CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Neither, but since most of the early formative years are geared to making kids learn to play by the rules it's generally conservative until about high school. Then high school introduces some liberal ideas along with the conservative. And then in college, since college is often about expanding youths' minds, it tends to be liberal to blow up the conventional thinking they'd developed so far.
So you see, it's a blend, but if you're counting K-12 and then college there are far more years of sit down, shut up, do as you're told then there are liberal break the mold shake-up.
Mainstream education is generally right-wing. Capitalism is mainstream. People who go to universities tend to be more on the right when they get out. Sure, economists tend to be democrat, but the democratic party is more right-wing in ideology(though arguably going farther left). Our current society in the U.S. is more of what a right-winger would want.
Liberalism isn't left-wing. You heard of classical liberalism, right? The idea of limited government, personal freedom and a free market free of massive state intervention. That of course is much in line with reality, but it is right-wing. Also, education need not be towards reality, they have taught plenty of false things.
Despite its name, "Classical Liberalism" grew out of Liberalism, not the other way around. Liberalism is the basis of the Democratic Party and Classical Liberalism is the basis for Libertarians, which aren't really fully liberal or conservative, but have generally been assimilated into right wing movements due to their economic positions.
The idea of limited government
Neither side is supportive of establishing a monarchy or dictatorship, so both sides believe in limited government, its just a matter of how limited. The less government you have, the less it is able to help its citizens. A rich white man may not need this help, but poor people, women and minorities often do. If this is truly the greatest country on Earth, the majority of our citizens should not be hampered by the circumstances of their birth.
personal freedom
Freedom is wonderful, but without responsibility, it can and often will infringe on the freedom of others.
free market free of massive state intervention.
A true free market is not sustainable in the long run.
That of course is much in line with reality, but it is right-wing.
Here's what reality shows. America is wealthy and powerful, but its not really "best in the world" on almost any other indicator. The countries who usually beat us, the Nordic Countries, various other European nations, and Canada, use some form of Democratic Socialism (which is not the same as Marxism or "Communism"). These countries fair better because everyone has equal opportunity to success and personal advancement is not limited. With the US though, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the middle class diminishes and the economy is very likely to permanently shrink unless we do something about it.
Also, education need not be towards reality
If it is good education, it damn well will be.
they have taught plenty of false things.
Only
a) when politics get involved. In the current political landscape, this has happened primarily in school in Texas and the deep south, Republican controlled states.
b) New discoveries and insights have been made. If this happens, you admit you were wrong before and move on with teaching the new understandings. This is how society progresses.
Despite its name, "Classical Liberalism" grew out of Liberalism, not the other way around.
Classical Liberalism is what liberalism originally was, that is why it is called "classical liberalism".
Liberalism is the basis of the Democratic Party and Classical Liberalism is the basis for Libertarians
Social liberalism is the basis of the democratic party USA, and of course modern libertarianism in the U.S. is today's classical liberalism.
which aren't really fully liberal or conservative, but have generally been assimilated into right wing movements due to their economic positions.
It indeed is fully liberal, the same as classical liberalism. Some may be conservative, which would be liberal conservatism. Since they are capitalist(which is a part of classical liberalism), they would be on the right.
Neither side is supportive of establishing a monarchy or dictatorship, so both sides believe in limited government, its just a matter of how limited.
That is what they base their ideology on, what they call "limited government". It is really just relatively low state control over people's lives. If you mean the democratic and republican party, both believe in more control(in their ways), since that is what politicians do, they use the state to support their causes.
The less government you have, the less it is able to help its citizens.
That is true(of course).
A rich white man may not need this help, but poor people, women and minorities often do.
That is where you are wrong, nobody "needs" state support. This can all vary depending on the structure of the society you live in.
If this is truly the greatest country on Earth, the majority of our citizens should not be hampered by the circumstances of their birth.
That is how it always is. Society is not infinite, there is always a structure, and you are a de facto part of it based on where and when you are born.
Freedom is wonderful, but without responsibility, it can and often will infringe on the freedom of others.
That is how it almost always been viewed in the course of human history. Liberty hardly ever gets a chance. If you don't like liberty, then enjoy living in a police state(which are unfortunately everywhere).
A true free market is not sustainable in the long run.
You clearly lack understanding of this. This may depend on the nature of the free market in society, but to say it is unsustainable in the long run is of ignorance to say the least.
Here's what reality shows. America is wealthy and powerful, but its not really "best in the world" on almost any other indicator.
That depends on how you view "best".
The countries who usually beat us, the Nordic Countries, various other European nations, and Canada, use some form of Democratic Socialism (which is not the same as Marxism or "Communism").
You are showing lack of understanding again. First off, the nordic model, canada, and the other European nations are not "democratic socialist", they are based on forms of "social democracy"(there is a difference). As far as I know, there are no "democratic socialist" countries. A couple countries that call themselves "democratic socialist" are North Korea and India. North Korea is sanctioned by the UN for Human rights violations is among the poorest in the world. India also suffers from poverty. I don't consider them "Democratic socialism" though(but in some ways more similar).
These countries fair better because everyone has equal opportunity to success and personal advancement is not limited.
These countries are actually based on a free market as well. However, social democracy is not what makes these countries based on a welfare model in a capitalist framework successful in many ways. In fact, the success of Scandinavia came before the welfare state, not afterwards. In reality, the welfare state hindered economic growth. That is what social democracy does, it only hinders, the market is where the wealth comes from.
With the US though, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the middle class diminishes and the economy is very likely to permanently shrink unless we do something about it.
Do you know why?
If it is good education, it damn well will be.
In many ways, yes. However, we don't know everything.
Only
a) when politics get involved. In the current political landscape, this has happened primarily in school in Texas and the deep south, Republican controlled states.
b) New discoveries and insights have been made. If this happens, you admit you were wrong before and move on with teaching the new understandings. This is how society progresses.
That is one possible summary. The point is, saying that a certain ideology is towards reality and the others aren't is plain nonsense. It is all really a matter of perspective, as you have shown even with some of your false(and social liberal rhetoric) assumptions.
I don't know about you, but I'm definitely writing this in 2016. Its good to know your history, but have to realize that things can change a lot in a few hundred years, especially in politics. In modern America, Liberalism is left-wing. Has been for a while now. If we had a debate about modern communications, would you refer only to rotary phones and ignore the existence of cell phones and the internet?
Classical Liberalism is what liberalism originally was, that is why it is called "classical liberalism".
Liberalism first appeared as modern political philosophy around 1649 with the execution of King Charles I and the establishment of the Commonwealth of England. The very first Liberals were the Levelers, who supported some form of democratic rule, suffrage, religious tolerance and equality.
In 1690, John Locke formalized Liberal theory with "Two Treatises". At this point Liberalism stood in stark contrast to Monarchism. If you wanted Democracy and equal rights for all, you were a Liberal. But beyond this there was a lot of wiggle room. A bunch of varieties of Liberalism popped up over the years.
Classical Liberalism began emerging about a century later, but really kicked in during the 1800s. At the time, it was simply one of many subsets of Liberalism, and wasn't known by any special name, but by the writings of Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and Adam Smith. During the 19th century, this variant of Liberalism grew farther and farther from mainstream Liberalism. Eventually, the two were so far apart that mainstream Liberalism came to be known as Social Liberalism, while the other variant was refereed to a Classical Liberalism, since social Liberalism was considered new, even though it was just an evolution of the mainstream Liberalism.
Before the split, Liberalism was always about Liberty and equality. Now Classical Liberalism focused primarily on Liberty and Social Liberalism focused on economy. Classical Liberalism formed the basis for Libertarianism, which has had an increasing influence on Republican economic policy, aligning it mostly with Conservatism, but not quite.
It indeed is fully liberal, the same as classical liberalism. Some may be conservative, which would be liberal conservatism.
Again, this is 2016. Modern Liberalism trend towards social permissiveness, some form of government influence on the economy and a focus on society as opposed to the individual. The only one of those that Libertarians are focused on is social permissiveness and are strongly in opposition to the Liberal economics and clearly focus on the individuals. So no, 33% is not fully Liberal.
Since they are capitalist(which is a part of classical liberalism), they would be on the right.
Most Liberals are capitalist too. They are definitely not right wing.
That is where you are wrong, nobody "needs" state support.
To have equal access to education, health care and opportunity, a huge segment of our population needs some government assistance at some point in their lives. Later, we'll go into what happens when they don't get it.
That is how it always is. Society is not infinite, there is always a structure, and you are a de facto part of it based on where and when you are born.
In the modern world, we have the tools to mitigate this. And if we use those tools, we can expand our economy.
If you don't like liberty, then enjoy living in a police state(which are unfortunately everywhere).
First off, I said "freedom is great", so I clearly like liberty, I just do not believe it should be fully uninfringed. If you like unhindered Liberty, there are regions of Somalia and Afghanistan you can go to.
Also, police states are not "everywhere". There are a few, but they are very much in the minority.
You clearly lack understanding of this.
Just because you don't agree with me does not mean that I'm the ignorant one.
A true free market means maximizing economic efficiency, ie: no government intervention. Once the market takes control, the winners win more and the losers rarely do. Inevitably, this means all of the wealth accumulates towards the top, the poverty class grows, and the middle class shrinks. Now, what happens when a very tiny minority has most of the wealth and nobody else can buy what the suppliers are supplying? Economic collapse.
That depends on how you view "best".
I view "best" by numeric verification.
You are showing lack of understanding again. First off, the nordic model, canada, and the other European nations are not "democratic socialist", they are based on forms of "social democracy"(there is a difference).
You are correct, but I am using current political parlance in America as identified by the rise of Bernie Sanders. In this sense, "Democratic socialism" is used to differentiate modern brand of "socialism" from "Communist" socialism.
In fact, the success of Scandinavia came before the welfare state, not afterwards. In reality, the welfare state hindered economic growth.
"Success" in terms of a nation is not limited to growth of wealth. Taking such a simplified view of an aggregate of complex topics is extremely myopic.
Do you know why?
Of course. This is what supply-side, limited intervention markets do by nature. Look, we've got the three classes: Upper-class- Generally saves more than they spend. Middle glass- Generally save and spend at more or less the same rate. Lower class- Spends almost everything. Saving is not really a good thing in the economy. It basically suspends money from the economy until it is finally spent. So the upper class doesn't actually put anywhere nears as much money into the economy as they could. The lower class, being by far the biggest and spending the largest percentage of their checks, should be able to float the economy on their shoulders, but they just don't have enough to spend to make a big improvement of the economy.
This is why the middle class is the most important. They spend more of their salaries than the rich and have more to spend than the poor. They do still tend to save a lot, but it usually goes back into the economy more quickly than the saved wealth of the rich.
However, our middle class is shrinking more and more as many of them drop down into poverty. These days, it is easier to fall into poverty, than to rise from poverty into the middle class. So, we have a pyramid. The optimal arrangement in a diamond: small upper and lower classes and a huge middle class. We've been using supply side and trickle down economics for over three decade, and the situation just keeps getting worse.
In many ways, yes. However, we don't know everything.
That is true, but what is your point?
The point is, saying that a certain ideology is towards reality and the others aren't is plain nonsense.
Reality has nothing to do with philosophy. It is facts. Measurements. Historical precedents. If one philosophy happens to line up with the facts, then of course conflicting philosophies won't. Basic logic.
I don't know about you, but I'm definitely writing this in 2016. Its good to know your history, but have to realize that things can change a lot in a few hundred years, especially in politics. In modern America, Liberalism is left-wing. Has been for a while now. If we had a debate about modern communications, would you refer only to rotary phones and ignore the existence of cell phones and the internet?
Uh, and what does the year have to do with it? Classical liberalism is liberalism. It is common sense.
Liberalism first appeared as modern political philosophy around 1649 with the execution of King Charles I and the establishment of the Commonwealth of England............
Okay? The history you mention just supports what I already know about liberalism.
Again, this is 2016. Modern Liberalism trend towards social permissiveness, some form of government influence on the economy and a focus on society as opposed to the individual. The only one of those that Libertarians are focused on is social permissiveness and are strongly in opposition to the Liberal economics and clearly focus on the individuals. So no, 33% is not fully Liberal.
There is no "modern" liberalism, it is social liberalism you are talking about. For now on, I will assume you are talking about social liberalism.
Most Liberals are capitalist too. They are definitely not right wing.
Social liberals are indeed capitalist, but if they focus on reducing inequality, then they are left wing.
To have equal access to education, health care and opportunity, a huge segment of our population needs some government assistance at some point in their lives. Later, we'll go into what happens when they don't get it.
Yes, the state has largely been about enforcing equality, however, you don't "need" it.
In the modern world, we have the tools to mitigate this. And if we use those tools, we can expand our economy.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about.
First off, I said "freedom is great", so I clearly like liberty, I just do not believe it should be fully uninfringed. If you like unhindered Liberty, there are regions of Somalia and Afghanistan you can go to.
It really depends to what extent.
Just because you don't agree with me does not mean that I'm the ignorant one.
Has it ever occurred to you that I could be saying this because you really don't understand? Or is that impossible?
A true free market means maximizing economic efficiency, ie: no government intervention. Once the market takes control, the winners win more and the losers rarely do. Inevitably, this means all of the wealth accumulates towards the top, the poverty class grows, and the middle class shrinks. Now, what happens when a very tiny minority has most of the wealth and nobody else can buy what the suppliers are supplying? Economic collapse.
That lies on a variety of assumptions, I don't dispute this, but this is based on more Keynesian thought.
I view "best" by numeric verification.
In what?
You are correct, but I am using current political parlance in America as identified by the rise of Bernie Sanders. In this sense, "Democratic socialism" is used to differentiate modern brand of "socialism" from "Communist" socialism.
Bernie Sanders doesn't change the definitions. "Socialism" has different varieties, there is no modern brand.
"Success" in terms of a nation is not limited to growth of wealth. Taking such a simplified view of an aggregate of complex topics is extremely myopic.
In terms of an economy, it is a lot about standards of living.
Look, we've got the three classes: Upper-class- Generally saves more than they spend. Middle glass- Generally save and spend at more or less the same rate...............
All the things you said are agreeable by even american conservatives(besides trickle down/supply side being a failure and possibly on the saving).
We've been using supply side and trickle down economics for over three decade, and the situation just keeps getting worse.
Really? This isn't exactly true.
That is true, but what is your point?
Education just goes off what is mainstream at the time, which can always be based on false assumptions.
Reality has nothing to do with philosophy.
LOL, that is part of what philosophy has been about.
It is facts. Measurements. Historical precedents. If one philosophy happens to line up with the facts, then of course conflicting philosophies won't. Basic logic.
There is science, which still relies on assumptions but is based around finding "facts". There is no "facts" in political philosophy, for example, it would be nonsense to say that an ideology like conservatism is a "fact". Political philosophy is based around the question of "how society should be organized", which is a matter of organization of people, not "facts". Political philosophy is much different from science.
Overall, to say that "liberalism" is of reality and other ideologies aren't is plain nonsense.
And its design is antinationalism! Now redefining also complicates matters, which is actually a practice of cult following control. If something is redefined, communication of ideas are virtually eliminated by the indoctrinated, brainwashed cult member. Therefore reasoning and discussion are shut down before conversation can even start.
Free thinkers and atheism do not want religion to exist, founding fathers, most not all - Jefferson was notably unfavored because of his own religious predjudice.
Contrary to popular assumption that religious ferverency was the motivation of many to be considered puritans, the opposite is true. They were many man of incredible education, and understood the intolerance of Atheism and Catholocism and Islam.
These three were experienced by them, in their circles of understanding they understood the practicality of their influence. They saw it in front seat display. And they saw its deviant destructive progress. These comments were educated reviews, not religious views. The Millenials are indoctrinated by humumanism and atheism, they sold political agenda in universities and unleashed many beasts against the average citizen who was just living life in a free America.
So Religious freedom and a society for the good and comfort of all was established.
And was immediately infiltrated by destructive intolerance of the many faces of Atheism. Which many of these me deemed as the greatest destructive force of intolerance.
But the infiltration into higher education turned from neutral religious to anti religious.
The current platform we see of the Christian political involvement was necessitated by the force of Atheism.
If God is a generic term for multiculturalism, from Judaism to Islam or to any belief system, ten why is the push to make society neutral humanism with a closed door presence of religion? How far of a reach is it to disassociate this social order from a communism or anti religion establishment?
If faith is the substance that is unseen, yet clearly was a force of establishment of a fair government for many beliefs to display their exercise, then why is establishing an anti-faith social climate, of intolerance toward people of faith a freedom or a free thought consideration.
And look at its results. It's not brought goodness in the social climate, it's brought decay. Even worse it's brought change of government to a world order of fake social justice in order to eventually mimic the communism and totalitarian government, through means of education, and promotion of self interest groups supported as non-religious, that are in every way entirely religious.
I'm not expecting a real change in this, I think it's the end of the end. We are reaching the point were humanity evolved to gods, and the most powerful of the gods are the rulers of thought, removing reason from societies, creating violent decay, then ultimately blaming Christianity. Designed to control minds not free them!
I'm surprised its not clearly visible.
Senator Paul Hoagland of Nebraska: "The fundamentalist parents have no right to indoctrinate their children in their beliefs. We are preparing their children for the year 2000 and life in a global one-world society and those children will not fit in."
The “Humanist Review” magazine observed, "Education is thus
a most powerful ally of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school's meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?"
.
P. Blanchard, in The Humanist, 1983, continues: "I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor.
Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends toward the elimination of religious superstition.
The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history."
.John J. Dunphy wrote in the Jan/Feb 1983 edition of The Humanist, "The battle for mankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom. The classroom must and will become the arena of conflict between the old and the new: the rotting corpse of Christianity and the new faith of humanism."
.
I am as sure as I am of Christ's reign that a comprehensive and centralized system of national education, separated from religion, as is now commonly proposed, will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief and of antisocial nihilistic ethic, individual, social, and political, this sin-rent world has ever seen.
What is called education is indoctrination of the worst kind, this is internal takeover of a country from undoing it from within, by taking away thought, and replacing it with control!
Americans are continually told that problems in our public schools are due to a shortage of money, parents aren't concerned, children are lazy, there are simply too many obstacles to overcome.
Some people say we don't know how to do it yet. We're supposed to believe that after all these centuries of educating children, there is still some secret gimmick we must discover.
Another group of people talk about the lack of infrastructure as if we don't have enough classrooms, books, and buildings. We have all of those things, probably more than enough.
Other people talk about testing as if it were inherently bad and destroys whatever children are learning. (Apparently there's a plot underway to turn people against testing by making it excessive and painful.)
In sum, it wasn't enough to dumb down the schools. The Education Establishment wanted to convince the public that the causes for this decline were socioeconomic in nature, and too vast and complex for us to understand or control.
All these phony excuses are like a deep fog over the landscape. Nobody can see anything clearly. Nobody can figure out how we escape from our educational morass. Let's bring in wind machines, blow away the fog, and start over.
I propose to you that these aforementioned causes are for the most part alibis and coverups, not explanations.
The real truth is that our public schools are not primarily interested in education anymore, as people traditionally understood that term, i.e., children learn reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, history, science, etc. The Education Establishment, when they talk about education, think of indoctrination, social engineering, the new socialist child, and so on. They are motivated by philosophy and politics, by ideas and ideology.
QED: to understand K-12 in America, let's consider the horrific power of ideology. (Ideology might be defined as religion for atheists.)
No one should forget that the 20th Century was ravaged by ideology. A hundred million people were killed by ideology.
In the 1930s Stalin created a famine in the Ukraine that killed more than 5 million people, slowly and painfully. This famine was justified in the New York Times by a nasty little sophistry.
"If you want to make an omelette, you have to be willing to
break a few eggs." That's how ideologues think. Once they
have a blueprint in front of them, their consciences can sleep. Murder and suffering are said to be the price we must pay for
a better world.
The Nazis, in order to build a Third Reich, were willing to kill off entire cultures.
Mao Zedong, according to Wikipedia estimates, killed more than 40 million of his own people, all for ideology.
Pol Pot killed approximately 1,500,000 of his fellow Cambodians, from a total population close to 5,000,000. One ideologue terminated one-fourth of the Cambodians in the world.
You cannot understand K-12 in the USA unless you consider what the educational leaders have been trying to do. They want to create a new socialist child and build a brave new world. If necessary, they'll accomplish this goal one dumbed-down, brainwashed kid at a time.
Traditional education interfered with all these grandiose plans.
If people knew a lot about history and politics, they might find their own answers. If people were independent thinkers, they could fight the ideologues. The school system ended up in the evil position of having a vested interest in mediocrity. Weak
and ignorant students would be less likely to resist..
Over the decades, American schools had lower academic goals but more soft education, i.e., politically correct attitudes and opinions.
The 20th century was a violent century because so many groups embraced an ideology that justified every sort of extremism. Mass executions and mass starvations were excused or even celebrated. Reeducation camps were a constant feature.
In education, we had a modified, lightweight version of that, if you will. People weren't put in prison camps. They were confined to public schools where ideologues set the goals and made the rules.
According to Charlotte Iserbyt's book "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America," our public school system is an elaborate conspiracy to create simple, know-nothing children. They can't read very well. They can't do arithmetic with confidence. They don't acquire very much knowledge. These undesirable outcomes are achieved deliberately. Our ideologues are proud of their good work.
What did the Khymer Rouge talk about at the end of the busy work day? "Another 1000 corpses, comrade! Congratulations!"
And what do the commissars in our Education Establishment talk about at the end of their busy days?
Perhaps something like "Kids still can't read, thanks to sight-words! Congratulations!"
It's interesting that both the Communists and Nazis recruited people by telling them that they would be in the vanguard of history. These recruits, many of them people with marginal skills and prospects, would shape the future and build a dazzling new world. What an exhilarating feeling. You become something of a god. You are a "change agent." You will be able to manipulate people, push them around, imprison them, and maybe even execute them. You will feel good about this because you have a plan, a vision. Ideology gives you wings!
So, as we look at the wasteland of K-12 education, try to imagine how the people at the top view their dirty work. My fear is that they are much too proud of themselves. They probably high-five a lot.
Indoctrination through education took root pretty early in American History. As it already established global prominence by elite educators like Dewey.
John Dewey and his socialist brotherhood, a hundred years ago, decided they would use the public schools to transform the entire society. They first had to seize control of what is taught in K-12 classrooms. Dewey and his successors settled on two major strategies for controlling what educators call "content."
First, they discarded as much of the traditional curriculum as possible – i.e., knowledge was thrown out the window by the boxload. Secondly, they invented many techniques for scrambling classroom instruction so that knowledge was no longer taught efficiently.
So we have here, across a wide front, a well organized war against knowledge and the transmission of knowledge. Dumbed down schools were created intentionally in order to create dumbed down students. That, my research suggests, is the horrible reality.
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Have you watched Patterns of Evidence-Exodus? I think it may currently be on Netflix.
There are many others documentaries as well. And David Rohn is a great resourse- videos on youtube.
I like the presentation of Patterns of Evidence because it discusses sequences in finding that are in order of the biblical History, and findings or coincidentally seen in a time line are in accurate sequence that match the biblical historic account.
It's denial is more a byproduct of militant atheism, and political control of education for social indoctrination, then for independent thought, and true free thought.
So if there is evidence of Joseph, which there is, and also evidence of the events recorded ie… a long term famine, and also followed by slavery, a massive migration, then conquests of places like Jericho, I'd be inclined to think the digs should be taken seriously, rather than leading education and thought by its denial of the findings and their appropriate applicaton.