Those individuals who want to think outside the box - for example, anyone who suspects that mainstream society is in many ways pursuing a path which leads to the eventual destruction of the environment, or which fosters corporate greed and exploitation - are often required to be self-taught, so as to avoid being propogandized by the establishment. And they discover things of real value, but the establishment thinkers will usually regard them, rightly, as mavericks or subversives.

Yes, that does sound more reasonable.

Those individuals who want to think outside the box - for example, anyone who suspects that mainstream society is in many ways pursuing a path which leads to the eventual destruction of the environment, or which fosters corporate greed and exploitation - are often required to be self-taught, so as to avoid being propogandized by the establishment. And they discover things of real value, but the establishment thinkers will usually regard them, rightly, as mavericks or subversives.

More reasonable than what? Of course, since schooling I have read books and articles by philosophers. Does that constitute self-teaching? If it does, then, yes, of course. I am to that extent self-taught. Is that what is meant?

Self-taught is being taught by a teacher who knows no more than the pupil. Not promising.

Well, let's clarify. When you said this:



Were you criticizing autodidactism? What exactly was the stance you were trying to articulate?

Yes, I would say that your reading those books and articles could be considered self-teaching. You could have learned many things within those books and articles on your own, and you may have taught yourself how to reason out a problem (for instance).

Well, sure. We are all (I hope) self-taught in that sense.

But that's what a lot of academia is. People who suspect that mainstream society...something or other.

I want "establishment thinkers" to build the planes I fly, and to invent the medicines I take. It is a lot safer that way. Next time you visit a physician you can try a non-establishment physician. But you won't meet me there.

I believe that that is the sense the people who created an uproar over your post were referring to.

Yes, I suspect so. Did they really think I was denying the obvious? As I just posted, philosophers always tell you that they are going to inform you of wonders yet unknown, but then it turns out to be news from nowhere. What we all know, only gussied up.

Well, it was just unclear what exactly you meant. But it turns out everyone misinterpreted you and then began arguing against a position that wasn't even yours. So, yes, I suppose people did think you were denying the obvious.

I really don't think it was my fault (this time). It was clear that I was arguing against those who were claiming that we should all begin from scratch, and that professional schooling is the Satanic instrument of "the establishment" which wants to turn us all into Stepford thinkers. Wasn't that the theme of the autodidactists?

Not in this particular thread. But in that one thread where a member was bashing the education system in general, there was much of that.

Self-taught is being taught by a teacher who knows no more than the pupil. Not promising.

Self-taught is being taught by a teacher who knows no more than the pupil. Not promising.

I don't know if 'self' taught is totally apt; I engage in a good bit of interaction with friends (fellow students and some professors) outside of my courses. I use the framework of knowledge I built in my self study to apply to my traditional studies and vice versa. So when I read a text on theoretical computer science, I have basic traditional grounding it the subject, though I am teaching myself the details (which comprise the vast bulk of it).

still looking to other human beings as authorities. Get off your knees! And stop forcing your idolatrous grime on others.

Where is ken? I stated him as wrong and he is not retorting. I hope he is ok.

My friend always wore a seatbelt, and one day, he accidentally drove his car off into a stream. The accident itself didn't produce any injuries, and all he had to do was get out of his seatbelt and vacate the car, but unfortunately, his seatbelt became jammed, he couldn't get it loose, and he died as a result.

He would not have drowned had he not been wearing the seatbelt. That is a reason for not wearing a seatbelt, and I cite that accident as evidence to show that we should not wear seatbelts. Isn't that ample evidence to show what I'm trying to show? Of course not.

By the way, this is a fictitious story. I had no friend. But, I think it's a good example of using antidotal evidence to draw a conclusion that shouldn't be drawn.