Dear Kevin,
By no means. The intellectual revolution we need, in my view, from knowledge-inquiry to wisdom-inquiry, if it were to occur, would have dramatic consequences for the capacity of academia to stand up to corporate power and influence, and that of the government, the public, and any other powerful group in society.
As long as academia seeks knowledge, academics are not in a good position to stand up to corrupting influences unless they pose threats to what constitutes knowledge. Given wisdom-inquiry, however, the central task of academia becomes to help humanity tackle problems of living in increasingly cooperatively rational ways. At once it becomes the official business of academia to critically assess the actions of corporations, governments, etc., and to take a stand against their actions when these undermine or sabotage people trying to resolve problems of living, realize what is of value in life, in cooperatively rational ways.
It may well be that wisdom-inquiry will begin to get off the ground because academics do begin to challenge the impact of corporate power, the military, the government, on academia. That might be a start, but of course it needs to go much further than that.
As for the specific issue you raise, the announcement of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, I know nothing about it, and can't really comment.
All good wishes,
Nick
Website: www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
Publications online: http://philpapers.org/profile/17092
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Coleman
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Democracy, Education and Saving the Planet - On Science, funding, career paths, vested interests, activists and conspiracy theorists
Hi Nick,
I take it that was a 'No' then to my view of things educational?
Kev C
'The first of all Earthly Blessings........Independence' Edward Gibbon
On 27/06/2012 20:24, Nicholas Maxwell wrote:
What we need, above all, is an INTELLECTUAL revolution, from the profoundly and damagingly irrational knowledge-inquiry (plus standard empiricism as far as science is concerned), to wisdom-inquiry and aim-oriented empiricism.
Aims at present lie beyond the scope of reason - inevitable as long as standard empiricism and knowledge-inquiry continue to prevail. If aim-oriented empiricism and wisdom-inquiry were in place, aims and priorities of research would fall within the scope of reason, of intellectual assessment, alongside theories and empirical results.
It ought to be regarded as relevant that the philosophy of inquiry we have built into science, and into acdemic inquiry, is profoundly
irrational.
The key to developing the kind of academic enterprise we really need is to bring about the above intellectual revolution.
Nick
Website: www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
Publications online: http://philpapers.org/profile/17092
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Coleman
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Democracy, Education and Saving the Planet - On Science, funding, career paths, vested interests, activists and conspiracy theorists
Hello All,
To add to the debate on education
I have to say I agree 100% with most of the points made below. They illustrate the real agenda that seems to have taken over the education system.
The fact is that there are some individuals who are more than willing to sacrifice the educational welfare of the nation in exchange for the corporate shilling. The latest announcement from the ABC (Agricultural Biotechnology Council) on Radio 4 yesterday morning was totally biased and left uncorrected by the interviewer and is one such example of how corporate shillings are being spent.
Its funny how by adding 'Council' at the end of a corporate lobbying groups name seems to suddenly give it a new found status as some sort of meaningful and wonderfully intelligent body of wisdom and knowledge? One whose guidance we should all bow our heads in awe to. Like some sort of legal body with bite in fact.
The truth is that they are plainly and simply a corporate trade lobbying group who's sole interest is in making money. They are playing on the ignorance of the political elite with their promises of riches beyond their imagination in exchange for a free licence to poison the food production system with technology which, by their own blinkered admission, is not even proven safe. (1)
How so you may argue?
Well how can they claim 'its been consumed in the US for 20+ years with no problems' when they won't even permit anyone access to the GM source material to test it? Their woefully dismal claims of 'Patent protection' and 'intellectual property rights' needing protecting is a blind which again plays on the ignorance of the masses and the politicians.
The fact that no-one knows what they are eating over the pond because the biotechnology industry refuses point blank (through corporate lobbying of the government incidentally. Note the similarity of approach?) to allow the GMO ingredients to be listed is hardly going to prove that the increases in numerous harmful and fatal illnesses is not linked to GMO consumption. It may not be but there is no proof it isn't either. So there is the contradiction of their reassurances of safety.
Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence.
There first needs to be proof of safety and that needs proving with tests and extensive research. How can we get that if a big part of the system we rely upon to conduct that unbiased research, the Universities, is bought and paid for by the very same corporations that want to introduce this technology ............'for profit'! Remember that Universities are the ones that do the most research. It is the way they train their students to Degree and PhD standard. Or am I missing some other group out here?
I have to ask one major question though in respect of this particular example. What the hell have the biotech industry got to hide? If its 'safe to eat' then they should not be fearful of any theft of intellectual property rights, technology or even patent violations during independent tests and research, especially as the three systems (Technology, Intellectual property and Patents) are protected by heavy duty laws. Something Monsanto is very fond of applying to small organic farmers et al. (2)
So how did we end up with the corporations running the show?
Simple!
They hijacked the educational establishment years ago, with I might add, the approval of that very same educational establishments elite, and all for financial gain.
A new wing here, a new laboratory there. One or two foundation courses a year plus a few back handers. As long as it was to the advantage of the corporations doing the sponsoring. PhD courses are all geared to the research that the corporations want not what we the people actually need.
Amazing what a wedge of notes will achieve when waved in the right faces. But it all comes with conditions. Notice I said how all the current science research is geared towards the stuff we don't actually need? Notice how all the top University brass are well paid CEO types? Not academics per se but business types employed to make the Universities more profitable. Its all part of the corporate hijacking of education as if it was some laboratory research establishment belonging to them. On the cheap as well.
Since when has a University been a business? Please don't try telling me it should run as one because that is exactly how we got into the current educational nightmare of corporate interests over educational needs in the first place. With proper funding there is no need for corporate interference or influence.
You may argue that my point relating to the lobbying group the ABC (Agricultural Biotechnology Council) is not relevant to the education debate but they are as guilty of disinformation to the masses for their own gain as the Universities are for allowing the same biotech lobbying groups member corporations (Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont (Pioneer) and BASF) free access to their student assets. Yes students are assets of the university establishment that educated them. An advert for higher education at the respective universities. Why else would they sell out to the corporations? They have been blinded by the money and lost the real meaning of the education system. It is now simply and plainly a business and no longer a vocation.
How do we get out of this mess?
We start by barring corporate interests from access to the student body for profit. In other words we stop any funding that is offered with strings. Money can be ploughed into Universities but only as long as it is without terms and conditions and as long as it is spread evenly and equally among 'ALL' Universities without exception. Any innovations or discoveries belong to the University and thus to the nation. Not the corporations.
We also need to stop the corporate lobbying of politicians who promise vast sums of money to the political parties. That is illegal as much as it is corrupt. (I will gladly explain why another time if needed.) By stopping the corruption in politics we will stop the fast track access to the education establishment. What is deemed dodgy an corrupt in politics will inevitably be viewed the same in academic orbits too. Politics and education are pretty closely allied.
Once we stop pandering to these handful of privileged individuals in politics and academia we might get some decent educational progress in the form of meaningful reforms.
These academics and politicians at the top are the same people who use their position of authority to manipulate the system for their own further promotion and career development and often do so at the expense of the population and the student masses. This is totally and utterly wrong. We need to start to develop an education system that actually deals with the things we need to deal with and tackle the problems we really face rather than try to invent our way out of the mess we have allowed ourselves to currently get into. A few examples of this are biotechnology, synthetic biology (be scared....be very scared) and geoengineering. Bet that little lot gets a bite. :)
Finally I want to assure the readers on this forum that I do not believe that all academic masters have in all cases sold their souls to the corporate devils. I also don't believe that all the members of organisations like the Royal Society are devious or biased or even corrupt. There are always a few individuals who spoil things for the majority and tarnish the good reputations of the core members. Sadly in the current world situation money is a powerful persuader but then sustainable economic growth is an oxymoron so what do I know?
As always your responses are most welcomed.
Regards
Kev C
(1). I mentioned 'Their own blinkered admission' above because they failed to realise that by denying access to the technology for testing purposes on the grounds of protecting technology secrets they actually admitted that it has not been tested independently. In fact they have done so without even being aware of the faux pas. Yet at the very same time they go on to claim that because it has been consumed for 20+ years in the US it is safe. A totally and utterly unsatisfactory answer from them. Further proof if needed of this gross suicidal stupidity is that there are no long term tests being conducted for unintended consequences so the situation still remains unsatisfactory. It is in fact a totally hypocritical attitude and behaviour on the biotech industries part which is also being 'suspiciously' ignored by the political elite. Probably at the expense of the rest of us.
(2) If you doubt my point here go take a look for the evidence yourself of how organic farmers in the US, having sued for contamination of their organic crops, were subsequently counter sued for patent violations by Monsanto and the organic farmers lost the cases and in most cases, lost their farms as well as a result of Monsanto's heavy weight legal department and the law which favours patent rights over farmers organic purity rights. The evidence is out there. I won't even point it out to you because I am so damned confident you could readily find it I don't even need to.
On 26/06/2012 21:22, Tessa Burrington wrote:
A big thank you to Nick for pursuing this vital issue.
Is a finely tuned reform strategy required together with the philosophy?
Or should there be a more organic "let's talk" approach? Perhaps some of the problem actually lies with some high profile academics and institutions?
I would like to pass on some thoughts and alternative view points an acquaintance brought to my attention. Not all on the forum may agree but the following links should provide more food for thought. The links are for further debate:
"....Geoengineering is an attempt to fix the planet for being “finite” rather than fix the economy for being out of touch with reality. Regarding science (instead of getting into a difficult pro/anti science argument) it may be useful to contrast science -vs-”royal science” to say that royal scientists are a group of elites manipulating the scientific process to protect their wealthy friends..."
"...This description of the Royal Society shows how they have been stealing science for 350 years now, making sure it didn’t fall into the hands of regular people or women..."
http://earthpeoples.org/blog/?p=1362#more-1362
"....After almost 300 years of excluding woman the Royal Society was forced in 1945 by legal threat to accept women members. More recently, despite defending the authenticity of climate science the Royal Society has campaigned for biotechnology and geo-engineering, technologies favoured by global scale commercial interests. Biotechnology allows private ownership of common genetic resources after small changes are made to the genetic heritage; thus with biotechnology private ownership of the world’s food supply can and is being sought. Geo-engineering focuses on protecting a wasteful and unfair economic system by changing the planet rather than protecting people (and our planet) by eliminating a bad economic system....."
https://network23.org/anarchistscience/vs-royal-science/
Some links I found:
"...but the Royal Society, which should have supported a highly respected and fastidious senior scientist, instead set about a carefully planned campaign of vilification dressed up as a "scientific review process." .....
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/57-revealed-rothamsted-scientist-s-role-in-destruction-of-key-gm-research
Upstream Engagement
Upstream engagement' is a type of top-down engagement with ‘the public’, facilitated by academics on behalf of government and the industries involved in the development of new technologies. Beth Lawrence explains why this new method is nothing more than a CSR-like exercise.
http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=4060
"...Although James denied the calls ever took place, Professor Robert Orskov OBE, who worked at the Rowett for 33 years and is one of Britain's leading nutrition experts, claimed he was told that the phone calls went from Monsanto Company, the American firm which produces 90% of the world's GM food, to Clinton to Blair. "Clinton rang Blair and Blair rang James - you better keep that man (Pusztai) shut up. James didn't know what to do. Instead of telling him to keep his mouth shut, they should have told him to say it needs more work. But there is no doubt that he was pushed by Blair to do something."[6][8]..."
http://myrighttosafefood.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/reputed-scientists-threatened-and.html
"The biotech barons and their friends deserve a prize for sleaze that goes way beyond the rest of politics", said Dr Wallace, "It is time to stop unaccountable advisors from pushing pseudo-scientific claims about the future of the biotech economy".
http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als%5Bcid%5D=492860&als%5Bitemid%5D=566067
GM Watch hot off the press:
http://www.gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/14026-new-gm-industry-push-in-the-uk
BBC Radio 4 reported in its headlines this morning that the Agriculture Biotechnology Council had published a new report "Going for Growth", which calls for GM to be put at the heart of agricultural development in the UK. The BBC failed to point out that the misleadingly named ABC is actually a GM industry lobby group that represents BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont (Pioneer), Monsanto and Syngenta.
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Agricultural_Biotechnology_Council
"The European Commission's promotion of 'bioeconomies' as a central focus at Rio+20 is more about protecting banking, biotech, manufacturing, agribusiness and energy sectors then defending vulnerable communities and the environment."
http://www.tni.org/briefing/bio-economies
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html
T. Burrington
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:35:26 +0100
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Democracy, Education and Saving the Planet
To: [log in to unmask]
Dear Mat,
I do always do what I can to speak up for efforts to do what needs to be done within universities. Even in "From Knowledge to Wisdom" first published long ago in 1984, I did this. The final chapter is called "The Revolution is Under Way" (false optimism, I confess, even at the time).. My most recent piece along these lines is an unpublished paper called Is the Wisdom Revolution Underway? , available online (click the title). See also How Universities Can Help Humanity Learn How to Resolve the Crises of Our Times - From Knowledge to Wisdom: The University College London Experience. , which has just been published, also available online.
Things are at a rather low ebb in universities at the moment in part, I believe, because most academics know that we are heading towards disaster, many no longer believe passionately in the value or the appropriateness of what they are doing - do not believe academia as at present constituted can help humanity resolve its crises. There is a sense that all is not well with academia, but no awareness of what is to be done about it. What we really need is the kind of thing Thomas Kuhn talks about, an intellectual revolution, a change of paradigm. Kuhn might diagnose the present sense of malaise as a pre-revolution mood of crisis. Peter Nicholls of Essex University asked a somewhat similar question to yours, but more despairingly about what could possibly be done. Here is my response.
Dear Peter,
We need to bring about an academic revolution so that
academia puts wisdom-inquiry into academic practice. How do we do that? It might happen, with agonizing slowness, in a muddled, piecemeal fashion, as
at present, other forces such as those that come from government, industry,
the military, and traditionalists probably overwhelming any changes that are
made that take us towards wisdom-inquiry. If we are to avoid that fate,
then we need a critical mass of influential academics who understand what
needs to be done, and why, to argue forcefully for the urgent need for
change at every opportunity, in all available channels of communication, and
to begin to take the steps that need to be taken to bring about change. We
need institutions like the Royal Society and the British Academy to throw
their weight behind the campaign. Criteria for publication, for career
advancement, need to be changed appropriately. Courses need to be changed. And so on. But the initial step is to have the question: What kind of
inquiry can best help humanity make progress towards a good a world as
possible? thrown open to widespread, serious debate, as a matter of
priority, at the level of universities, conferences, journals, from Nature
down, and of course in the media. We need academics of high profile to say
very publicly "What we have at present, built into our universities, is an
intellectual disaster, seriously damaging the prospects of the future of
humanity". An awareness of what is wrong, and what needs to be done to put it right, needs to be created within academia. We have not yet remotely
reached that stage. My hunch is that most of those in academia acutely
aware of how we are at present playing havoc with our future and the planet,
would nevertheless ferociously defend academia as the pursuit of knowledge.
They would want different priorities of research, perhaps, but not
wisdom-inquiry - an idea they would not have heard of, under any name.
How do intellectual revolutions usually occur? When
enough good people begin to see that orthodoxy is deeply flawed, and there
exists a much better alternative, which needs to be taken up, pursued, and
implemented. It is usually a struggle. It does not happen overnight. It
often requires passionate enthusiasm for the new "paradigm" as Thomas Kuhn
famously called it.
Have intellectual standards sunk so low that we have even
forgotten that every now and again we do need to change our ideas, our basic
assumptions about things? Have we forgotten what is involved in bringing
about such a change of paradigm?
It is fundamentally an intellectual revolution that we
require - a revolution in the overall aims and methods of academic inquiry,
a revolution in the philosophy of inquiry - but one with massive
institutional, political, moral and social repercussions.
What we need to do is to try to get it underway.
Best wishes,
Nick
Website: www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
Publications online: http://philpapers.org/profile/17092
--
"Wisdom is what's left after we've run out of personal opinions." Cullen Hightower
