Why Do People Say Schools Indoctrinate Students? Is It True? (premium, suspected)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally "indoctrinate" was a synonym of "teach." Today it carries the implication of teaching a subject in such a way that the students accept it without critical evaluation.
In the original meaning, any sort of teaching is indoctrination and it wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Contemporary use is closer to being a synonym with "brainwash" than "teach." Whether someone is being indoctrinated has nothing to do with the subjects being taught, and everything to do with how they're taught. There's nothing inherently wrong with asking students to consider any subject as long as the only thing taught as *fact* are empirical facts - facts that can be proven through test. They can be taught that some people consider a certain idea to be fact, but others don't and that's not indoctrination. For example, when religion is taught as part of an evangelical effort by adherents to that religion it is usually taught in a way to intentionally indoctrinate the student (or prospective convert).
But it is entirely possible to teach *about* religion without it being indoctrination.
Stating that "Jesus Christ is God's Son who was sent to die for your sins and you'll go to hell unless you accept Jesus and the Holy Spirit of God into your heart," is far different from stating, "In Christianity, adherents believe that the founder of their religion is Jesus Christ and consider him to be the human-form Son or facet of a monotheistic God. Most variants of Christianity also believe in a concept they call the 'Trinity' where there is one God, but that Jesus is a facet of that one God and that there is another facet they call the 'Holy Spirit,' and the third facet is referred to as 'God the Father.'"
One of those statements is indoctrination, the other is merely teaching about something.
Similarly for human sexuality, if you said, "Gay people are wonderful and amazing and love color and dancing and to espouse parts of our culture," that would be a form of indoctrination.
However if you said, "Humans are complex in general and human sexuality is part of that complexity. Most humans are primarily attracted to the opposite sex but for reasons not completely understood by science, a portion of humans are primarily attracted to the same sex, and some portion is attracted in varying degrees to both sexes."
Oddly, it is actually also indoctrination (albeit a benevolent form) to state, "All humans deserve to be treated fairly, with respect and dignity." It's hard to prove that empirically, however *most* cultures believe that to be an ideal and so it's not generally controversial except during points of time when there is rampant racism or sexism or xenophobia.
Not buying one bit of that. For one thing, an actual Wolverine would have automatically typed "automatically" in that context. For another, Rand and ThorSTEIN Veblen were widely covered in course work of the day.
In the days when it was important, I won 2 grade bees, a school bee and a district bee (and I wasn't bilingual at the time). How'd you fare? Do you have a dictionary (or 2) with your name inscribed in gold? I do.
The term "best case" has its own meaning, and what was called eugenics in the 1920's, we now name with terms such as genetics, genetic engineering, and genetic counseling. The Nazis plainly stole and corrupted much. That some of that had been funded by charitable global health organizations of the day is not proper grounds for some latter day Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon type attack on them.
Did you have anything regarding the media-control claims?
" ...In 1937, the Rockefeller Foundation started funding research to find the effects of new forms of mass media on society, especially radio. Several universities joined up and a headquarters was formed at the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University..."
" ...Rockefeller Center, hailed by critics as the 20th century’s greatest urban development, included the AP as an original tenant. The Associated Press Building was a fixture in the complex, along with the towering GE Building, the skating rink and Radio City Music Hall. In 2004 the AP building expanded to a new building.
As of 2005, AP’s news is used by 1,700 newspapers, in addition to 5,000 television and radio outlets. Its photo library consists of more than 10 million images. The AP has 243 bureaus and serves 121 countries, with a diverse international staff drawing from all over the world..."
" ...These international bankers and Rockefeller- Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country.”
-John Hylan, Mayor of New York 1927"
Forgive me for assuming ... but as I suspect you to turn a critical eye towards my "source" ... I wanted to point out that this same source did not exactly cut conservative-leaning mass-media much of a break:
" ... On February 14 2003, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast....”
Studying the effects of the media at Princeton is not "controlling the media". Renting space in a building to the Associated Press is not "controlling the media." What we have here again is an initial claim fallen flat.
Studying the effects of the media at Princeton is not "controlling the media". Renting space in a building to the Associated Press is not "controlling the media." What we have here again is an initial claim fallen flat.
What we have here is a failure to connect the dots ... (or to have read the linked article) I always hated those "paint by the numbers" projects too.
I am sure anyone on here have seen this claim that Schools indoctrinate students for a while now. My two questions are why do people claim that and how do these schools that are alleged to do it, do it? I've seen this claim yet do not get proof behind this claim.
I want to start by saying that anyone talking about indoctrination needs to be closely examined. Indoctrination is a pretty specific thing, and often, when i hear this criticism, the thing they point to is not actually indoctrination. An example, many think that teaching evolution is indoctrination. It's not.
To get to the question, the important thing to do is make a distinction between education and indoctrination. Based on definitions alone, the two are actually the same accept for one specific quality: indoctrination requires abandoning reason.
To get right to the point, if a school teaches critical thinking, it's not indoctrinating anyone, no matter what it's teaching. It can teach that everyone is actually born gay, that God created each of us individually out of dirt, that the moon is made of cheese, or that Jesus killed the last dinosaur; so long as it doesn't force anyone to accept these views without reason, it's not actually indoctrination. Now, if it provides false evidence of these things, it would be manipulation. But if a student who graduates high school from a school that taught that the moon landing is a hoax, but when provided with counter arguments, that same student could easily tell that his school was full of it, he wasn't indoctrinated, rather mislead or manipulated. But still technically educated.
Obviously, this scenario is hypothetical to a point where it's almost unhelpful. It was used to just make the difference clear. In reality, the difference can be a little harder to analyze, but I've yet to see an example that is impossible to analyze.
I want to start by saying that anyone talking about indoctrination needs to be closely examined. Indoctrination is a pretty specific thing, and often, when i hear this criticism, the thing they point to is not actually indoctrination. An example, many think that teaching evolution is indoctrination. It's not.
To get to the question, the important thing to do is make a distinction between education and indoctrination. Based on definitions alone, the two are actually the same accept for one specific quality: indoctrination requires abandoning reason.
To get right to the point, if a school teaches critical thinking, it's not indoctrinating anyone, no matter what it's teaching. It can teach that everyone is actually born gay, that God created each of us individually out of dirt, that the moon is made of cheese, or that Jesus killed the last dinosaur; so long as it doesn't force anyone to accept these views without reason, it's not actually indoctrination. Now, if it provides false evidence of these things, it would be manipulation. But if a student who graduates high school from a school that taught that the moon landing is a hoax, but when provided with counter arguments, that same student could easily tell that his school was full of it, he wasn't indoctrinated, rather mislead or manipulated. But still technically educated.
Obviously, this scenario is hypothetical to a point where it's almost unhelpful. It was used to just make the difference clear. In reality, the difference can be a little harder to analyze, but I've yet to see an example that is impossible to analyze.
Evolution cant be proven and neither can radiocarbon 14 dating, they both have to make some pretty far reaching assumptions. Scientists have only had a few decades where they have actually been measuring radioactive decay so they really have no idea if the decay rate is linear exponential or some other complex curve which could radically alter results. So to hype a questionable scientific method in order to support an agenda is indoctrination.
Evolution cant be proven and neither can radiocarbon 14 dating, they both have to make some pretty far reaching assumptions. Scientists have only had a few decades where they have actually been measuring radioactive decay so they really have no idea if the decay rate is linear exponential or some other complex curve which could radically alter results. So to hype a questionable scientific method in order to support an agenda is indoctrination.
Neither is a questionable scientific method.
You don't understand science. Period.
Science rarely provides absolutes. It lays out what is currently known and then makes some conclusions about the data collected. No good scientist says: "Okay, now we know all about _____."
Science is a way forward, and it works against people like you who want to go back to an earth-centered solar system and the Book Of Genesis (the latter of which is a perfect example of indoctrination).
Science rarely provides absolutes. It lays out what is currently known and then makes some conclusions about the data collected. No good scientist says: "Okay, now we know all about _____."
Science is a way forward, and it works against people like you who want to go back to an earth-centered solar system and the Book Of Genesis (the latter of which is a perfect example of indoctrination).
I could go on and on, evolution and carbon 14 dating are not one of them. It is pseudo science mascradaing as real science in order to support an agenda.
BTW unless you have a PhD in physics you should refrain from making the bolded statements. I have a BS in chemical engineering and a PE in chemical engineering and electrical engineering with several courses at the masters level in engineering and math.
Invoke carbon 14 dating and evolution and presto the entire bible in invalidated ... except carbon 14 dating is dubious at best and MACRO evolution has NO evidence what so ever of any transition creatures.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
