Education Means Critical Thinking. Knowledge is Power.

The Millenial Generation May Produce a New Realignment in the US

It's been an interesting semester with lots of work in the end, as per usual, but now it's over. I had a good experience over all. I like teaching, and, I dare say, most of my students seem to enjoy my classes. I encourage critical thinking and thoughtful discussion--something of a rarity in colleges today. Accumulating information without putting it into proper context is good for passing exams but it doesn't necessarily promote an understanding. Connecting the dots is often a skill that's lacking among Americans but also among too many college students.

Of course, it's the subject matter that allows for such a conversation. My subject is Political Science so I talk about political theories, ideologies, the information (?!) media, American political institutions, etc. But, I'm a science fan too. I'm a scientist in that I accept the scientific way as the most powerful tool we have for knowledge! The scientific method is a specific process, a methodology, of analyzing evidence, forming theories that explain & predict, and always keeping the door open to revision--when better data or a theory are available.

The process is very important and much is invested in it. The process of finding and analyzing evidence and then puting it in order. The conclusion comes later. It is not the other way around it as many people seem to be doing. That is, they first form a "conclusion" which is something they like, and then they try to find any piece of supporting evidence to their thesis. Any contradictory evidence that falls outside their narrow frame (of mind) is discarded! Obviously, this is not an appropriate for knowing stuff; it may be good for escaping reality and/or feeling better for a while, but it is not a tool for learning.

I can't tell you how many times I had to explain--which is good, because at least we are talking about it--what a scientific theory is about. Such a theory is not a hunch, a guess, an opinion! The theory of evolution is perhaps controversial in the minds of the ignorant, but it is one of the strongest scientific theories we have. Modern genetics and technology have confirmed its tenets and have piled on more supporting data upon the tons of evidence we have from fossils, and other observations. Unfortunately, more Americans (US) believe in creation than evolution! In other words, more people believe that human beings were made in their present form rather recently than humanoids having evolved over hundreds of thousands of years! And, this in a society that has been at the forefront of technology, science, and freedom of information!

I like Richard Dawkins's explanation:
"We have two theories, A and B, both trying to explain the same phenomenon. Theory A fails in some particular. Theory B must be right, even if theory A is supported by loads of evidence and theory B is supported by no evidence at all...

Nevertheless, if you can find one phenomenon, call it X, for which, as far as you can see, theory A cannot provide an explanation, you therefore conclude theory B must be right....

What kind of logic is that?"

If you want to understand the physical world, logic is imperative. But, I think, you have to have some courage to face reality even it is unpleasant. You develop courage by having confidence in yourself and your ability to think & analyze. I believe good thinkers are leaders too. Hopefully, we teachers and the schools can facilitate such rational, creative thinking and by doing so to develop leaders. Those who don't know (either by choice or not) tend to be followers and more likely to be manipulated by the simplistic arguments of demagogues who want to be leaders of a flock of sheep.

What Makes a Person Old Enough to Drink?

What Kind of Demands & Restrictions are Reasonable?

It seems to me that if a person is old enough to go to war, vote & get elected, buy guns, and legally do all sorts of things like other adults, then he/she should be able to have a drink as well. Unfortunately, this is one issue that reason does not prevail when we're talking about it.

In the New Hampshire Democratic debate (9/26), six of the 8 presidential candidates want the federal government to apply pressure on the states not to let young people under 21 to legally consume alcohol. I think this is stupid, not only on the grounds I mentioned above, but also because it doesn't stop anyone from using or abusing alcohol--a readily available legal product--that, by the way, kills more that, say, marijuana.

The federal government gives money to the states for their transportation needs, such as highway maintenance & construction, so Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd all want to deny federal funds to states that don't have a 21 years old restriction! Only Kusinich and Gravel basically said that such policy is ridiculous. These two got the applause, as most people in the audience approved.

In the 2006 ground-shaking election--when the control of Congress changed back to the Democrats after 12 years of Republican rule--the younger voters (those under 25) participated in record numbers. I was elated to see this and I hope the trend continues. Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004, and the Democratic party in 2006, received the majority of the young people's votes. This voting block was solidly Democratic, much more than other groups. A reasonable question is, why the Democratic presidential candidates--with the exception of the two least popular ones--don't feel the pressure to reverse such a discriminatory policy? Which pressure groups or what popular sentiment prevents them from accepting that an 18 year old that has all sorts of rights should also be able to consume alcohol?

However, young people are also rather marginal when it comes to voting. Even though there's been a 20% increase in participation lately, 76% of young Americans do not vote! Yes, this is not a misprint. Yes, it went down from 80% of non-voters, but the abstention rate is way too high.

Of course, sane and practical public policy should be the standard, but we all know it doesn't work like this. Right? Emotions, and, more often, misinformation rule the day. Why shouldn't we have a discussion whether this particular federal policy has a measurable effect on public safety. If it does, and we see that the mix of driving and alcohol is a deadly one, then why limit the restrictions to only one particular group?

I don't know about you, but if a young adult is about to be sent to Iraq tomorrow to kill & be killed, having a beer tonight seems very reasonable to me. What do you think?

[Take the poll on the right side of page]