Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No, History of Philosophy is an Area of Specialization in Philosophy. Most degree programs require a student majoring in Philosophy to include some minimum number of History of Philosophy courses, and they're usually crossed with an equivalent course in departments such as History and Classics, meaning that you could take the course and count it towards a major in any of those disciplines. Then there's the overlap with the Philosophy of Science, which is also partly historical and partly normative in that you need to know what philosophies were girding the science of the day.

Ahtman wrote:

Dogma wrote:political science, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and a couple others are generally separated from that class, and occasionally regarded as outright sciences.

Damnable lies and outright self-delusion!

Clinical psychology is certainly a science.

Yup. Just because a science is done badly and for the wrong reasons doesn't mean it's not a science. This is an issue in the Philosophy of Science when, historically speaking, most scientific theories have failed. Furthermore scientific theories cannot be verified, at least not in the empirical sciences, and even in the pure sciences the standard of proof shifts as results accumulate so that a result may require qualification. If science was judged by its success, then science wouldn't be science and that is absurd.

That's not a mark against clinical psychologists: it's not like they have access to the kind of samples that so-called 'hard sciences' do, even if you could treat agents mechanically. Still, gives them more room for misusing the results, or more insidious still, interpreting the results within the purview of their own ideology. Though that's a common problem in 'frontier science' whether it's physics or sociology: scientific frontiers are just more easily accessible in the social sciences.

Nurglitch wrote:No, History of Philosophy is an Area of Specialization in Philosophy. Most degree programs require a student majoring in Philosophy to include some minimum number of History of Philosophy courses, and they're usually crossed with an equivalent course in departments such as History and Classics, meaning that you could take the course and count it towards a major in any of those disciplines. Then there's the overlap with the Philosophy of Science, which is also partly historical and partly normative in that you need to know what philosophies were girding the science of the day.

I don't think you caught the orkmoticon in the posty. I didn't say it was a good joke, just a joke.

Nurglitch is from Canada...AKA the Liberal version of Iran.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Nurglitch is from Canada...AKA the Liberal version of Iran.

GG

And your from the nation that elected TWO George Bush-es.

In Canada's defense, their donuts are quite good.

Dogma wrote:It is perhaps better to say that the Humanities are necessarily opposed to the dominant Western religions; especially Christianity and Islam.

That's the part that makes no sense to me at all. I get why Iran is doing it I don't need that explained. Controlling education is par for the course for a tyrannical regimes for awhile now. It's the blanket statements about how Religious Conservatives hate the Humanities because they oppose religious authority (which is absolutely not true) that I'm not getting.

Also, what are you including in the Humanities? Its a fairly mutable category, but its gotten more restricted of late. For example, political science, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and a couple others are generally separated from that class, and occasionally regarded as outright sciences. Humanities these days tends to be limited to Gender Studies, Regional Studies, Literature, History, and Philosophy.

My understanding is that the Humanities include; Art, Literature, Language/Communication, History, Philosophy, and Law (Which is supposed to be shared with the social sciences). I only mentioned Sociology and Psychology before because the article in question mentions Psychology so I had them on the brain during the discussion. And I used one of my stupid moments! That's a mulligan thank you

generalgrog wrote:Nurglitch is from Canada...AKA the Liberal version of Iran.

GG

Canada is like Iran?

Iran has a dangerous amount of people in it who want to turn their backs on Science, read alot more scripture and turn the country into a Theocracy.

Every single pot in the entire cosmos just called every single kettle black.

Yes, Canada is like Iran. How do you think it got it's nickname, Canuckistan?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Dogma wrote:political science, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and a couple others are generally separated from that class, and occasionally regarded as outright sciences.

Damnable lies and outright self-delusion!

Clinical psychology is certainly a science.

Lies and deceit I tells ya!

It was when I was at medical school, anyway.

LordofHats wrote:
That's the part that makes no sense to me at all. I get why Iran is doing it I don't need that explained. Controlling education is par for the course for a tyrannical regimes for awhile now. It's the blanket statements about how Religious Conservatives hate the Humanities because they oppose religious authority (which is absolutely not true) that I'm not getting.

Well, I suppose the first step towards understanding it would be realizing that there aren't very many (if any at all) religious theories of the modern concepts that constitute the Humanities, for example gender.

LordofHats wrote:
My understanding is that the Humanities include; Art, Literature, Language/Communication, History, Philosophy, and Law (Which is supposed to be shared with the social sciences). I only mentioned Sociology and Psychology before because the article in question mentions Psychology so I had them on the brain during the discussion. And I used one of my stupid moments! That's a mulligan thank you

I wouldn't include art in the Humanities, I think art is one of those things that floats over by itself. I also wouldn't include language in the humanities for similar reasons. Communications maybe, but I've never actually seen a communications program that wasn't a combination of journalism and marketing, so I'm liable to classify that as business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:
That's not a mark against clinical psychologists: it's not like they have access to the kind of samples that so-called 'hard sciences' do, even if you could treat agents mechanically. Still, gives them more room for misusing the results, or more insidious still, interpreting the results within the purview of their own ideology. Though that's a common problem in 'frontier science' whether it's physics or sociology: scientific frontiers are just more easily accessible in the social sciences.

You have no idea how often I've had to review graduate level work that turns its argument of Lakatos' test for degenerative research. Its maddening how people regard his (and Kuhn's, and Popper's) work as definitive with respect to the nature of science, social or otherwise.

dogma wrote:
Well, I suppose the first step towards understanding it would be realizing that there aren't very many (if any at all) religious theories of the modern concepts that constitute the Humanities, for example gender.

I don't see how that then leads to "religious conservatives hate the Humanities.' I can get that might be a cause of hostility, but that just goes back to my earlier statement about how I've seen religious conservatives rave against the 'Secular Liberal Establishment' in Universities and Colleges, but not the fields of study themselves. I'm draw that what you mean is that there are positions on aspects of the humanities that are at odds with Christian positions on the issue, but I don't get how this at all leads to a conflict in the two that qualifies to say one feels threatened by the other. Religious Conservatives aren't threatened by the study of Gender, they're threatened by the modern theories of Gender not always being easily reconciled with their own beliefs. There's a difference in there somewhere...

The study of gender necessarily entails producing theories that are at odds with conservative, religious notions of gender. You don't need to study something that God has written into society.

Also, I've only seen the phrase "conservatives hate the Humanities" hate your posts. Nurglitch and I have confined our comments to opposition or threat, which generally follows from any discipline which questions the underlying assumptions of society predicated on religious conservatism.

dogma wrote:The study of gender necessarily entails producing theories that are at odds with conservative, religious notions of gender. You don't need to study something that God has written into society.

If there is no need to study something God has written into society that seems to leave a black hole as to the origins of Theological study of the Bible. The Study of Gender does not necessarily entail anything. The work it could produce could be in complete harmony, there is not a necessity for it to be at odds with anything.

Also, I've only seen the phrase "conservatives hate the Humanities" hate your posts. Nurglitch and I have confined our comments to opposition or threat, which generally follows from any discipline which questions the underlying assumptions of society predicated on religious conservatism.

I know. You'll notice I've started to rectify that silliness of mine in my previous post (I got's side tracked again, but I'm not using a stupid moment on that one I only have one left ). And I again state, it is not the study of Gender they are threatened by. It is the theories produced by mainstream academia they feel threatened by. There is plenty of debate over Gender in religious circles. It is focused on what the Bible says, but you seem to be suggesting that any study of gender is non-existant among religious conservatives which isn't true.

LordofHats wrote:
If there is no need to study something God has written into society that seems to leave a black hole as to the origins of Theological study of the Bible. The Study of Gender does not necessarily entail anything. The work it could produce could be in complete harmony, there is not a necessity for it to be at odds with anything.

You're missing my point. I'm saying that when you study something you necessarily produce results that are not in consistence with your anticipated conclusion. You can reject them if you want, but you still produce them. If you aren't producing these 'false positives', then you aren't actually studying anything, but rather looking to justify something that you already believe.

In other words, sure, the study of a given discipline can produce results that are consistent with the Bible, but it will, by necessity, produce those that aren't consistent with it; simply by the nature of inquiry. It doesn't matter if these results are eventually rejected as incorrect, they still represent a threat by their mere existence.

LordofHats wrote:
I know. You'll notice I've started to rectify that silliness of mine in my previous post (I got's side tracked again, but I'm not using a stupid moment on that one I only have one left ). And I again state, it is not the study of Gender they are threatened by. It is the theories produced by mainstream academia they feel threatened by. There is plenty of debate over Gender in religious circles. It is focused on what the Bible says, but you seem to be suggesting that any study of gender is non-existant among religious conservatives which isn't true.

That's not the study of gender. That's the study of the Bible in order to produce justifications for how one already feels about gender.

dogma wrote:

You're missing my point. I'm saying that when you study something you necessarily produce results that are not in consistence with your anticipated conclusion. You can reject them if you want, but you still produce them. If you aren't producing these 'false positives', then you aren't actually studying anything, but rather looking to justify something that you already believe.

In other words, sure, the study of a given discipline can produce results that are consistent with the Bible, but it will, by necessity, produce those that aren't consistent with it; simply by the nature of inquiry. It doesn't matter if these results are eventually rejected as incorrect, they still represent a threat by their mere existence.

That makes more sense except for the last sentence. As I've already stated, I've been around and I've met plenty of religious conservatives who perceive no threat inherent to the Humanities.

dogma wrote:That's not the study of gender. That's the study of the Bible in order to produce justifications for how one already feels about gender.

So discussing the context of gender within the Bible, what it means, how it is applied, and whether or not the current way things are done is the correct way of doing things is not Studying Gender? Narrowing the focus of study does not make it something else and it seems a little ignorant to assume that they're only going over the matter to justify the current behavior.

Even if I accept it isn't study gender, it at the very least it covers other humanities, namely Philosophy and Literature, and if they decide to delve into the past of the discussion in various time periods it involves history. If the group in question decides to go the more Evangelical route, they might even discuss the matter as it pertains to Law.

I'm still not seeing how the blanket statement "Religious conservatives feel threatened by the Humanities" is true, or how "The humanities are in necessary opposition to western religion" is any more true. All I'm drawing is that there seems to be a lack of understanding concerning religious conservatives (It seems like Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are being applied to the whole group to me).

We're not saying religious conservatives as a group are feeling threatened, we're saying they are threatend. Like the Clerics of Qom they should feel threatened by a project that seeks to uproot and overthrow their culture. Perhaps it is because the Clerics hold a position of authority that makes them sensitive to the threat.

"Pretty teeth and book learnin' only get you so far in life," Granny always said.

"Fat, drunk, and stupid are no way to go through life son."
-Dean Warmer

LordofHats wrote:
That makes more sense except for the last sentence. As I've already stated, I've been around and I've met plenty of religious conservatives who perceive no threat inherent to the Humanities.

They don't have to feel threatened if they don't want to, but if we assume that the goal of religious conservatism is the restriction of the behavior of others (ie. homosexuals via marriage), then the mere fact that alternative modes of thought exist necessarily indicates that they are threatened. One can be threatened without realizing that the threat exists.

LordofHats wrote:
So discussing the context of gender within the Bible, what it means, how it is applied, and whether or not the current way things are done is the correct way of doing things is not Studying Gender?

No, that's studying gender because, as you've indicated, there is a comparison drawn to gender norms as they now exist, which means considering other positions regarding gender. However, doing that requires admitting that sources of information regarding gender that are not the Bible can be thought of as legitimate, which take us outside religious conservatism. If those sources aren't taken as legitimate, then ultimately its nothing more than Bible thumping; ie. this book is right because its this book.

LordofHats wrote:
Narrowing the focus of study does not make it something else and it seems a little ignorant to assume that they're only going over the matter to justify the current behavior.

Not current behavior, feelings regarding what behaviors should be desired.

LordofHats wrote:
Even if I accept it isn't study gender, it at the very least it covers other humanities, namely Philosophy and Literature, and if they decide to delve into the past of the discussion in various time periods it involves history. If the group in question decides to go the more Evangelical route, they might even discuss the matter as it pertains to Law.

Again, there's a difference between saying something is right because its in the Bible, and saying something is right because, when compared to the alternatives, it appears to be the most useful. The former is what follows from religious conservatism, the latter is nothing more than academic study that leads to a certain conclusion.

LordofHats wrote:
I'm still not seeing how the blanket statement "Religious conservatives feel threatened by the Humanities" is true, or how "The humanities are in necessary opposition to western religion" is any more true. All I'm drawing is that there seems to be a lack of understanding concerning religious conservatives (It seems like Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are being applied to the whole group to me).

I think we're talking about different sorts of religious conservatives. I'm not talking about politically conservative people who are also religious. I'm talking about religious people that are conservative with respect to their religion.

dogma wrote:They don't have to feel threatened if they don't want to, but if we assume that the goal of religious conservatism is the restriction of the behavior of others

Thats a bad assumption and the core difficulty. I am sure thats the goal of some, but thats in any political stripe or belief system.

It's one of the interesting conclusions of Women's Studies that no man or woman is an island: The personal is the political.

However, doing that requires admitting that sources of information regarding gender that are not the Bible can be thought of as legitimate

That's what Theological Journals, Commentaries, and folks with Divinity Degrees are for. There's also the local library (There's a news stand down the street I think). Not all religious conservatives think the bible is inerrant or infallible. That's a myth that's been perpetuated by very vocal religiously conservative groups whose positions are well known because they show up in the news a lot and quite often in social studies text books.

LordofHats wrote:I think we're talking about different sorts of religious conservatives. I'm not talking about politically conservative people who are also religious. I'm talking about religious people that are conservative with respect to their religion.

So am I. Not everyone who is conservative with respect to their religion does as you seem to believe they do. You've applied the aspects of well known (and very vocal) sections of religious conservatives to the whole group.

the goal of religious conservatism is the restriction of the behavior of others

Everyone tries to restrict the behavior of others in one way or another (Usually when it's convenient). Religious Conservatism doesn't have a monopoly on that, and the degree to which they wish to exercise that kind of control, or even if they want to exercise it at all can vary.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats a bad assumption and the core difficulty. I am sure thats the goal of some, but thats in any political stripe or belief system.

What Nurglitch said. If you are no longer in the majority, then your views are deviant. If your views are deviant, then your views are likely to be oppressed regardless of how accepting the society may be.

Every thesis has an antithesis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
That's what Theological Journals, Commentaries, and folks with Divinity Degrees are for.

When was the last time you saw a Theological Journal feature an article on gender that cited an article that appeared in a journal dedicated to post-feminism? A commentary? A person with a divinity degree publishing on a similar topic?

LordofHats wrote:
There's also the local library (There's a news stand down the street I think). Not all religious conservatives think the bible is inerrant or infallible. That's a myth that's been perpetuated by very vocal religiously conservative groups whose positions are well known because they show up in the news a lot and quite often in social studies text books.

I never said they had to believe that the Bible was inerrant. I would only call someone a religious conservative if they behaved as though the portions of their holy book with which they agreed were followed as though they were inerrant.

LordofHats wrote:
So am I. Not everyone who is conservative with respect to their religion does as you seem to believe they do. You've applied the aspects of well known (and very vocal) sections of religious conservatives to the whole group.

From my perspective you're calling people religious conservatives when they aren't religiously conservative.

LordofHats wrote:
Everyone tries to restrict the behavior of others in one way or another (Usually when it's convenient). Religious Conservatism doesn't have a monopoly on that, and the degree to which they wish to exercise that kind of control, or even if they want to exercise it at all can vary.

Nor did I that it was, or that they did.

dogma wrote:From my perspective you're calling people religious conservatives when they aren't religiously conservative.

From my perspective you're calling people who are religiously conservative not religiously conservative.

It is quite confusing.

Why not define religious conservatism?

Definitions are usually the first thing to propose when a line of argument is to be advanced.

I watched a documentary, A Life Apart about the history of Hasidic Jews and it touches on this subject. One of the points it made is that there are no professionals in the Hasidic community because they are not allowed to go to college. College's teach relativism, in a sense, and they find the idea of objectively looking at other religions or philosophies anathema to their way of life. I imagine the Mormons that live in compounds in Utah feel much the same way, as to the Amish.

LordofHats wrote:
From my perspective you're calling people who are religiously conservative not religiously conservative.

It is quite confusing.

This may help: I don't use 'conservative' to denote values that are associated with conservatism.

Instead, I use conservative, in the context of religion, to denote anyone that adheres to a given religious tenet as though it were inerrant, with the intent to conserve it. For example, I would consider someone who was against gay marriage because the Bible speaks against homosexuality to be a religious conservative. I would also consider anyone who used the Bible to label compassion as a virtue to be a religious conservative.

Conversely, if someone were to be against homosexuality because they felt it was detrimental to species, while also being religious, I would not consider them to be religiously conservative. Indeed, their willingness to look to non-religious sources for the justification of their views almost demands that they be seen as religiously liberal.