From: 00030929@ysub.ysu.edu
Subject: Re: Clueless Classes
Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:50:03 GMT

Greetings to all, especially Bertram of Bearington, from Vajk!
 
Bertram writes:
  >  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.
Any instructor at Pennsic who makes statements about the SE being "too
blind and pig-headed" to do ANYTHING ought to be restricted from teaching.
This has nothing to do with the fact that it is the SE.  (Caveat:  all of
what I say here is IMHO).  But if we are trying to teach the history of a
group of people for the purpose of informing modern re-creationists, we
should probably give the best picture of what is currently known.   This
does not necessarily mean that ONLY the view of the SE should be given,
but neither should it be given as a "pig-headed" view.  It is at least a
reasonable view that should be presented as such.
 
I have myself taught several classes at Pennsic.  When I volunteered,
no question was asked about anything except the topic.  I submitted
three titles for classes which I was volunteering to run, and they were
simply scheduled, and I was informed of the times and places for which
they were tentatively scheduled.
 
  > Should I mellow out here, folks?
Well, maybe take a closer look, or give the rest of us more details.  For
instance, was the class being taught in persona?  (That's the only possible
reason I can think of for spreading "claptrap").  And did the students know
of the in-persona nature of the class ahead of time?
 
  > My real question is -- does this match the period model of an
  > 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?
 
Try "The Worms and the Cheese".  I don't have it with me right now, but
it is an analysis of one of the "lower class" who had read many rather
scholarly books, as well as much "claptrap".  He had then synthesized a
theory of the world and of the supernatural, such as angels, which was
drawn from what he had learned.  The result was rather startling, and
it was for his ideas that he was under scrutiny by the authorities.
I should mention that this was at about the same era and mindset that
saw the trial of Galileo.
 
Perhaps this poor peasant was simply the victim of not enough guidance
in what he was reading.  He did not have the privilege of much discussion
with those who were the acknowledged SE of the time.  He did have access
to discussion with others from whom he borrowed the books, but they might
have been in the same position.  He read the books, but did not, probably,
have the necessary background to properly interpret what he was reading.
 
Medievally, those who were "NOT in the educated elite?" depended on the
materials at hand.  The man in "The Worms and the Cheese" was obviously
educated enough to read, and was said to be well-spoken.  But he probably
did not have the opportunity to spend hours with the acknowledged experts
of the time.  Although many of the universities of the time were not much
help, they were better than nothing in getting that kind of informal
education.
 
While many of the peasants had the tools (yes, I know, I haven't proven
this yet to the satisfaction of many on the Rialto) of reading, they were
perhaps deficient in the areas of philosophy and other studies which
might help them understand clearly what they were reading.  As a modern
example, most of us understand the words used in law, but trying to
interpret them in a legal sense is another matter altogether.
 
A final note:  If an instructor at Pennsic does not present you with the
references from which s/he is teaching, or at least the most important
ones, you should probably be suspicious.  It indicates to my mind that
either they did not have such, or that they did not prepare well.  The
exceptions are classes which are completely hands-on.  In those cases, if
what you are doing works it is probably proof enough that the instructor
knows at least HOW to do the work, even if more historical and theoretical
stuff might be unclear to him.  Even in these cases it is not out of line
to present the student with works to which s/he can refer after leaving the
class.  For only one of my classes did I not have references, and that was
not really a class, but more a "collegium" of those who wished to meet
others using advanced methods of research.  It was just an opportunity to
discuss things with others who could also understand advanced methods.
 
Hope this helps to answer some questions, Bertram, but it still doesn't
answer the question of how to ensure that classes at Pennsic are reasonable
in what they teach.  I don't have an answer for that one.
 
Vajk