:clap: The Boy Owen got there first.

[Peter]

Well, I'll admit that my modern English history is limited to post 95 when I arrived. And even that isn't very good.

But it was Blair that wanted to get the post secondary education numbers up to 50% wasn't it? And didn't he dumb down A levels and let pretty much every institution call themselves a university in order to do that?

Yes, yes and no, in that order. In fact it is the Tories again now opening the route to university status for the private sector.

[Monty92]

What scientific evidence proves that the world is a better place if people are allowed to drink?

The key word there is better. It clearly indicates a value judgement, at which point the true scientist retreats to his lab and leaves you to it.

Erm, you have't made the mistake of thinking I'm talking only about medical science, do you? The ideas I'm talking about span the entire scientific spectrum.

[World's End Stella]

Yes, yes and no, in that order. In fact it is the Tories again now opening the route to university status for the private sector.

So the next logical question is that if Blair dumbed down A levels to get another 35% of students into university (assuming the UK used to have 15% of students in university like most countries) without increasing the number of universities, where did he expect the 35% to go?

[Burney]

I know all that. But my point is that it is only our position that is backed up by science. The only reason to dispute this is if you don't believe in science. Which is fine. But I know you do.

No. There is no scientific basis to not enslaving black people or sending 6 year-olds down mines or up chimneys. Indeed, there were excellent livings to be made at it as I understand. They are things we chose to stop doing based on a set of ideas. Science had fùck all to do with it.

You are getting the fact that we have derived what we perceive to be happy outcomes (for us) from no longer doing these things mixed up with some sort of scientific proof of our cultural superiority, which is nonsense. The Romans used to enslave and kill millions and indulge in games that involved torture and bloodshed. Was the fact that they dominated the ancient world and were vastly technologically superior to their contemporaries therefore validate the extremely fùcked up nature of their society?

[redgunamo]

Suffered through our own sense of snobbery and class, I'm afraid. The model of universities vs applied science universities works very well in Europe. Here the polys were simply viewed as poor relations of universities.

You mean it came as a surprise to everyone that Britons are not, in fact, Europeans? My word.

Anyway, it doesn't work "very well in Europe". Far from it. And the only reason your sort says such things is because you know you speak French and German, for example, at least as poorly as anyone likely to be listening so you imagine you can get away with it. By precisely the same token, the French and the Germans will tell you the thing works "very well" in the United Kingdom.

[World's End Stella]

No. There is no scientific basis to not enslaving black people or sending 6 year-olds down mines or up chimneys. Indeed, there were excellent livings to be made at it as I understand. They are things we chose to stop doing based on a set of ideas. Science had fùck all to do with it.

You are getting the fact that we have derived what we perceive to be happy outcomes (for us) from no longer doing these things mixed up with some sort of scientific proof of our superiority, which is nonsense. The Romans used to enslave and kill millions and indulge in games that involved torture and bloodshed. Was the fact that they dominated the ancient world and were vastly technologically superior to their contemporaries therefore validate the extremely fùcked up nature of their society?

I'm pretty sure you could come up with a scientific basis for outlawing slavery and sending 6 year olds down the mines. Or at least I wouldn't write off the possibility.

I would imagine you would attempt to measure an individual's contribution to society with respect to the number of hours worked over the course of their lifetime, the contribution that they might make if given equal opportunities in society etc etc. You could then measure the life expectancy of the average person with and without slavery and child labour and a use a fairly basic probability theorem to determine the contributions the slaves and children would have made. This would be offset against the advantages of cheaper labour amongst other things.

No idea what the conclusion would be but I'm sure this could be measured scientifically.

[Peter]

So the next logical question is that if Blair dumbed down A levels to get another 35% of students into university (assuming the UK used to have 15% of students in university like most countries) without increasing the number of universities, where did he expect the 35% to go?

Aha! You are labouring under the old notion that only a certain number of students were qualified to go to university and that those universities could only cope with that number. Wildly untrue.

Entry requirements were never set at the level required to be able to do well on the course. They were set high to attract the best students to fill the limited number of places available because the government would only pay for so many. Thus free tuition actually worked as a middle class subsidy, all of us paying for the education of a small number of mostly middle class kids.

What Blair did was introduce a tuition fee at 3 grand. Immediately there were more places, lower entry requirements and plenty of space at our universities with hundreds of thousands of perfectly well qualified kids suddenly given an opportunity.

Paradise

[Monty92]

No. There is no scientific basis to not enslaving black people or sending 6 year-olds down mines or up chimneys. Indeed, there were excellent livings to be made at it as I understand. They are things we chose to stop doing based on a set of ideas. Science had fùck all to do with it.

You are getting the fact that we have derived what we perceive to be happy outcomes (for us) from no longer doing these things mixed up with some sort of scientific proof of our cultural superiority, which is nonsense. The Romans used to enslave and kill millions and indulge in games that involved torture and bloodshed. Was the fact that they dominated the ancient world and were vastly technologically superior to their contemporaries therefore validate the extremely fùcked up nature of their society?

No, my ideas are based on the good of the individual, not the collective. And however successful the Roman Empire, for its slaves and torture victims the system of the day was undeniably sub-optimal, from a scientific viewpoint or otherwise.

For individuals, the benefits of equality of opportunity and basic human rights for all can be objectively observed in, and verified by, science.

[Peter]

Erm, you have't made the mistake of thinking I'm talking only about medical science, do you? The ideas I'm talking about span the entire scientific spectrum.

I never mentioned medicine. My question is how scientific study can ever embrace the notion of a societal 'better'..... better in what sense/whose opinion/to what end?

[redgunamo]

I'm pretty sure you could come up with a scientific basis for outlawing slavery and sending 6 year olds down the mines. Or at least I wouldn't write off the possibility.

I would imagine you would attempt to measure an individual's contribution to society with respect to the number of hours worked over the course of their lifetime, the contribution that they might make if given equal opportunities in society etc etc. You could then measure the life expectancy of the average person with and without slavery and child labour and a use a fairly basic probability theorem to determine the contributions the slaves and children would have made. This would be offset against the advantages of cheaper labour amongst other things.

No idea what the conclusion would be but I'm sure this could be measured scientifically.

Such number-crunching isn't science though surely? The results and conclusions always depend upon who is paying for them.