A neat point about science, and education

First, an Aussie earth science and geology professor notes some of the difficulties with global warming theory. Yes, he's not a "climatologist" per se, but he illustrates some big method issues with the current science.

The biggest problem is at the roots; science, properly speaking, does not know of "consensus" or "authority," but is (when done correctly) rather anarchistic and proceeds on its logic and evidence. His article also gets down to certain issues with the evidence backing the theory, but a chief complaint is that when someone talks about "consensus" here, the history of science indicates that they're no longer doing science, but rather politics.

Next, I last night finished this book by Oliver Van DeMille. More or less, it's an endorsement of the classical method, but with a twist; he argues that some version of the Prussian three tier schooling system (workers, tradesmen, leaders) is necessary for a healthy society. Although certainly we need plumbers and electricians, just as certainly these plumbers and electricians are allowed to vote, and I'd really prefer that they know the basics of grammar, logic, and rhetoric when they're making their decisions. The classical education model is not just for leaders, but rather for everyone.

He also curiously downplays the role of religion, much in the same way Gary Ezzo does in "Babywise." I suspect the reason is that he doesn't want his readers to immediately figure out he's a Mormon. (Ezzo is not, however)

Finally, I was a bit "put off" by the insistence on leadership instead of liberty; the liberal arts are the intellectual capabilities and habits of a free man, not necessarily one in authority over others. Sadly, there are too many examples of those trained in the liberal arts/classical education who have used their knowledge to enslave fellow men. We really don't need to implicitly or explicitly encourage them in this.