Intellectual Character
The Socratic questioning technique exposes each participant to probing questions forcing the student to become conscious of the thinking structure behind any assertion of opinion. Basic issues are introduced and discussed in a controlled forum and through questioning the assumptions, prejudices, points of view and other inherent thought structures are exposed. This helps all members of the dialogue to develop an understanding of their own modes of intellection. Another important feature that becomes exposed is that there may be many points of view to every question, points of view that may not even have been anticipated by other members of the dialogue group before exposure.

In such a dialogue group each participant is forced to listen carefully and constantly develop the habits of intellectual focus and critical thinking. The student becomes conscious of the assumptions and prejudices that permeate everyone’s thinking.

The standard teacher/pupil teaching technique accentuates the importance of acquiring knowledge. The Socratic technique accentuates the importance of understanding and critical thinking. Being knowledgeable of a matter and understanding a matter are very different categories of comprehension.

I thought I might compare and contrast the professional journalist with the professional military officer in an attempt to focus upon the difference and importance of these two intellectual traits of comprehension.

What might be the ideal character traits of these two professions? It seems that the military officer should be smart, well trained, obedient and brave. The journalist should be smart, well trained, critical and honest. The journalist must have well-developed intellectual character traits and be skillful in critical thinking. The military officer should be trained to act somewhat like an automaton in critical circumstances.

The officer’s behavior in each conceivable circumstance should follow precisely a well-established code of action. The officer is trained to follow well-established algorithms in every circumstance. Even those instances wherein the officer is authorized to deviate from standard procedure are clearly defined algorithms. The officer deviates from established behavior only when absolutely necessary and that ad hoc behavior should follow along prescribed avenues. The officer obeys all commands without critical analysis except in very unusual circumstances. Bravery and obedience are the two most desired character traits of a military officer.

The role of the journalist in wartime has evolved dramatically in the last 50 years. During WWII the journalist acted as cheerleader and propagandist. During the Vietnam War the journalist often played the role of critical analyst. While one can see some positive reasons for the cheerleader and propagandist I will assume that overall this is not a proper role for the journalist in a democracy. The ideal journalist must always be a critical analyst and communicate honestly to the reader the results of her investigation.

Since most people unconsciously seek opinion fortification rather than truth they become very agitated when they find news which does not fortify their opinion. Thus, most people have low opinions of journalists. Nevertheless, it is no doubt the ideal journalist who presents the facts fairly, accurately and in a balanced manner. The ability ‘to connect the dots’ in each situation is of primary importance for the ideal journalist. Knowledge is important but understanding and critical thinking is more important.

We certainly want our military officers educated more in the didactic mode than in the Socratic mode whereas we would find that journalist educated in the Socratic mode would be the better journalist. The journalist must be able to recognize the prejudices of others as well as recognizing his/her own biases.

What might one say as regarding the contrasting importance of understanding and knowledge for a teacher, engineer, accountant, nurse, factory worker or secretary? With consideration we probably will find that knowledge is more important than understanding when thinking of the individual as a worker. The credentials that appear on most resumes are those testifying to a degree of knowledge by the job applicant.

We do not even have a metric for understanding.

I beg your pardon, but I think we need less Socratic thinking, which I deem as the origin of all educational problems. The excessive reliance on abstraction and rejection of empirical evidence makes the (pre-scientific) socratic thinking intolerable.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

Military officers are not automatons. They're the ones in charge and must have the same skills as journalists.

Back that up.

The profession of arms is a long one. Those who fail are dead. There are certain skills a military officer must have to ensure both the success of the mission (victory) and the longevity of his men. the include being "smart, well trained, critical, and honest." They also include posessing "well-developed character traits and be skillful in critical thinking."

They don't include being an automaton.

In contrast, journalists work for the companies. If the company doesn't like their work, they're fired. Thus, they must both posess similar skills as that of an officer, but be willing to be automatons of their company.

The difference is that officers are responsible for much more than getting the story.

They're responsible for both ensuring mission completion as well as the lives of those entrusted to their care.

These two goals are often at odds with one another. The best officers accomplish both. The best journalists only have to worry about ensuring mission completion.

__________________
If I set the budget, we'd have Ares and more. Unfortunately, I don't set the budget, and Ares is just too expensive and too far out for us to accomplish our goals within the budget we were given.

If we halt the ISS, all versions of Ares, and transport Orion and Altair aboard DIRECTv3's Jupiter family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, we just might make it back to the Moon by 2020.

Mug..

The most important characteristic for a military officer is that s/he be brave and obedient. The most important characteristic of a journalist is that s/he be fair and cogent.

Coberst, what the heck are you ranting about? You don't seem to be saying anything useful, or for that matter anything in particular.

(comment deleted: can't back it up off the top of my head.)

I think this comment bears repeating.

__________________
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov

He's probably trying to set up a hypothetical conflict of interest that places journalists and military officers on opposite sides, and then proceed to show the journalists mission as somehow nobler, and justify the former fighting against the latter's cause.

Folks, this is the same thing he did on the BABB, as well as numerous other BBs, where essentially the exact same posts would show up. One definition of spamming is posting the same post on multiple BBs, and doing this over and over one post at a time.

The posts all take the form of a hypothetical situation, usually an artificial, contrived conflict, followed by the poster analyzing the "conflict" ad infinitum. Somewhere in the "analysis" there is usually a criticism of the current educational system.

Check out this link and see if some of the posts look rather familiar. As well as here. And here.
And many other BBs too numerous to list.

Finally, most of the content of his posts is the result of copies and pastes from his web page.

Meanwhile, please don't wake me until this is over.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

There's truth in what you say, but there's some misconceptions, too. Brave obedient officers die every day. Self-critiquing. Fair and cogent journalists don't sell papers. The New York Post's recent makeover is prime evidence.

My father was an officer. On routine matters he was fair and obedient. On critical matters he always did what he thought whas right. He outlived and or was promoted to higher ranks than most of his former bosses.

I do the same at work. I have a boss, and am the boss of others. I don't expect blind obedience, but if a final decision needs to be made, I make it. But I also expect people to speak up when something's wrong, and tell me why. My boss has said he expects the same from me.

My father says things were the same during his three decades of service.

But that's only one point of view. Perhaps in other services things ar different.

__________________
If I set the budget, we'd have Ares and more. Unfortunately, I don't set the budget, and Ares is just too expensive and too far out for us to accomplish our goals within the budget we were given.

If we halt the ISS, all versions of Ares, and transport Orion and Altair aboard DIRECTv3's Jupiter family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, we just might make it back to the Moon by 2020.

I notice that people haven't commented on the number of journalists that are NOT...

How many journalists have not been critical, and have not been honest? Or, perhaps I should say, how many allow their personal bias to influence the way they report? Including not interviewing people that would put forth evidence or a viewpoint that contradicts theirs?

I noticed once on Fox News, during the whole Terry Schiavo case, Fox news interviewed a lot of people that believed that Terry Schiavo should have been forced to live -- celebrities, etc. Then on the opposite side, the "opposing viewpoint"... they chose a group of communists. Yes, that's right; communists. Actual communists. Then they diverted the conversation to talking about how communism would take over the world... IMO, it seemed like they did that to make that one viewpoint seem "on the fringe". Is that truly 100% accurate reporting?

Well, there's one on CNN's website that's not very smart. She talks about far more deadly IEDs, then goes on to spill the beans as to how they're made far more deadly.

Thanks.

I wonder if she's one of those people who post recipes for how to make homemade bombs from household chemicals? Did she think she'd a pulitzer by giving even more terrorists the ability to maim and kill both military and civilians?

I think most reporters have a decent amount of integrity. But all too often, even mainstream ones are going after just another buck.

__________________
If I set the budget, we'd have Ares and more. Unfortunately, I don't set the budget, and Ares is just too expensive and too far out for us to accomplish our goals within the budget we were given.

If we halt the ISS, all versions of Ares, and transport Orion and Altair aboard DIRECTv3's Jupiter family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, we just might make it back to the Moon by 2020.

Ultimately, the military officer is protecting the journalist from destruction at the hand of the enemy. If the journalist realized this he might be more likely to play the role of cheerleader.

__________________
http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats...033/prj:6/.png

Personally, I have a mixed view about the military. There are bad military officers, there are good military officers. There are bad soldiers, there are good soldiers.

Same with journalists. There are bad journalists, there are good journalists.

The military should be treated with both respect, but also caution; however, a lot of people take it to extremes.

You said exactly the same thing (to the word) before you were banned from the Bad Astronomy Bulletin board. Nothing new here.

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

I beg to differ on this. The most valued trait an officer can have is the ability to think under pressure, evaluating the situation and coming up with a plan.

__________________
Philip

I will not fear. Fear is the mindkiller, fear is the little death that brings total oblivion.

Frank Herbert, Dune

Ditto. Some of my friends are officers in various service branches, and they back this up. Some of my other friends are noncoms, and they also support that officers are trained for independent thought, while they (the enlisted) follow more of the "automoton" model. And even that's quite a generalization.

Any military person who does not salute and say Yes Sir will not be in the military for long.

And any military person who marches off a cliff because his commanding officer neglected to tell him to stop is a fool and not much of a soldier.

It is tactically foolish to salute on the battlefield. It marks out an officer to any sniper who might be watching. Blind obedience used to be required from soldiers, officers always needed to think.

__________________
Philip

I will not fear. Fear is the mindkiller, fear is the little death that brings total oblivion.

Frank Herbert, Dune

Philip

Yes, they must be able to think but mostly they must know what they can think and when they can think. Normally they are told what to do and when they think they should deviate they must do so by the book. Every thing has an algorythm defining how, when and where.

Not in my experience. Would you like to cite your sources?

Training is done to a method, because a certain amount of standardisation is required to enable you to work with neighbouring forces. Surprising the enemy is highly prized in the military, and working, as you seem to believe, to an algorithm is hardly surprising. I will admit there have been in the recent past armies (British pre 1940, Soviet) who have insisted on sticking to theorems as dogma rather than guidelines. They generally lost.

__________________
Philip

I will not fear. Fear is the mindkiller, fear is the little death that brings total oblivion.

Frank Herbert, Dune

There's a lot of stuff you need to know to be able to survive on a battlefield, and to function effectively in the military. The training that seems so rigid and mechanical to you is designed to get that information in your head as fast as possible, and make you effective at performing accordingly.

Furthermore, military doctrine is not some rigid theology, like you seem to believe. It is a guideline on how certain types of forces can be used most effectively. Look at the Army Air Corps during WWII, for an example of doctrine that changed rapidly as we figured out what didn't work and adjusted. (Night bombing at high altitude to evade AA guns -> bombs almost never hit target; Unescorted bombing to strike at heart of Germany -> bombers got chewed up by enemy fighters - needed long range fighters; ect) Eventually we started getting the hang of using air power.

Suppose you were plunked down in a napoleonic battlefield and put in charge of a bunch of calvary - how would you use them?
Civilian: Umm . . . ah . . . er? Charge the infantry?
Inexperienced Officer: The prevailing doctrine says the following...
Experienced Officer: My experience says the following...and I'll teach better doctrine when I get back home.

How would you assault modern enemies entrenched in a city with attack helicopters? With tanks? What if you only had air assault infantry? What if they have anti-aircraft weapons? If you've never done any of this before, what do you turn to? The doctrine. It makes perfect sense, or our military wouldn't be doing it.

Worked for the RAF....

__________________
Philip

I will not fear. Fear is the mindkiller, fear is the little death that brings total oblivion.

Frank Herbert, Dune

Asei

I think that the military functions somewhat like a science that is under paradigm control. Boundaries are established in both instances. But because in a military vast coordination is required and split second timing is important no talk back can be permitted. I am not an officer and never have been but I think that the military operates in a well-formulated step by step controlled environment. And any deviation must also be done by the book.

This civilian: Flank the enemy infantry (from both sides if the numbers allow it)... shortly after they've been engaged and pinned down by friendly infantry, all the while keeping a cavalry reserve clear to respond to any opportunities, such as vulnerable artillary or undefended general staff.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

Going after General Staff in Napoleonic times? Dash unsporting of you, you cad! It just isn't the done thing....

__________________
Philip

I will not fear. Fear is the mindkiller, fear is the little death that brings total oblivion.

Frank Herbert, Dune

Oh yeah, Moose - I wouldn't recommend attacking a block of Napoleonic infantry with cavalry until they had already broken, even from both flanks simultaneously. A better idea would be shell them with artillery until they started to retreat, then charge with cavalry. Cavalry are devastating against troops in retreat, but essentially useless against a formed up block.

__________________
Philip

I will not fear. Fear is the mindkiller, fear is the little death that brings total oblivion.

Frank Herbert, Dune

All things are forgiven the victor. And in any case, the winner writes the history books.

The idea is to not charge until the enemy infantry was already well engaged against the opposing infantry, to reduce the volley fire on approach. The cavalry also wouldn't be dashing about with muskets of their own, but rather nice big sabers like the old days. Bayonettes are pretty good in close quarters against other infantry, but not so good when you're being trampled under by a quarter ton of horseflesh.

And you didn't say I had my own artillery. That changes everything.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

Horses won't get close enough to a block of infantry. 3-4 ranks of infantry with bayonets fixed put up a hedge of spearpoints, and the horse won't jump in if it can't see where it is landing. It was Marshal Ney's problem at Waterloo, almost certainly cost Napoleon the battle.

Artillery - combined arms! Never go to battle without some big guns.....

__________________
Philip

I will not fear. Fear is the mindkiller, fear is the little death that brings total oblivion.

Frank Herbert, Dune