From: ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Schroeder)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Clueless Classes
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:31:00 GMT
Organization: Doctoral student, Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Greetings good gentles --

One afternoon at Pennsic I stopped off in the bathhouse while my
lady was using the "facilities" and paused to listen to a class
being taught there.  This particular class was on the "history"
of a particular group of people -- and in five minutes I heard
more screwy theories advanced (all with the caveat that the
"Scientific Establishment" is too blind and pig-headed to give
them credence) than I have ever heard outside of some of the
really awful pseudo-science TV shows.

Luckily for me, my lady found me and took me outside before I
succumbed to temptation and "interrupted" the class (which was
filled with young and impressionable faces nodding solemnly).

Folks, we're talking about "theories" on a par with Ancient
Astronauts and New World "Indians" being the Lost Ten Tribes
of Israel.  I'm not mentioning more specific things, because
the instructor is probably not on the Rialto to defend his or
herself.  Still, I'm somewhat frustrated by the fact that:

   a) This stuff goes on under the guise of a class on 
      "The History of __________"

   b) The "Scientific Establishment" is painted as the enemy

I know we've talked about this before and have gone on at great length
as to _why_ the S.E. is seen as the enemy.  I also know that blatantly
inaccurate "histories" are quite period.  I'll even go so far as saying
I've looked over _most_ of the classes taught and have found that they
are led by people I know and respect -- people that I am sure would not
resort to furthering such claptrap.  Still, does anyone have any ideas
about how the "accuracy" of such classes can be conveyed to people
BEFORE they take them?  I'd hate to think that young people left
such a class believing they'd learned something with any basis
in fact..

Should I mellow out here, folks?  After all, I only caught five minutes
of the presentation -- perhaps the balance of the class was less flakey,
though somehow I doubt it...  

Can anyone offer some helpful suggestions on the matter?  I honestly 
can't think of a practical way to "screen" such classes ahead of time.
It might be interesting to present a "Course Description" with "Rigor"
one of the categories... 

In conclusion, this discussion takes me off on a bit of a tangent,
friends.  There are different formal styles of learning -- many of
us learn things from books -- we're literate, reasonably well-read,
and know something about how to research a topic given access to a
decent library.  A larger percentage of the world at large, though
perhaps not a majority of the Society (okay, I'm an optimist) does
not fit in that category.  Opinions on various topics come from
(for lack of a better word) some sort of "folk" wisdom or tradition
and notions of "proof" for assertions varies greatly between the
two styles.  My real question is -- does this match the period
model of an educated elite versus the "rest" of medieval society?

What were the models of "knowing" for medieval people who were NOT
in the educated elite?  Do they "match" any contemporary models?

I understand that quite a bit of research has been done on the lower
classes of late -- any good references on the topic?

I'll look forward to your comments on the questions raised above.

Thanks for your patience -- Bertram

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bertram of Bearington                                      Dave Schroeder
Debatable Lands/AEthelmearc/East               Carnegie Mellon University
INTERNET: ds4p@andrew.cmu.edu                         412/731-3230 (Home)
+------------------------ PREME * Press On * PREME ---------------------+
      "He indulged in every excess, yes in each licentious whim..." 

           There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, 
           more perilous to conduct, 
           or more uncertain in its success, 
           than to take the lead 
           in the introduction of a new order of things.  

           -- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince