, fl. some five centuries before the Constantinian conversion.

2. Science hardly stopped during the Middle Ages. Do you wear glasses? thank Medieval optics. Know what a prism is? same place. The technological advances in the middle ages in water powered machinery (which led directly to the industrial revolution) were stunning. Ever use a graph (I mean a real one with specific data points, not this nonsense)? Who do think invented them? Descartes? Try Nicole Oresme. Its also ridiculous to limit consideration to the Christian world. We have India to thank for zero and medieval Arabs for algebra.

3. That graph shows a significant uptick marked ‘Roman” Can you show me some scientific advances (even technological improvements) Romans were responsible for? No? Perhaps because and technology all the science they had came from Greeks. its true they sued it far more efficiently and on larger scales than the Greeks ever thought of. But that is just more evidence that graph is fabricated from whole cloth. Also, in terms of science, the Mesopotamians had it all over the Egyptians–but by now you;re getting the point

But I am sure you’ll discount all this from a lowly liberal arts major–a Classicist even!.

I think it is interesting to explore why the lock step conservative of today isn’t very present on our university campus.

Is it fear of being “attacked” by liberal professors?
Is it the aversion to the progressive enviroment…or at least a lack of interest to be in a progressive atmosphere?

I don’t hear much about professors being discriminated against for having conservative beliefs. That leads me to believe that A) there aren’t that many neo-cons who are interested in teaching at institutions of higher learning B) the conservatives that do may not feel particulary threatened or uncomfortable.

But then again my dad was a professor and he was/is a Republican, so they are out there. He’s just not very political (ie, didn’t wear his political beliefs on his sleeve). But really he’s just in love with Reagan, so again, I’m not really sure that counts as a “modern republican kool-aid drinker.”

I’ve had a few conservative professors in my time (I did go to the University of Nebraska after all) so they do exist. But also these professors were probably closer to old school fiscal conservatives and/or libertarians than what goes for a Republican these days.

Not really a “pacificist” since i’m on the east coast… But, I digress…

Did you all notice how he said that academics are all liberal, except for those in the sciences, and then turns around and says that scientists are biased, too? I assume he means those pesky biologists with their evolution and those buzzkill physicists with their old universe, heliocentric hogwash.

I heard another pundit say that the reason academia was crawling with liberals was bc the liberals went into academia to dodge the draft. There’s no denying it.

Sarah

It’s really amazing how many people have such little understanding of history in general…much less any regard for it.