[Phys-L] Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries- PART 1

[rrhake at EARTHLINK.NET (Richard Hake)]

PART 1

I have been informed privately that some discussion list subscribers
may not have understood the relevance to their lists of my somewhat
convoluted (sorry) post "HUMAN EVENTS Article: Ten Most Harmful Books
of the 19th and 20th Centuries" [Hake (2005a)].

Here is another version that may be less opaque:

"Human Events Online" <http://www.humaneventsonline.com/>  - "The
National Conservative Weekly - Since 1944" recently published an
article titled "TEN MOST HARMFUL BOOKS OF THE 19TH AND 20TH
CENTURIES."  The article is online at
<http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591> and also in
the APPENDIX of Hake (2005a).

The introduction reads:

HUMAN EVENTS asked a panel of 15 conservative scholars. . .[for their
names, associations, and a relevant URL for each, see the APPENDIX
#2]. . . and public policy leaders to help us compile a list of the
Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Each panelist
nominated a number of titles and then voted on a ballot including all
books nominated. A title received a score of 10 points for being
listed No. 1 by one of our panelists, 9 points for being listed No.
2, etc. Appropriately, The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels, earned the highest aggregate score. . . [74]. . .
and the No. 1 listing.

Why should education-discussion-list subscribers be interested in
what certain conservative scholars have to say about the most harmful
books of the 19th and 20th centuries?

THREE REASONS:
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. The 15 conservative scholar judges appointed by "Human Events"
rated Dewey's (1916) "Education and Democracy" with a score of 36 as
the 5th most harmful book of the 19th and 20th centuries, and
summarized it as follows:

"DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATION
Author: John Dewey
Publication date: 1916
Score: 36
Summary: John Dewey, who lived from 1859 until 1952, was a
'progressive' philosopher and leading advocate for secular humanism
in American life, who taught at the University of Chicago and at
Columbia. He signed the 'Humanist Manifesto'. . .[a 2003 version of
the 'Humanist Manifesto' (AHA, 2003) was signed by 21 Nobel
Laureates]. . . ; and rejected traditional religion and moral
absolutes. In 'Democracy and Education,' in pompous and opaque prose,
he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character
development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged
the teaching of thinking 'skills' instead. His views had great
influence on the direction of American education - particularly in
public schools - and helped nurture the Clinton generation."

It should be noted that Dewey's educational ideas are in consonance
with the thinking of most current science-education researchers - see
e.g. Ansbacher (2000).

22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. Aside from Dewey's (1916) "Education and Democracy," the judges
rated the books listed in APPENDIX #1 - some of them of important
educational and environmental significance -  as among the "most
harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries."


33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
3. As incisively expressed by Professor Charles Eberly (2005):
". . . Remember the comment that Marlon Brando's Godfather character
made to the effect that 'one should keep their friends close, but
their enemies closer'?  The 'names' on the list of Judges . . .
[APPENDIX #2] . . .  are those of well positioned strident
conservatives even if their collective reasoning is divergent from
what many on this list would consider 'conventional wisdom'. If we
are to counter these strident voices, then we are charged to know
their arguments better than they know them. Such 'preparation for
debate' is a fundamental element of gaining the public's imagination."


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>

"And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult
to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain of
success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of
things.  Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have
done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those
who may do well under the new.  This coolness arises partly from fear
of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from
the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things
until they have had a long experience with them.

Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the
opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others
defend lukewarmly....

Machiavelli ("The Prince," 1513)

REFERENCES and APPENDICES are in PART 2