BMOC (Big Man On Campus)

BMOC (Big Man On Campus)

In our high schools and colleges you will often find that the BMOC is a student engaged in the central attraction of that institution. On the campus where football is king the BMOC is a football player, on the campus where basketball is king the BMOC is a basketball player, on the campus where scholarship is king the BMOC—wait a minute, who ever heard of a campus where scholarship is king. This is, perhaps, a slight exaggeration, I am sure such a campus must exist, somewhere.

In the 1920s the campuses where “the most far-reaching revolution of the twentieth century was born in an idyll: a picturesque park in Copenhagen, a quiet side street in Berne, the shore of the island of Heligoland, the meadows and tree-shaded river at Cambridge, the…” In these European campuses the young geniuses of physics, the BMOCs of the century, gave birth to “the tremendous transformation of the scientific view of Nature could only be compared with the change of outlook brought about by Copernicus.” The age of the atom was midwifed by this small group of geniuses.

If a high school or college were to shift emphasis from football to basketball, over night the BMOC would change. I think that we Americans, and probably others, need to shift emphasis from what Kuhn identified as Normal Science to those domains of knowledge that are commonly called the Social Sciences. Physicists have been our BMOC but I claim that we need to develop a climate that fosters public concern upon what is known as communicative action rationality.

Communicative action rationality is about the form of rationality needed to help agents to join together to develop consensus about social normative goals.

I am informed that many social scientists have accepted the notion that ‘value judgments’ or ‘moral questions’ are rationally undecidable. As such, most social theorists “simply assume that any agent, who acts on the basis of a moral principle, or a social norm, is not rationally justified in doing so. This is what underlies the widespread tendency among social theorists to assume that instrumental action is the only form of rational action, and that norm-governed action must have some kind of nonrational source, such as conditioning, socialization, or habit.”

I am not schooled in the social sciences but I have spent some time trying to learn these ideas about which the social sciences deal. I know enough about these matters to conclude that our society needs to put much greater emphasis in these domains of knowledge. Our focus seems to be entirely on the natural sciences and that emphasis is reveled in the success of these sciences. However I think we overemphasize the natural sciences at the expense of the social sciences.

Society needs to reevaluate our value systems in order to create a consensus about how to reevaluate our value systems, i.e. we need to make social scientists our new BMOCs.

value system for highschool students?

convince them to wear belts first, then they might worry about a new “morality”…

-Imp

coberst:

This is a subject I’ve been interested in for some time. I think what you’re getting at is what a lot of people feel.

The problem, IMHO is that “rationality”, as it’s commonly conceptualized, answers to no one. On the surface it seems so clean and pure that it has smuggled itself into all science and claims objectivity for itself. And who can argue with objectivity?

Those that do argue with objectivity then get the naturalistic fallacy stiffarm. “Science does it’s job in uncovering the facts, and justification/implementation is left to ethics.”

I’ve been trying to discover a wider rationality that somehow is able to work ethics into the ‘scientific process’ at an earlier stage in the social sciences so that objectivity cannot give the rational process a free pass all the way to justification/implementation.

Is this what communicative action rationality is about?

I study a social science…and I wish my teachers accepted that notion…haha…cause they all think they are right.
(and they all contradict eachother).
:astonished: hehe

Yes. It appears that Habermas is the last highly regarded individual to attempt this feat and most feel he has failed. “Communicative Action and Rational Choice” by Heath goes into painful detail to say so.

You can find a lot of stuff on Goggle just by looking for Habermas or communicative action rationality.

Well, your BMOC senario is basically a step up the ladder from an AMOG: All you’re doing is making him singular. In reality, though, an AMOG has little to no real power of persuasion over the group asside from that which is percieved.

The real trick isn’t to change what people like: its to change what they hate.

If your school wants to switch from a mathmatic base to a lit base, you’d have to first make your math program undesirable, then work up your lit base AFTER you’ve cleared the math people.

This isn’t done because its not profitable, regardless of how it would affect american society. We are capitalists, pure and simple.

coberst,

I really do not mean to rain on your intellectual parade, but you can never win against the NEA, it’s all lawyers, and they make education policy in this country.

Try “No Child Left Behind” … lower the curriculum standard so any child, mostly those whose parents have no involvement with their offspring’s educational needs or development, can make it through.

Education is dead in America.

It’s a skill set now: Taxpayer skill set, available anywhere, guaranteeing the capitalist delusion.

Oh, and if the child fails, it’s not the parents fault, it’s the teacher/school administrations fault.