Inserted Karl,

On 3/5/07, Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Okay Ian, thank you, let's try again...
>
> Firstly, you would be surprised by the number of people who would disagree
> with (1) or (2).
[IG] Actually I wouldn't be surprised - but sometimes I exaggerate for
effect ;-). How about "few people who are serious about a moral basis
for wisdom would disagree" (I'm hoping). I think even "evil
capitalists" support equality of opportunity - they just have a
different working definition of what they mean by that. We need to get
past the slogan.

> Some people hold that the only children who should receive
> an education are the children of parents who can afford to pay for their own
> children's education. Some people are against any taxation for spending on
> education and consider it to be a private provision. Likewise, some people
> disagree that there should be any publicly funded research at university.
> They argue that all research should be privately funded and, therefore,
> serve private interests. Not everyone agrees that there should be equality
> of opportunity, at least in the sense that citizes have any civic duty to
> provide it. They oppose the redistribution of wealth, through taxation,
> which would be required to provide an equality of opportunity in a society
> with economic inequality.
> But it seems that, at least, you and I agree that (1) and (2) are, as you
> say, no brainers, and that we both hold that there should be equality of
> opportunity.
[IG] As I tried to point out several times my views of freedom and
equality are pretty much summed up in one word "Mill". (We agree)

>
> Secondly, I completely agree there is a need for an evaluation of what would
> constitute "the best education" and how it could be provided to all
> students. That was the point that I was trying to make.
[IG] Interesting how often we have confirmed "violent agreement", No ?
Does that not make our "difference" more interesting. even if
infuriating ?

< It was this
> evaluation that I was suggesting was an aspect of "wisdom inquiry", at least
> how Nick has conceptualised it.
> Of course, the subjective and pragmatic considerations would, as you note,
> be an important part of such an evaluation, which would indeed require a
> recognition and sensitivity to both individual and cultural differences.
[IG] Yes, and many other "non-objective" considerations.

> And, of course, such evaluations involve value judgements about quality and
> human well-being, implicity envisioning the good life and ideal society.
> It seems to me that Nick's call for a revolution in academia implicity
> involves making, articulating, and defending value judgements, hence, in my
> view, a critical examination of our values is a crucial task for the FOW.
>
> Finally, I am not sure quite what you meant by "objective numbers form the
> worst basis for such judgements" -- did you mean a head count, an expression
> of majority consensus?
[IG] The crux of my point. Yes, I did mean any and all such things;
and any "simple causal logical assertions based on numbers of any kind
of objects". (If I ever make anything that sounds like such an
assertion - outside the lab of repeatable experiments - you're hearing
me wrong.)

Now ask yourself, is Ian really arguing against popular democracy ?
Could Ian [as an advocate of Mill] be that stupid ? I hope you'll
conclude "No". So what we need to spend some time doing, is unpicking
our differences between (say) "logic" and "process" for want of any
two words.

Regards
Ian