Right-Wing Tricksters Want to Discredit Academia by Recording Zoom Classes

HOw can it be "intellectual property" when they are presenting facts that should be taught at all universities? You cant change facts.

 

Heres you problem, you aren't paying the school for the lecture, you are paying for the degree and what it stands for. If you learn 2+2=4 from yale or Harvard or Phoenix online, its not what you learned but who you learned it from and the price you paid that will get you a job later on. This is why the university system is so screwed up right now since people put so much emphasis on the brick and mortar schools over the online schools. The popularity of online schools are also growing, especially with minorities, and allows them to advance in life that a lot of brick and mortar schools are lobbying the federal government not to back the loans for such places.

But we all get it, most of the liberal arts schools don't deal in facts, that's why they have leeway on teaching the BS that is all opinions. Most math professors, especially if they are stumped with an equation, will post theoretical to see if there is anyone in the world that can make it a proof because it benefits mankind over their fragile egos.

 

Then you haven't listened to the left.

 

Is it morally permissible for activist professors to use their power to indoctrinate people trying to learn from them?

The only thing ANY teacher, no matter the position, from kindergarten teacher to professor should be teaching people is how to survive in the world and what they were specifically assigned to teach via facts and critical thinking skills. That is it. They are not there to teach their morality or anyone else's morality. Not yours. Not mine. Not joe blow down the street. No ones morality.

And the only way to have any accountability in making sure that they are doing their job correctly is for their students to record them and if they feel that the person stepped out of line then show the world. Because you sure as hell can't rely on the professors or the school/university/college administrators to do it.

 

Why do you need a degree? Because the degree shows a potential employer you know 2+2=4. You go to school to get the knowledge of how to act in the world. Would a pharmaceutical company want to hire someone who doesn't know the basics of chemistry? It doesn't matter how you get the degree, just so long as it's accredited. As for your "Liberal arts schools make up facts", think about how the social sciences work. It's hard to reproduce results. Even the hard sciences are suffering from a problem of reproducibility. So when you say they make up facts, what do you mean by that? Because the real world is a lot more complicated than a high school degree lets on.

 

You know I had a physics professor once talk about how light clearly can't be a particle and a wave. He showed me the science behind it. Now is that a "fact", when the rest of the physics community has accepted light is a particle and a wave? I have read articles that say some crazy stuff, but when p<.05, that's pretty hard to argue against.

What's a "fact"? Because that's a very loaded term. Is a realist view of international affairs a fact compared to liberal views of international relations? How can you prove that?

So the Catholic Church should regulate what Astronomers are saying and thinking?

 

I agree, it is about whether or not you actually know 2+2=4, and that's what you pay for is the school saying you actually know the information. I can know everything there is to know about chemistry, but no pharmacy will give me a job until I pay for the degree. Hence why recording and resending the lecture means nothing towards the "theft" argument since you cant profit from just watching the video.

 

The theft argument doesn't focus on that. When it comes to students citing that, that's fine. The issue is fellow academics who will look at that and cite it as their own work. A researcher talks about some work they're doing, and it leads to another researcher using that exact same model to make the same results. Then the copier publishes first. That's the theft argument. An even worse form of that argument is the review board. Let's say a researcher talks about an article they're trying to get published. Any review board needs to do a double blind reading to get it approved. If they know who is doing the research, the review board might not publish when they would have otherwise. Publishing is the life blood of researchers.

 

Last I knew physics professors aren't trying to indoctrinate people. He was more than likely trying to teach you to think critically.

LINK: Definition of Fact

Catholic churches are not accredited schools that people pay thousands of dollars to attend.

 

Yes, yes they are. They're literally trying to convince you the laws and theories of physics are valid and a meaningful way of exploring the world.

A study has a p value of .03. Is that statistically significant to the point where it can be a fact? How many times does it have to be reproduced to be a fact? What about the theory behind the relationship? How sound does the theory have to be? Do you start to see why the concept of facts is a loaded term? It means nothing to a researcher because if they're a falsificationist, there are no real facts, just things that haven't been falsified yet.

Catholic Universities don't exist? Because yes, yes they do, and they might have an issue with heresy like evolution as well.

 

Can you name the Catholic Universities that teach evolution as heresy?

 

Do I have to? Because that just goes to my point.

 

Backing up your claim would help yes.

 

Backing up a rhetorical point that rests on the idea that the Catholic Church put Gaileo on houses arrest for publishing something that went against Catholic teachings?

 

You just went from colleges today to Gaileo??

Impressive derail

 

Who knew political institutions had effects on what is allowed to be published? If you want I can go into detail about how the Nazis literally burned gender studies material because it went against what the Nazis believed gender roles should look like.

 

And Communist China burned bibles and intern Muslims today. Whats your point?

 

So hundreds of years ago to the Nazi's all to not back up your claim or hell discuss the topic at all..

 

Why do researchers need to conduct research without fear of it being politicized? So their research doesn't get the back end of public opinion. Science does not care for demagogues, and publicizing their research does that.

 

My argument is that research shouldn't be politicized. Here are examples of what happened when research was politicized. You can't see how that is on topic?

 

Teaching a class is not research.

 

What happens the professor is giving personal opinions on a topic they are researching?

 

Researchers can be political themselves, or do you think global warming alarmists are actually a-political?

 

Why is a teacher going over personal opinions on a topic? They are there to educate not preach....

 

You mean a climatologist? Probably according to your definition, climate change would be a fact. But that's besides your point. The point is that the researcher can be political, but the work itself can not. The point of an academic classroom is to have the space to be able to have these discussions free from politicization.