Great article, Dft. It did deconstruct some of the faulty premises of the documentary quite well.

I think, by far, the most important factor in success in pre-college education is the family environment (income, parental support, parental pressure to succeed, at-home enforced discipline). This counts far more than teachers. Charter schools or even elite private schools aren't a cure for that (maybe boarding school or military school). The linked article gives an example:

"But contrary to the myth that Guggenheim propounds about “amazing results,” even Geoffrey Canada’s schools have many students who are not proficient. On the 2010 state tests, 60 percent of the fourth-grade students in one of his charter schools were not proficient in reading, nor were 50 percent in the other. It should be noted—and Guggenheim didn’t note it—that Canada kicked out his entire first class of middle school students when they didn’t get good enough test scores to satisfy his board of trustees. This sad event was documented by Paul Tough in his laudatory account of Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone, Whatever It Takes (2009). Contrary to Guggenheim’s mythology, even the best-funded charters, with the finest services, can’t completely negate the effects of poverty."

I do agree with redsky that teachers do need to be "ranked and rated", even though this would have to be done carefully. But teachers are not the biggest problem with our academic problems. It's ultimately an increasingly anti-intellectual and lazy culture, and the bad parenting that feed into this culture.

However you want to justify is cool. I support your decision. It is a scary thing sometimes to call into a radio show and challenge a nonviolent, non-coercive argument with an argument in favor of violence and coercion. Let me know if you ever get up the courage.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I've argued with enough evangelicals to know that rational deconstruction and empirical scrutiny are useless against religious devotion and hero worship; and that task would be even more difficult with the brevity, power imbalance and lack of depth to the talk radio format. Text debate would be better, although when I did try to initiate a dialog in the guy's chat room, I got booted almost immediately for asking tough questions. They were clearly not interested in having their beliefs questioned. >> ^blankfist:

If it's so easy to deconstruct, then what are you waiting for. 1-800-259-9231
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Yeah, because it's so realistic and well thought out.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yeah, I don't blame ya. I'd be too scared to do that too. It's hard to punch holes in the voluntaryist argument.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
If I was going to do that, I'd want to study his show, suss out his debate techniques and get to know his stock answers so I could control the conversation without worry of rhetorical blindsides. That would take many hours which would be more productively spent masturbating. If he had a wider following, maybe.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, you call into Molyneux's show yet? Also, you interested in calling into FTL? I would be very interested to hear you debate these guys.

I've argued with enough evangelicals to know that rational deconstruction and empirical scrutiny are useless against religious devotion and hero worship; and that task would be even more difficult with the brevity, power imbalance and lack of depth to the talk radio format. Text debate would be better, although when I did try to initiate a dialog in the guy's chat room, I got booted almost immediately for asking tough questions. They were clearly not interested in having their beliefs questioned. >> ^blankfist:

If it's so easy to deconstruct, then what are you waiting for. 1-800-259-9231
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Yeah, because it's so realistic and well thought out.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yeah, I don't blame ya. I'd be too scared to do that too. It's hard to punch holes in the voluntaryist argument.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
If I was going to do that, I'd want to study his show, suss out his debate techniques and get to know his stock answers so I could control the conversation without worry of rhetorical blindsides. That would take many hours which would be more productively spent masturbating. If he had a wider following, maybe.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, you call into Molyneux's show yet? Also, you interested in calling into FTL? I would be very interested to hear you debate these guys.

If it's so easy to deconstruct, then what are you waiting for. 1-800-259-9231

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Yeah, because it's so realistic and well thought out.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yeah, I don't blame ya. I'd be too scared to do that too. It's hard to punch holes in the voluntaryist argument.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
If I was going to do that, I'd want to study his show, suss out his debate techniques and get to know his stock answers so I could control the conversation without worry of rhetorical blindsides. That would take many hours which would be more productively spent masturbating. If he had a wider following, maybe.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, you call into Molyneux's show yet? Also, you interested in calling into FTL? I would be very interested to hear you debate these guys.

She didn't chose the locations, but she chose the room, the angle, the lighting, the composition of the shot. I'm sure there were much more flattering places especially to have that one woman than a long empty poorly-lit room. You don't get to be a television journalist without learning to compose a shot.>> ^Matthu:

>> ^messenger:
Another word about biased reporting: Shooting locations and backdrops are carefully chosen by journalists to give context to what the interviewees are saying. It was by design then that all the scientists were interviewed with equipment and charts and scientific machines and such behind them (to show their scientific backing), and the homeopathic people were interviewed in offices with blank drawers behind them, or in a completely empty room (their backing). Cheap shot. The content itself was enough to make a very damning report without all the trickery.
The only pro-homoeopathy interviewee who wasn't discredited with the camera shot alone was the mother, who the reporter chose not to ridicule as much, possibly because the audience might identify with her.

It's not her fault a homeopath works out of a sales office and scientists work out of labs. Although, I get your point, I just don't think she chose the locations for the interviews.

Wrong. That there is no original ingredient doesn't prove anything other than the contents of the bottle, which isn't part of the homoeopathic claim. Remember, homoeopathy doesn't say that the source ingredient does any curing. The stated theory is that the water somehow "remembers" something about the original ingredient, and that the memory of this ingredient in the water cures things. To prove that claim false, you need to do experiments that give reproducible results. Proving the original ingredient is gone disproves nothing about homoeopathy.

So, to answer your question, this reporter could have shown an interest in that kind of research, could have asked why it hadn't been done yet, as measuring the medicinal effects requires no sophisticated instruments. She could have pressed the point with Mr. Ontario Government why these things are being treated like medicine when they're just water and not scientifically tested for anything. This was just a hit job. She knows the product is fake, and that many people are going to get sick and die because of reliance on this crap, so she's angry. But still. This is journalism.>> ^Matthu:

>> ^messenger:
For such an opinionated journalist, she didn't make any scientific effort to prove that they don't work. That there's no active ingredient left is very, very compelling evidence against it, and I strongly doubt that homeopathic medicines have any effect at all, but none of this report proves that they don't work.

How could she as a journalist make any effort other than visiting scientists and talking with them? Should she have obtained a degree in chemistry? What else could she have done?
There being no active ingredient in the medicine doesn't need to prove they don't work, it proves flat out that they CAN'T work. Water doesn't cure cancer.

Ah Persephone, do you watch Craig Ferguson on a regular basis? He is one of the most amazing things on TV -- his monologues aren't written, there is no rehearsal, and it drives the censors (and CBS) crazy because they never know what he is going to do.

What is the most amazing thing about him is that he manages to live in the moment and tells the "truth". To watch him work feels dangerous, almost. He is trying to "deconstruct" the talk show format, and is constantly fighting with CBS.

I have a pretty good b.s. detector. I believe this is essentially true.

Craig Ferguson is my hero. Every night.

>> ^persephone:

This sounds like a beat up for dramatic effect. I doubt the censor really had a problem with a photo of haggis.

>> ^messenger:

Another word about biased reporting: Shooting locations and backdrops are carefully chosen by journalists to give context to what the interviewees are saying. It was by design then that all the scientists were interviewed with equipment and charts and scientific machines and such behind them (to show their scientific backing), and the homeopathic people were interviewed in offices with blank drawers behind them, or in a completely empty room (their backing). Cheap shot. The content itself was enough to make a very damning report without all the trickery.
The only pro-homoeopathy interviewee who wasn't discredited with the camera shot alone was the mother, who the reporter chose not to ridicule as much, possibly because the audience might identify with her.


It's not her fault a homeopath works out of a sales office and scientists work out of labs. Although, I get your point, I just don't think she chose the locations for the interviews.

>> ^messenger:

For such an opinionated journalist, she didn't make any scientific effort to prove that they don't work. That there's no active ingredient left is very, very compelling evidence against it, and I strongly doubt that homeopathic medicines have any effect at all, but none of this report proves that they don't work.


How could she as a journalist make any effort other than visiting scientists and talking with them? Should she have obtained a degree in chemistry? What else could she have done?

There being no active ingredient in the medicine doesn't need to prove they don't work, it proves flat out that they CAN'T work. Water doesn't cure cancer.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Never really liked this guy but it was sad to see him in such a state. He appears at least to be a bit more humble. I guess dying tends to put everything into perspective. His notion that life is a wager though..I don't agree with that at all. That is a trap of nihilism, which makes all propositions equally valid (because nihilism negates any inherent meaning). As if we are just betting on what we hope to be favorable, without any conviction, without any truth. I think it's the height of arrogance really to pop into the long history of the world at this late date and define life that way. There is a LOT at stake, say almost 7 billion human beings, let alone all the other amazing life on planet Earth. That is something irreducible to any calculation. There is meaning everywhere, in the hearts and minds of all that we share this place with. If you don't factor any of that in, it begs the question: how self-centered are you anyway?


It is impossible to look at Hitchens' life and accuse him of believing "all propositions equally valid". The singularly most defining aspect of his very public life was his vehemence in debating the merits and superiority of numerous propositions over others. Whether one agreed with his conclusions or not, you could hardly accuse him of not taking a stand, nor being willing to put his own stands to the test, personally.

He embarrassed Charleton Heston during the first Gulf war by famously asking him to name a country neighbouring the state he was so eager to attack, Heston couldn't name one. It was one of the most championed victories of the anti-war movement, and Hitchens was bearing the standard. He then promptly went to Iraq and lived among it's Kurdish people, who thoroughly persuaded him he had been wrong, and he came back as one of the strongest supporters for Saddam's removal.

Hitchens' single biggest life goal was the deconstruction of religion hoping to in essence rid the world of it's evils. Despite this goal, he deliberately took his own children to be taught about religions by their respective leaders and representatives, to avoid poisoning their opinions with his own bias. Still wanting them to be able to make a personal, honest and well informed decision of their own.

The man is an example to us all, no matter how much we may disagree with his conclusions his loss will be a loss to us all. Very few are left in the public sphere with his breadth of knowledge and willingness to vehemently promote and defend what they believe to be true and right.

[redacted]

>> ^bamdrew:

Scientist - "our instruments can't detect anything more than sugar"
Homeopathy Salesperson - "maybe the scientists need to develop more sensitive equipment"
Scientist - "... we can see fucking carbon atom's, asshole... you're deluding people for profit"
http://videosift.com/video/First-Movie-of-Individual-Carbon-Atoms-i
n-Action

... thats how it should have gone... 15 second sift.


I'd say it's even worse than that: medicine is not even concerned with "seeing the atoms" or explaining anything, it's merely about *measuring effects* (and side-effects). If someone were to come up with a new cure that scientists are at loss to explain, but whose effects/side-effects are well-known, then it would be used by doctors (actual example: anaesthetic gases when they were first introduced).

So homeopathy is bonk, not because it is unexplained, but because *it has no effect* (beyond placebo, that is). Hence the common saying: "Alternative medicine that actually works goes by another name: it's called Medicine".

>> ^undefined:

>> ^undefined:
Too bad alternative medicines have advanced to an article of faith. And too bad that people are so unwilling to admit that they may be wrong.
To the mother who said "To each their own": If you ruin your own life, I don't have a problem with that. As soon as you endanger anyone else, I do have a problem. If your kid infects my kid or anyone in my family with an infectious (and potentially deadly) disease you're at the very least guilty of gross negligence in my book, if not worse.

If you have all the vaccines and shoot your kids with all the vaccines, why should it bother you if I dont shoot my kid up?
And also, mind your own business!
If your little retard walks out in front of my kids car and she has to swerve and hits a tree, that would be awful! and I will be upset! Therefore you shouldnt let your little retards out! better yet you shouldnt be allowed to have little retards. Its better if you just go and cut yer dick off, ya busybody.
I'm gonna have another drink.


You're a bad, ignorant person.

Also, your children do not belong to you. They are not objects with which you may do as you see fit.

People like you are why we need a patriarchal government.

I truly hope you die a painful death, cunt.

>> ^undefined:
Too bad alternative medicines have advanced to an article of faith. And too bad that people are so unwilling to admit that they may be wrong.
To the mother who said "To each their own": If you ruin your own life, I don't have a problem with that. As soon as you endanger anyone else, I do have a problem. If your kid infects my kid or anyone in my family with an infectious (and potentially deadly) disease you're at the very least guilty of gross negligence in my book, if not worse.


If you have all the vaccines and shoot your kids with all the vaccines, why should it bother you if I dont shoot my kid up?
And also, mind your own business!

If your little retard walks out in front of my kids car and she has to swerve and hits a tree, that would be awful! and I will be upset! Therefore you shouldnt let your little retards out! better yet you shouldnt be allowed to have little retards. Its better if you just go and cut yer dick off, ya busybody.

I'm gonna have another drink.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

Look for the comma...

By the time I found the comma, the apostrophe already had me thinking about nano-sized sphincters.

Oh, and you might want to edit you last post. Grammar is even more important in html than it is in prose.
--- ---

Shepppard, you are probably thinking of Thomas Aquinas and the Miracle of the Herrings. I suppose being one of the most-influential philosophers of all time, religious or otherwise, does not qualify you for sainthood.