Everyone is biased. It's pointless to try to make people get rid of their prejudices. It's just not going to happen. If you watched the online course for Ancient Greece you can clearly see Prof Kagan's bias that he thinks the ancient greeks were great and that everybody should try to emulate them.
I don't mind when professors are biased because I can think for myself and either agree or disagree with the professor. But this requires me to do more research for myself.
1) He is apparently fluent in a variety of languages (just from these lectures) and has a broad knowledge of history. I suspect most universities would happily claim him.
2) I'd reconsider the use of liberal as a pejorative. Try reading the first few paragraphs on liberalism in wikipedia.
3) Avoid ad hominem attacks. Please, cite counter examples, offer debate, whatever, just pick something other than the intellectual equivalent of "your momma wears combat boots".
How does it make you wonder that a peace studies professor whose firm conviction it is that violent means can never result in anything positive does not agree with the War on Iraq?
Certainly he has a liberal bias. If I were listening to George Bush or Jerry Falwell I'd assume they have a bias as well.
Like most people he has a perspective, which you probably don't completely agree with. That doesn't mean you shouldn't think about what he says, it means you should. It's a college class...the whole *point* is to get you to understand and think about different perspectives.
Most of college is not about amassing knowledge. It's about learning how to evaluate and categorize new concepts. Otherwise you would be just as well off with a library card. His job is to make his students learn to think. It's why college isn't just an advanced high school.
I studied physics, and there is much in physics that is up for debate and very controversial. The prof told us where he stood ( which I think is fine) , however, the prof made an impartial presentation that outlined both sides of the debate.
Did he? Are you certain? I'd bet most of the students in your class took the professor's side. Did you?
My point is that no one sided debate can ever be unbiased, particularly when the presenter has a strong bias on the topic. I believe it is better to acknowledge bias openly, than attempt to hide it, and, in so doing, unconsciously color the arguments.
If he cant put aside bias and play "devils advocate", then he should not a teacher, he's not doing his job. You were the one thatg was talking about " categorizing and evaluating concepts". I have no problem with him giving his opinion however.
164B seems to have more discussion of the use and problems when applying the ideas. I suspect Nagler believes the 'other side' is well entrenched, not needing active advocacy (I'd disagree).
I'd like to see a lively debate about the principles he's discussing. Considering he is, after nearly 20 lectures (that I've watched), still explaining basic theory, perhaps the intro class isn't the place for that. Maybe that's like teaching intro to psych and testing by psychoanalyzing Bundi?
Thats the point its not the place for a debate. If it isnt the place for that then just dont do it, its very simple. Theres a time and place for it, this wasnt it.
Everyone is biased. It's pointless to try to make people get rid of their prejudices. It's just not going to happen. If you watched the online course for Ancient Greece you can clearly see Prof Kagan's bias that he thinks the ancient greeks were great and that everybody should try to emulate them.
I don't mind when professors are biased because I can think for myself and either agree or disagree with the professor. But this requires me to do more research for myself.
Muffinfordinner 2 weeks ago
The "declaration for peace" completely failed, didn't it?
SalsaTiger83 1 year ago
Please take your own advice. In the future please try to elevate the level of discourse rather than simply inflame the argument. Thanks.
speed8ump 4 years ago
1) He is apparently fluent in a variety of languages (just from these lectures) and has a broad knowledge of history. I suspect most universities would happily claim him.
2) I'd reconsider the use of liberal as a pejorative. Try reading the first few paragraphs on liberalism in wikipedia.
3) Avoid ad hominem attacks. Please, cite counter examples, offer debate, whatever, just pick something other than the intellectual equivalent of "your momma wears combat boots".
speed8ump 4 years ago
The anti-war sentiments and comment about stem cells makes me wonder.
solboard 4 years ago
How does it make you wonder that a peace studies professor whose firm conviction it is that violent means can never result in anything positive does not agree with the War on Iraq?
goldenhind1 4 years ago
I wonder if the professor has a liberal bias???
solboard 4 years ago
Certainly he has a liberal bias. If I were listening to George Bush or Jerry Falwell I'd assume they have a bias as well.
Like most people he has a perspective, which you probably don't completely agree with. That doesn't mean you shouldn't think about what he says, it means you should. It's a college class...the whole *point* is to get you to understand and think about different perspectives.
speed8ump 4 years ago 2
Hes a college prof his job is to teach not to promote his political opinion.
2Pax123 4 years ago
Wrong.
Most of college is not about amassing knowledge. It's about learning how to evaluate and categorize new concepts. Otherwise you would be just as well off with a library card. His job is to make his students learn to think. It's why college isn't just an advanced high school.
speed8ump 4 years ago 2
There a difference b/w "evaluating and categorizing new concepts" and promoting a political opinion while denegrating another.
2Pax123 4 years ago
I studied physics, and there is much in physics that is up for debate and very controversial. The prof told us where he stood ( which I think is fine) , however, the prof made an impartial presentation that outlined both sides of the debate.
2Pax123 4 years ago
Did he? Are you certain? I'd bet most of the students in your class took the professor's side. Did you?
My point is that no one sided debate can ever be unbiased, particularly when the presenter has a strong bias on the topic. I believe it is better to acknowledge bias openly, than attempt to hide it, and, in so doing, unconsciously color the arguments.
speed8ump 4 years ago
If he cant put aside bias and play "devils advocate", then he should not a teacher, he's not doing his job. You were the one thatg was talking about " categorizing and evaluating concepts". I have no problem with him giving his opinion however.
2Pax123 4 years ago
I agree though he should acknowledge bias openly. I think its ok for him to say "this is what I believe because".
2Pax123 4 years ago
164B seems to have more discussion of the use and problems when applying the ideas. I suspect Nagler believes the 'other side' is well entrenched, not needing active advocacy (I'd disagree).
I'd like to see a lively debate about the principles he's discussing. Considering he is, after nearly 20 lectures (that I've watched), still explaining basic theory, perhaps the intro class isn't the place for that. Maybe that's like teaching intro to psych and testing by psychoanalyzing Bundi?
speed8ump 4 years ago
Thats the point its not the place for a debate. If it isnt the place for that then just dont do it, its very simple. Theres a time and place for it, this wasnt it.
2Pax123 4 years ago
Look for opportunities to find someone doing something right, and then praise them for their actions.
derekmedina8 4 years ago