🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <611@alden.UUCP> sgr@alden.UUCP (Stan Ryckman) writes:
>In article <10620@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite) writes:
>[...]
>>Of course we should also listen to the experts in deciding what is 
>>taught but that does not mean giving them a free hand in the matter.
>>We should take what they say into account then apply our own
>>intelligence to the matter.  Otherwise we risk paying for people to
>>teach our children the economic theories of Angela Davis or the
>>genetic ideas of William Shockley.

>Or, (gasp!) Charles Darwin.

>Just how do we "take what they say into account and then apply our
>own intelligence?"  A vote?  I bet creationism still would win out
>in a fair portion of the U.S.


Well, yes we do it by vote.  The only other choice available to us
is some form of dictatorship.  The question is not if we should vote
on the matter.  In any form of democratic society that is ultimately
how the decision will be made.  The question is what do we consider 
in casting those votes.  Do we consider only the "experts" or do we 
apply our own intelligence to the matter?  (Please note, I said 
"intelligence," not "prejudices.") My point is that so-called experts 
can be wrong, often flagrantely so.  Furthermore they are not immune 
to their own prejudices.

Blind obedience to authority is dangerous, regardless of whether
that authority occupies a pulpit, a government office or a
university chair.