Why fight it? Because it is important.

[Glorified Ape]

:boring:

This is stupid - arguing with you two is like arguing with a rock.

On the original issue of the Universities and being an "expert and learning", you've yet to answer my question:

"I've never really studied Military History or Theory at university at all, and yet I'm clearly able to discuss the topics from across the spectrum here on Army.ca.  Is my knowledge and understanding of military affairs now deficient and lacking something because I didn't study "Military Science" at the RMC?"

Please answer it, because I am really concerned that I do not have a firm grasp on military topics because I am "unable to achieve the same level of understanding" due to my lack of a University degree on the subject matter.  I'm sure other amateurs would like to know as well and hopefully get someone with tenure on here to tell us about Clausewitz and Van Crevald.  Make sure you tell that amateur A Majoor as well, since he has been published in a professional journal on multiple occasions.

In other words, your implication seems to be an ignorant dig towards those who have not excercised the oppurtunity to study politics at a University.

Not at all - I don't doubt that it's possible to glean an equal degree of knowledge on a certain topic, such as politics, from personal study as it is from attending lectures. This assumes, of course, that your professors do little more than regurgitate the readings in which case you should probably switch schools. Is there an equivalency of education insofar as one gleans the same understanding of the intricacies of the field, the methodology and practicalities peculiar to the field and the environment of study within the field at the university level? I don't think one can make credible assertions as to the validity of the academia surrounding political science without having been immersed in it. I also think there's something gained from having to repeatedly improve one's understanding by having to apply the methodology, theories, etc. and have such application picked apart by professionals but I could be wrong. I don't think this makes one a professional, but I think it's essential. The equivalent would be me claiming that I know the dynamics and reality of military life because I've read every book on the subject. I may be able to make accurate assertions as to the structure and normative issues but can I really know the military without having ever been in it? That being said, if an ex-soldier told you the military was an unprofessional, undisciplined bunch of hack wannabes, would you agree - having been in and his assertions being nowhere near similar to your experience and knowledge?

That being said, I don't automatically dismiss someone's assertions as untrue simply because they don't have a degree in something. On the other side, I don't necessarily credit someone's assertions as being true simply because they DO have a degree. If someone's arguing contrary to what I believe the evidence shows, I'm not going to accept their opinion as true (or truer than my own) unless they can prove to me otherwise, which I don't believe has happened of yet. It surely happened in the gun control thread and I admitted it, though after an admittedly unnecessarily stubborn and lengthy resistance.

With regards to "Science", so far all you guys have done is to peg the entire foundation of your idea that Liberal Arts are "science" based on Duverger's Law.  If using a law that looks at an extreme limited (in both time and space) part of the human experience satisfies your requirements of a Science, then fill your boots.  CivU's attempt to denigrate my education by pointing out that I missed out on the Durkheim bus is no better, because what I took from sociology was that Durkheim is simply another interpretation of how to observe trends in human behaviour - if I'm wrong, take "Scientific Rationalism" and find me an immutable law of human behaviour.  I'll be waiting on that one.

Liberal Arts encompass quite a range of subjects. I make no assertions as to the validity of any field's academics and their work besides my own. As for Duverger's Law being specific, so what? I'm not even claiming Duverger's Law as law - it may be and it may not be. I see it more on par with evolution - extremely descriptive and seemingly extremely predictive but still short of being an absolute "law" since it's entirely within the realm of possibility that it will fall flat on its face tomorrow, though it's highly unlikely. Are we going to argue that Evolutionary Biology isn't a science, though?

Despite the fact that most people who have B.A.'s and B.Sc. or no degree at all, young and old, experienced in life or not, seem to think you guys are full of smoke, you don't really want to hear it.  That's fine, if you wish to keep the cotton in your ears then that's your prerogative.  There is no point to try and reach the Unassailable Heights of your 2 or 3 years in university (although many of us have been there and have moved on).  In fact, I'm going to recommend to Mike Bobbitt that he make a "CivU and Glorified Ape" forum just for you guys, since all it appears is that all you guys are here to do is to listen to eachother talk.

A person with a BSc is about as qualified to comment on the validity of political science as a field by virtue of their having a degree as I am to comment on Music because I have a BA. While a BA in political science (which you have) lends some credibility to comment on the academia of that specific field, I don't find your observations accurate based on my experience (subjective), what I've learned, or your evidence. It seems we're arguing more about the definition of science than the actual application of its methodology (or lack thereof) by political science so both our degrees are irrelevant except where specific discussion of academic political science is concerned, in which we disagree because we can't agree on a definition of science. I believe methodology defines it while you believe it's result-driven.

I respect the opinions of majoor, Brad, yourself and everyone else on the topic though that doesn't mean we have to agree. If my participation in political discussion on the board really annoys the people here that much, I'll forego participation. This is really the only board area in which I'm qualified (as just about anyone is, given the nature of the subject) to actually debate, which is why I post in this area so much. I'd post elsewhere on the board more often but since I'm limited by my small amount of military experience and knowledge to generally seeking either advice or asking questions (most of which have already been answered before), the majority of my posting is here. That being said, I'll bite my tongue in the politics arena if I'm really pissing people off that much with my opinions - I didn't start this board and I wasn't invited so it's up to the moderators, of which you're one.

The approach is the scientific method. Science is the result when the method is consistently applied and the phenomena can be consistently studied. "Social science" may attempt to use the scientific method, but is notoriously inconsistent with the application, refusing to discard hypothesis when empirical observation demonstrates no cause and effect correlations. In physics, Aristotle could claim that greater masses will fall to earth more quickly, but as soon as this was demonstrated to be false, it was no longer considered a valid way of describing the universe. The current rants against US foreign policy are easily disproven (the invading for cheap oil is my personal favorite), yet this is brought up over and over even now. On other threads, it has been pointed out that low taxes and limited regulation TEND to support economic growth, yet there are still posters who will advocate more taxation, regulation and government spending, despite the empirical evidence from many nations and at many different times. (Note I say TEND, since economics describes my assertion, but cannot predict how much economic growth would result from lowering taxes by amount "x"). As Infanteer and others have pointed out, human reactions are never consistent, the same input may tend to give similar outputs, but there is no 1:1 correlation.

In bivariate relationships, no - that's pretty rare. Of course, so is perfect causality in a bivariate relationship in human affairs (or most others, as far as I know). The difficulty lies in discovering and factoring all the variables.

Hence I will repeat that the ability to make ttestableand repeatable observations and predictions at ALL times and ALL places qualifies something to be a science, and if you can't do it, then it isn't science.

Really? Biology can't test everything, nor make repeated predictions at all times and at all places but it's a science isn't it? I'll reiterate: the result is not what defines a science, the methodology and approach do.

A biologist testing hypothesis after hypothesis in an attempt to explain a phenomenon, yet proving his explanations wrong every time, is still a scientist because he applies the method, obtains the result, and admits that his hypothesis was wrong, right, or some degree thereof. If he starts ignoring evidence, betraying the method, and asserting relationships as fact which are not clearly so, then he ceases to be a scientist. No credible political scientist will assert that a theory is undeniable fact. He may assert that it describes and predicts a phenomenon better than another theory and thus is of more value but he won't claim, for example, that Realism is so absolutely factual that it's on par with conservation of mass or anywhere close thereto.

 

[CivU]

"I am lead to ask who your teachers have been?  Who are all those "old" men you are so keen on quoting?"

I've had 50 year old secondary school teachers who knew nothing and 30 year old professors who seemed to know everything.  I've also had elder teachers who taught me a great deal and younger instructors who seemed to lack the intangibles.  Age is irrelevant when it comes to knowledge.  Why can a young person not know more than their elder?

As for absurd claims regarding the United States in the last three months, I'm not sure what such claims are...enlighten me.

I'm more than willing to accept Glorified Ape's position and bow out of forums if the fact that two persons who can articulate an opinion that differs from that of the primary posters are unwelcome.  If that is the case I guess there isnt a lot of discussion desired on this discussion board...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

See ya

OK, that's not really fair. Excuse me for jumping at your offer.

 

[Infanteer]

Not at all

Fair enough, I think we both agree that knowledge is something that can be attacked from many different directions and perspectives; we seem to be content on disagreeing on the relative weight that one would assign formal attendance to a campus, which is fine.  I am going to tell you what I took from my undergrad years that I feel is the most important thing a university can provide (and hence where my weighting of the undergrad process comes from).  If you choose not to agree, fine - come back when you're done and point out where I'm wrong. 

University should give one the ability to come away from something regardless of the medium, whether it be a lecture (in a classroom or not), reading a book (assigned or not), or writing one's thoughts down (assigned or not).  If I can credit anything to my Paper on the Wall, it is that any attempt to learn something new (which happens everyday) is definitely much more "focussed" than, as Clasper pointed out, while I was within the rigid confines of prescribed syllabi at University or a freshly-minted Highschool grad.  I did not (and do not), as CivU asserts, need to go and undertake a Military Studies program to gain an appreciation for the topic, although my undergrad experience has helped to "hone in" on what I seek to know.

The equivalent would be me claiming that I know the dynamics and reality of military life because I've read every book on the subject. I may be able to make accurate assertions as to the structure and normative issues but can I really know the military without having ever been in it?

I'm not seeing how spending a few years on in formalized coursework is any better then informal studies and discussions.  Expert is a relative term - it seems that many consider Ward Churchill to be an "expert".  Immersion in "Political thought and governance", like any other social field, is gained through day-to-day experience (which can be augmented if one can reflect on a body of knowledge that one has formally or informally stored through learning).

This is why I'm willing to give those who've experienced much more then I have through their own eyes the credit for that.

Cheers,
Infanteer

[edited the spelling typos to assuage the critics]

 

[Infanteer]

Too many people are either writing above my head or talking through their hats.   I have no idea why Infanteer was "within the rigid bounds of proscribed syllibi", unless he meant PRESCRIBED SYLLABI.

That's what happens when you don't bother to read over what you post.  When I need a professional editor, I'll know who to call....

 

[Glorified Ape]

Fair enough, I think we both agree that knowledge is something that can be attacked from many different directions and perspectives; we seem to be content on disagreeing on the relative weight that one would assign formal attendence to a campus, which is fine.  I am going to tell you what I took from my undergrad years that I feel is the most imporatant thing a university can provide (and hence where my weighting of the undergrad process comes from).  If you choose not to agree, fine - come back when you're done and point out where I'm wrong.  

I'm not seeing how spending a few years on in formalized coursework is any better then informal studies and discussions.   Expert is a relative term - it seems that many consider Ward Churchill to be an "expert".  Immersion in "Political thought and governance", like any other social field, is gained through day-to-day experience (which can be augmented if one can reflect on a body of knowledge that one has formally or informally stored through learning).

This is why I'm willing to give those who've experienced much more then I have through their own eyes the credit for that.

I agree with your assertions that one can gain equivalent quantity of knowledge in an area without going to university (although it may take longer, given the concentration during a degree), my main objection was that one can't gain an equal familiarity with the academia of the field. I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm sure anyone with a reasonable degree of intelligence and reading could hold up a discussion about a particular theory, etc. equally with someone with a degree. Where I think the degree is essential is in the learning of the specific methodology (with all its related concerns peculiar to the field) to that knowledge, not only by instruction but through application (and the scrutinization thereof).

University should give one the ability to come away from something regardless of the medium, whether it be a lecture (in a classroom or not), reading a book (assigned or not), or writing one's thoughts down (assigned or not).  If I can credit anything to my Paper on the Wall, it is that any attempt to learn something new (which happens everyday) is definately much more "focussed" than, as Clasper pointed out, while I was within the rigid confines of proscribed sylibbi at University or a freshly-minted Highschool grad.  I did not (and do not), as CivU asserts, need to go and undertake a Military Studies program to gain an appreciation for the topic, although my undergrad experience has helped to "hone in" on what I seek to know.

I don't necessarily disagree. Really, my main point of contention was the characterization of poli sci academia as unprofessionally biased and unscientific. I think you're correct in your identification of "thinking skills" as one of the more important things gained from university. I don't expect to retain half of what I remember now 10 years down the road but the attitudes towards knowledge and thinking will hopefully still be around.

 

[pbi]

I do not think that age or real world experience are a necessity for a depth of understanding.  

I speak from the position of having defended (on other threads) the right and the desireability of the newer and younger members to challenge the older and more experienced among us, as long as it is done within the bounds of decency and not as strident mindless ranting. I do not come from the school of "children should be seen and not heard".

However, I have difficulty with this statement:

I do not think that age or real world experience are a necessity for a depth of understanding.  

I think that this sentiment has led to ruination, bad ideas and unhappiness in all walks of life, not least the military. I am reminded of the stupid young 2Lt who arrogantly says " Shut up WO: I'm in charge!", or the various harebrained schemes hatched by the Govt from time to time. I found that my own university education (which was PoliSci and Psych-nyaah nyahh   > ) was immensely enriched and much better situated because of the life experience and maturity I brought to it at age 44 with years of military service all over the world.

Surely you don't really mean what you wrote?

Cheers

 

[CivU]

"I do not think that age or real world experience are a necessity for a depth of understanding"

This was referring to the realm of political debate, where depth of understanding comes not from age but in the form of lectures, readings, tutorials, scholarly work and open debates. I think your interpretation took my comment out of context.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
This was referring to the realm of political debate, where depth of understanding comes not from age but in the form of lectures, readings, tutorials, scholarly work and open debates.

....can't stop laughing....please stooooooop, hehehe....yar killin' me....get real, lad!!!!!

 

[George Wallace]

I know Bruce, like standing in the desert with heat stroke arguing with the rocks.    :

I wonder what colour the sky really is in that world?

This has become my morning _____  ;D _____.   Back to my coffee.

GW

 

[Highland Lad]

As I read the thread, I am reminded of the oh-so-true comment:

    When I returned from University, I was amazed at how much more intelligent and reasonable my father was.

Lectures, lessons, and books are wonderful places to concentrate facts. Life is a wonderful place to gather wisdom. Put the two together, and you will should gain understanding. One without the other is useless.

I will freely admit to having been a PITA on my recruit course, due to having been in cadets, read all sorts of books about Vietnam, WWII, Korea, mercenaries, etc (fiction and fact). I could tell you all about Monty's victory at Alamein, and how the Colonial Rebellion in the Americas could have been won if the government of the day had been willing to provide the army with what was needed and requested (hmm... more parallels to history?). I thought my instructors would LOVE me!!! Looking back on it, I'm lucky that one Sgt took me under his wing and threatened to break my neck if I didn't get my yapper under control. I'm also very lucky that one course-mate provided a very clear example of how to ensure your career self-destructs (before I could do the same).

SUM UP! Don't discount the knowledge gained through experience OR through someone else's teachings - Those of us who have greater experience need to work to ensure that those who have knowledge gain the experience to properly apply it, and those of us who have less experience need to work to learn from those who have the experience.

 

[CivU]

"I wonder what colour the sky really is in that world?"

I hope with all the knowledge and experience I will have gleemed by middle age I will not be so hasty and ignorant of other opinions.  One can only hope...

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I hope with all the knowledge and experience I will have gleemed by middle age I will not be so hasty and ignorant of other opinions. 

....no, you have managed it already, just wait untill you're a grown-up, maybe you will get it...one can only hope...

 

[George Wallace]

Highland Lad

Very good post.  Very succinct and summarizes the situation very accurately.  I doubt that this can actually be described in a book or lecture, as the experience of actually seeing "The Wall".  You can hear all the stories, but until you actually go and see it, it doesn't truly sink into the ole melon.  In a way it is too bad it is gone.

GW

 

[Infanteer]

Seeing how CivU doesn't seem to want to accept the advice of those with more age, professional experience, or formal education, we can forget trying to further this conversation along anymore.

Locked.