Date: Nov 8, 2012 9:04 PM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine Scientific Research - Response To Greeno
Robert Hansen (RH) posted Nov 8, 2012 9:55 PM
> On Nov 8, 2012, at 2:28 AM, GS Chandy
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > At the current stage of our intellectual
> development, we generally get ourselves all tangled
> up with arguments about things like "PUT THE
> EDUCATION MAFIA IN JAIL!"...
> You seem to have a problem with this
> characterization, but I guarantee that if in place of
> just parents and children on the loosing end of their
> crimes, there were shareholders, there would be
> people going to jail. The fraud is widespread and
> without deterrence.
> Bob Hansen
[By the way, the word you might have been seeking in your above-noted response is the participle of the verb "lose", which means something else from your 'characterization', "loose"].
I have no problem with 'this characterization' at all(if you or others insist on it) - or with the other 'characterization' "BLOW UP THE SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION!": it is the sheer and utter uselessness of both these 'characterizations' that is at issue.
Name the members of the 'Educational Mafia' who have been put in prison by reason of this ceaseless re-iteration of his worthy theme by Haim. Identify the 'schools of education' that have been 'blown up' in the USA by reason of thE ceaseless re-iteration of HIS worthy theme by Professor Dr Wayne Bishop.
What changes have come about, what wonderful changes have been wrought in the US public school educational system by reason of the ceaseless re-iteration of their worthy themes by our fervent protagonists? (Or by the implicit iteration by you?)
While you busy yourself calculating the vast numbers of 'jailed Educational Mafia' and/or 'blown-up schools of education' (precisely zero in both cases, I observe), you might also usefully check out the rest of my message (which I copy below my signature for your ready reference), and, more importantly, you might check out the attachment with that message (NOT copied), and try and read through it. Ah, I forgot: you do hate those "boxes" that "characterize" many of my attachments and object vehemently to them. Too bad: if you could get over your irrational hatred, you might learn something.
If the 'fraud' by the 'Educational Mafia' (/'schools of education') is as "widespread and without deterrence" as you and the owners of those 'Missions' claim it is - then the simple and obvious 'THING TO DO' is to find better ways to convince the police and the judiciary of that 'fact', rather than thus ceaselessly re-iterate those bits of rhetoric.
Further by the way, if "PUTTING THE EDUCATIONAL MAFIA IN JAIL!" or "BLOWING UP THE SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION!" are the ineluctable Missions that Haim, Dr Bishop, you (or others of your ilk) might insist on holding, the OPMS process - which is broadly described in outline at that attachment - provides the owner of the respective Mission practical ways to identify just what realistically may to be done to achieve the Mission (whatever** it may be). But you absolutely have to learn not to "hate those boxes", and you would indeed have to learn to use them.
[**Or the owner might find that something else is better in terms of a worthy 'Mission' - something that would actually make a difference in the amounts that Haim, Dr Bishop, etc, claim are squandered/looted by those 'Educational Mafia' or 'Schools of Education'].
In either case, there is some (a tiny amount of) learning and some (a fair amount of) 'unlearning' that's required. (Both of these also can be taken up as 'Missions', by those who have the stamina and the courage to go through the processes involved. And yet further by the way, the tools described go way beyond the "PERT Charts" on which you are fixated, the halls and corridors of your workplace that you filled up with instances of).
("Still Shoveling Away!" - and with apologies if due to Barry Garelick for any tedium caused; and with the observation that the EASY way to avoid such awful tedium is to refrain from opening any messages that are purported to originate from GSC)
Copy of GSC's actual message, for reference:
>> I believe that, in general, it will take a lot more
>> thinking and doing (intellectual maturity on our -
>> i.e. human - part) to get to the stage where we're
>> capable of correctly identifying the 'necessary and
>> sufficient conditions' of any state, situation or
>> condition involving complex human/ societal issues
>> and interactions.
>> Our 'science' and 'scientific thinking' has reached
>> the stage where we can, in many cases, identify such
>> conditions for specific matters involving
>> mathematical statements and proofs, and the like
>> (this includes much of physics also, I believe - and
>> perhaps good bits of other 'hard sciences').
>> But we're a LONG way from being able to do that for
>> complex societal issues involving human psychological
>> idiosyncracies, etc. At the current stage of our
>> intellectual development, we generally get ourselves
>> all tangled up with arguments about things like "PUT
>> THE EDUCATION MAFIA IN JAIL!", "BLOW UP THE SCHOOLS
>> OF EDUCATION!", and the like, which take us nowhere
>> near resolution of the underlying issues and problems
>> that such desires represent.
>> I suggest we should first work towards identifying
>> the things in general that "MAY CONTRIBUTE" to other
>> things specifically with regard to a 'Mission' we
>> desire to accomplish: We're capable of doing that
>> fairly effectively right now. In due course we may
>> become knowledgeable enough to identify the
>> 'necessary and sufficient' quite correctly.
>> I have, in other posts at this forum, described some
>> tools that may help with enabling us clearly to
>> understand "CONTRIBUTIONS". (These tools are NOT
>> quite 'sufficient' to enable us clearly to identify
>> the 'necessary and sufficient' - but enough of this
>> kind of intellectual effort may well help us become
>> knowledgeable enough to start understanding and then
>> perhaps even correctly identifying the 'necessary and
>> sufficient' in more complex matters than
Message was edited by: GS Chandy