|
|
|
|
|
|
by dsalso
2457 days ago
|
|
|
Furthermore, one has to distinguish education vs schooling. The upper classes always have access to education, the rest might have access to schooling but not education. The reasons for this are old (19th century Prussia) and tied to the origins of public education systems and their ideologues. Just as an example of what is typically taught as schooling, deference to authority (media nowadays). Just consider doctors and vaccines, what makes you think that the doctor received any particularly deep understanding of this topic, it is not like they are any more critical of what they might have read in a textbook than you. Btw, I would have you reconsider your careless use of the word antivaxxers, if anything ask yourself why is it so heavily promoted in media and what biases it carries? Again, I'm not against vaccination, but there is a lot to investigate about the context of how it is carried out. Kinds of conservation chemicals, optimum schedule, frequency and side effects of all this. You will find there is still quite some debate around this from more scientifically minded doctors. |
|
|
Schooling is an avenue into education, and while 19th century prussia has been an influence, so has been montessori, humboldt and the 20st and 21st century reserach into pedagogy.
As for your comments on antivaxxer, they are called antivaxxers because they are anti-vaccination, don't care about the actual problems and and don't respond to the actual arguments. Doctors and researchers will always debate how to make vaccines better, because of course they will, we want better vaccines. There is also debate about when we can get away without vaccination, e.g. in the case of rabies where the vaccine is time sensitive, or malaria, where it doesn't make sense for norwegians to get them unless they visit the tropics and so they can spare themselves the side effects (which are acknowledged and worked on, see before) and society the cost. What you will not find, at all, is any honest scientific debate about whether the default should be to vaccinate or not. I don't know if you meant to imply this, but Poe's law acts here: even if you didn't you gave the antivaxxers a smidgen of credibility, by saying "you will find debate" in a way which could imply "and that means antivaxxers have some reasonable positions". They don't.
See also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy#Effectivenes...
and this table: https://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol2017106/tables/1