Yet that wouldn't be so galvanizing. With using the Scientific method usually you normally end up with something quite boring. The real problem becomes what then? What do you implement? What to replace "Eurocentric" science with? What is the decolonized science or the decolonized curriculum? — ssu

I think that you've hinted at a deeper question: what galvanizes (binds together and sustains) movements in the first place? What ought to?

To paraphrase Dr. M.L.K Jr., without strength and love (or the "strength to love") at the heart of a social movement, resentment begets more resentment, hate begets more hate, and focusing on the negative poisons our own personalities and undermines the movement. Broadly, hate-filled-attack is a purely destructive tool; in the setting of a civilized and civics filled landscape we simply cannot afford to label each-other enemies to be approached with cautious hatred.

The structure and tone of Fallism ensured that they would encounter widespread opposition from the get go, let alone the problem of an absent replacement cirriculum. And I think this is an issue made more prevalent thanks to the the Ponzi scheme of hate-based influence that is social media. Online, groups can cohere and organize around incoherent bluster alone, so long as it is emotionally provocative.

The source of the Fallist movement was presumably a disparity in academic participation and outcomes (which are due to a myriad of complex causes), not that science is discriminatory per se. But through a strong enough intersectional lens, everything becomes suspect in the crime of wanton discrimination. So-called academic departments like "Gender Studies" seek to understand complex systems and how they generate unequal outcomes, but they're so bad at it that all they can really do is produce clever-sounding and emotionally provocative rhetoric. Since sounding scientific and correctly addressing the right emotions are the only requirements of the field, it actually makes sense that science itself should come under fire as a patriarchal or supremacist system.

The Fallist movement didn't actually have anything to replace science with (no indigenous curriculum); they might as well have asked for science-free safe-spaces. Being all bread and condiment with no meat is a symptom endemic to the departments which give rise to these intersectional theories of decolonization in the first place. Ironically all they do is get in the way of achieving their own goals. In true Ouroboros fashion...

I agree.

I would go further to argue the reason that 'reinventing' science from a different angle, be it the decolonization of science, indigenous science or let's say islamic science have all huge difficulties in this is because basically science is an international global effort. Once a new model or discovery is accepted by the scientific community, it hardly matters where or by whom the discovery or invention was made. And if the argument is of Eurocentric science history, teaching non-western science simply doesn't change the science itself. As I have studied history I do accept that in history we sure have too often focus on our own history and tell a story that could be told in a different way. That said, what happened is the same, so there can be objectivity even in history.

Hence the argument of science being too Eurocentric, too white, too male, too whatever simply doesn't lead to any real advaces rather just gives wrong ideas (or talking points) about science to those that are ignorant about it.

While some particulars of the scientific method can be debated, I can't see anyone arguing that it's entirely wrong. — Echarmion

Wrong in relation to what?

As example, nuclear weapons work perfectly well at the task for which they were designed. Working well doesn't automatically equal that being a good thing.

Science works very well at the task for which it was designed, developing new knowledge. This can fairly be labeled a good thing IF the people receiving that new knowledge can successfully manage it. If the recipients of the new knowledge can't successfully manage the power that flows from that knowledge, then the process that handed them that knowledge very reasonably comes in to question.

Alright I'll make you a deal you point to me to the specific non-Eurocentric scientific theories and scientists. That is not only in race, but by tradition also do not draw on European concepts to define their science.

In the meantime I will look for the borrowers by the skirting boards and we can have a contest to see whose findings are more productive. I might knit some 'small peoples clothes' as annecdotal theatre to the quasai-pseudoscientific examples sure to be produced and argued.

Scientific theory as distinct from technology as the challenge, we can all look at China and say they had gunpowder and mathematics.... We want non-eurocentric science, as in competing hypothesis with the theory of the atom, the periodic table for chemistry.... the entire field of microbiology... these are the Traditional European Sciences.

In order to decolonize it we must get away from the evil white man science. So go and do it... I have found a sock I am turning into a dress by cutting holes in it... I am winning the race to find the borrowers.

Terms like "canonical knowledge" and "values" of science are strange as the scientific method seeks to be first and foremost to be objective. And if learning science, physics, chemistry or math, that is referred as "behaving like a scientist", is hard, Aikenhead and Elliot have a view on why this is: — ssu

The scientific method doesn't seek, people seek. So while the scientific method may well be neutral, say, the scientists or the facultly may have expectations beyond the scientific method. They may make claims, for example, that the scientific method (and implicitly the current ((or even, often, past, models of science are the correct views of reality, and any other view is mere superstition or irrational in some other way))). I've experienced science presented this way, and note these beliefs are not only beyond presenting the scientific method as a tool, they are also not conclusions based on the scientific method. I am not saying I agree with all the conclusions of the poeple whose positions you are critical of. I see no problem with presenting the tools and methods of chemistry, for example. People are free to add these tools and methods and models to their own or not. They could just study literature if they are not interested in all that. I do think, however, that subcultures can promote ideas that go beyond the actual tools they are presenting to their members and we can't always judge the subculture by looking at the tools.

So math or chemistry being hard means that you aren't comfortable with the identity taught to you. And of course the answer is non-Eurocentric science, Indigenous science or knowledge, that differs from the Eurocentric science according to the view of the authors the following way: — ssu

That some people would use this groups arguments as an excuse to avoid the hardness or to avoid being graded rigorously in these subjects is certainly possible and likely has already happened. But that is not what they are saying. It need not, and I doubt it is, what is really going on, period, when they argue this. I think even philosophers coming into science departments will be told that their methods are not meaningful or important, science eradicated the use of philosophy. This may not be said right out, but can be experienced indirectly. I've seen it happen both explicitly and implicitly in academic contexts.

The normative statement and agenda is quite obvious from the definition of Indigenous knowledge "emphasizing living in harmony with Mother Earth for the purpose of survival". It's obvious that the scientific method is willfully misunderstood and simply viewed basically as a tool of political power. — ssu

Or, for example, the teaching of the scientific method in the specific academia includes patterns that are similar to colonial patterns, where not scientifically arrived at conclusions are use do dismiss the products and ways of thinking of other cultures. IOW it is not just a tool of political power, but that it can be used as one also.

Wow!?

I’m kind of confused by some of the responses here. The METHOD isn’t culturally driven - unless we’re talking about nature dictating what is or isn’t one metre?

Also, 1+2=3 ... again, not a cultural item. Science is not “western” it is a method used to collect data. It has nothing to say about anything.

Note: Science in terms of hard science as in for degrees marked BSc NOT BA. So “social sciences” are not sciences in this respect. Scientists on the other hand are merely human.

Or, for example, the teaching of the scientific method in the specific academia includes patterns that are similar to colonial patterns, where not scientifically arrived at conclusions are use do dismiss the products and ways of thinking of other cultures. IOW it is not just a tool of political power, but that it can be used as one also. — Coben

The problem with those crying about "Western" science being colonial, oppressive, against minorities and other cultures and obviously dominated by the white patriarchy (and so on), is that in their fury about science being a tool of political power, they really do believe it to be as a tool of political power and that it ought to be used as such. The agenda is that it has to be used...this time by them.

Where others would see the abuse of the term science or referring to science when the issue doesn't have anything to do with science just as a minor issue, just like Thomas Kuhn was annoyed when George Bush Sr used Kuhn's term "a new paradigm" to portray GOP tax policies, the people worried about science being "Western" see it differently. Those who genuinely believe in "Western" science having to be decolonized believe it's not about just the misuse of the scientific method, they believe science is inherently a political tool of power and not much else.

Let's bring it down to what this is all about: getting new academic positions and openings. In the end "decolonizing science" will really apply to those who get the new 'decolonized' positions. Where others usually would treat job enrollment and equal opportunity as a separate issue from the actual science, that is not the case here. If you will have a "decolonized" science program, you think it will be run by your typical white males that you find in science programs today?

Furthermore, lets look at where the discussion of decolonization of science has taken place. Has it taken place in China? Because China would be the obvious place for this discussion to be taking place as it has a very long tradition of non-Western science. It isn't, at least that I'm aware of, because everybody there is, well, basically Chinese. And Japan we can dismiss by saying it hasn't been a colony (even if it was occupied after WW2). Even if Japanese surely aren't European and do have an own non-Western culture, they haven't at all been insisting that the science they do would be Japanese, not Western.

Also, 1+2=3 ... again, not a cultural item. Science is not “western” it is a method used to collect data. It has nothing to say about anything. — I like sushi

This is meaningless to say because those believing in the necessity of decolonization of science don't think about this as you do. What they would see in your answer is just the arrogant and condescending way how those who uphold Western science make their case. And they surely wouldn't care that 1+2=3 is a non-Western number system, because debating science or the history of science isn't their issue here at all.

If that is the case they abandon logic, reasoning and critical thought. I don’t think people questioning what is perceived as a biased institute would necessarily see my words as ‘arrogant’ and those that did and are unwilling to question their own position are not going to engage in a discussion on this with me because they wouldn’t exactly be the inquiring type would they?

Of course some just want to preach nonsense. Let them. Reason filters out those that don’t use even the slightest bit of reasoning.

I don’t think people questioning what is perceived as a biased institute would necessarily see my words as ‘arrogant’ — I like sushi

What they see is that when you "Science is not western, it is a method used to collect data." is that you don't even see the dominance of Western science, but simply assume it's the 'natural' way of things.

Of course some just want to preach nonsense. Let them. — I like sushi

Yet is it then good for the field of inquiry, the academia or science in general? It isn't any kind of threat to actual threat to science like lousy primary education is, but still.

If people inquire then you interact with them. If they are too far gone why waste time if it is better spent elsewhere - say in promoting science education for children.

People can deny facts but they cannot beat them. Nature don’t give a fuck :)

Look at what Coben says above:

the teaching of the scientific method in the specific academia includes patterns that are similar to colonial patterns, where not scientifically arrived at conclusions are use do dismiss the products and ways of thinking of other cultures. IOW it is not just a tool of political power, but that it can be used as one also.

That is a vacuous argument because you could say that about literally anything you like. The difference being science actually helps people understand their environment better unlike religious doctrine - which was much more of a force in destroying cultures and traditions.

As for the random appropriation of a non-explicit pattern as ‘evidence’ ... it just goes to show how basic reasoning is required to put up decent position or you end up spouting meaningless rhetoric like the above.

The basis of the argument is about eurocentrism. That has NOTHING to do with science directly and Coben admits this ... so it is not about science at all. Funnily enough misconceptions are usually realised by the application of science - hence no more burning of ‘witches’ and such. That is not to say scientists still don’t misread the data gathered or make baseless assumptions to suit their world view. Humans are not robots.

The difference being science actually helps people understand their environment better unlike religious doctrine - which was much more of a force in destroying cultures and traditions. — I like sushi

Science has also been a strong force in destroying other cultures and traditions. Here is what Feyerabend had to say about it in Against Method, criticizing the idea that there is such a thing as "the scientific method":

Anger at the wanton destruction of cultural achievements from which we all could have learned, at the conceited assurance with which some intellectuals interfere with the lives of people, and contempt for the treacly phrases they use to embellish their misdeeds was and still is the motive force behind my work.

The practices of science and religion are cultures/traditions themselves, which have displaced others. Scientific claims are based on underlying beliefs when they are presented as facts, as truth, there are many similarities between the way science is practiced today and organized religion.

The value of science is judged in how well it allows us to predict and to interact with our surroundings in a predictable way. Yet what scientists rarely say, if ever, is that many very different world views can fit the observational evidence, can allow to make predictions that are as accurate, while many of their claims push one particular world view, usually one based on materialism, while strictly speaking there is no scientific evidence for it. They implicitly push beliefs, disguised under the moniker of "scientific" as a synonym for truth, that is as something to believe, which are spread through education, textbooks, news articles and all sorts of media.

Clearly whoever you quoted doesn’t understand what the scientific method is and you’re conflating the science with the opinion of scientists.

Is 1+1=2 true? Yes. Meaning there is no room for opinion.

Was Newton’s observations factually correct? Yes. “True”? No, because science doesn’t deal in ‘truths’ that is the theatre of logic - ‘truths’ are abstract ideals.

“Fact” is not the same as “truth”. People are a problem because they struggle to appreciate and deal with facts. It is not the fault of the scientific method if you view it as a ‘truth’ of reality.

Science has certainly been used to misrepresent facts (purposefully or accidentally) in order to push agendas. The thing about science is that it can self-correct because it isn’t dogmatic; I’m certainly not going to pretend they aren’t ‘dogmatic’ scientists though. Many a woo woo scientist tries to fit some vague set of measurements into their world view. Strictly speaking they are NOT doing science though because the point of the scientific method, and its strength, is that it aims to be objective. Bias is human and the scientific method does a damn good job of curbing our natural tendencies.

Or rather he understood what scientists do much better than you do. Read his book if you ever find the time, and you might get something important out of it, for instance that there is no such thing as "the scientific method". What scientists do and have done to reach their results cannot be summed up under "one method". If you attempt to describe the "scientific method", you can find plenty of examples where scientists did not adhere to the method you describe, and it is precisely by not adhering to it that they formulated such or such theory or made such or such observation that allowed to make more accurate predictions, or build more precise technology. The "scientific method" is a myth.

Would you say that "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is a fact or truth? Or both? And what proof would you give to show that it is a fact or a truth, what observational evidence would you say is proof of it?

You might say that we send spacecrafts into space, based on the world view that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and we are able to make them reach other planets accurately, so surely that world view must be correct? And yet we could have the world view that the Sun and other planets revolve around the Earth, describe the motion of these bodies in the reference frame of the Earth, describe gravity in the reference frame of the Earth, and we could reach these planets with as much accuracy. So what makes "the Earth revolves around the Sun" fact or truth?

Appeal to authority? That is very unscientific of you ... shock!

The appeal of “historians”, when it comes to making extravagant claims, is that they can pose a question and then look for evidence to support it. Science doesn’t work based only on this principle. A lot of science is simply data collecting without any intent to interpret the data in this or that manner (but humans are humans). They use reason to come up with an experiment tat will support or refute their claims.

It is a constant refinement. An archaeologist working in the field simply records the data and maps the artifacts - that is the science. Interpreting it is pure speculation; the common field of play for armchair philosophers.

That is not an appeal to authority, I could have said I understand what scientists do better than you do, but then you would have called me pretentious. I say what I say based on what I understand, not on what others have said, however I have found that people usually consider what I say more seriously when some renowned individuals have said similar things, but in an ideal world I wouldn't have to do that. But I also mentioned Feyerabend because he has said many insightful things that most people are not aware of when they talk about science, and many discussions about science would take a very different turn if people were aware of these things. Also I referenced his book in case you or others want to learn more about this point of view, and then people can have a more educated opinion based on relevant information and examples that they previously weren't aware of.

There is no universal criterion that allows to demarcate between what counts as science and what isn't science, this is known as the demarcation problem. Popper had proposed the criterion that a theory that is scientific is a theory that is falsifiable, but as it turns out most theories that we call scientific aren't falsifiable. For instance the theory that there is dark matter is not falsifiable. Scientists have carried out experiments to detect dark matter interacting with their instruments, but up to now these experiments have failed. That doesn't falsify the theory however, because scientists can always say that dark matter has properties that makes it undetectable to past experiments and come up with different experiments to attempt to detect it. And if they do detect it, it is always possible to come up with an alternative explanation as to why the signal they detected is not dark matter but something else.

So if we can't even characterize precisely what is science and what isn't science, it is presumptuous to claim that science is better than other practices or traditions, what actually goes on is that many people attempt to push their beliefs by calling them "scientific" as if it gave them a higher status, in essence what they call "scientific" is "what ought to be believed". There is obviously predictive success in identifying apparent regularities in what we observe, and that's the part of what scientists do that brings an ability to predict and technology, but another big part of what they do is pushing their own beliefs in the way they frame their observations and research, and that's the part most people are not aware of, which leads them to see science as this higher objective endeavor devoid of conventions and beliefs, while it is really not so.

Your argument is still conflating the scientist with science. Your argument is from a sociopolitical perspective regarding how people use science in the public sphere to bolster their own world view. This is NOT something that is more apparent in science than any other field of interest because, and I believe I’m repeating myself, nature doesn’t lie and it is natural phenomenon that is being measured.

Just because people use science for political means it doesn’t mean science is political in essence. Gathering data is not the same thing as interpreting data, and even then the interpretation needs verifying - often to quite a startling degree of precision to be regarded as a scientific fact (not a ‘truth’).

Dark matter/energy is a placeholder used to account for what we expect to be there given our current models. Quite a few physicists are not entirely happy with these terms and a great many more are not very happy with how they’re interpreted in the public eye. Philosophy is the realm of words physicists are not massive concerned with what is or isn’t an appropriate term to put across a particular abstract concept.

As an example you asked about the Sun and Earth. Scientists don’t know what makes the Earth orbit the Sun, we observe that it does though and have over time moved from the view of a “gravitational force” to Einstein’s model of special relativity to account for the phenomenon of ‘gravity’.

Demarcations are important from communicating with each other and for conscious experience. Science isn’t cultural any more than gunpowder is Chinese or cars are German. Where ideas originate doesn’t effect the practical use of the idea and/or the originality of the idea.

But when scientists say that we observe such or such thing because subatomic particles behave in a specific way, or that the light of galaxies is redshifted because the universe is expanding, or that all life is doomed to go extinct forever because the energy of the universe is constant and its entropy increases, they are not doing science, they are not sharing data they have measured or observed, they are pushing a world view based on pure belief.

All the evidence for the existence of unobservable subatomic particles can be explained without invoking subatomic particles, all the evidence for the expansion of the universe can be explained without invoking an expanding universe, and all the evidence that the energy of the universe is constant can be explained without invoking the constancy of its energy, so these kinds of claims are not scientific at all, they are not something that follows from observation, they are one possibility out of many that is pushed as scientific fact, as something to believe in, while other possibilities have widely different implications.

And this is far from inconsequential, for instance when some people become depressed because they are made to accept as true some claims made by scientists, because they are presented as scientific facts based on observation and reason rather than as the pure beliefs that they are.

You say I conflate scientists with science, but what is science if not what scientists do? There is this great ideal of science that is pushed in education but it doesn't match what scientists do.

Because there is no criterion that allows to demarcate between what is science and what isn't science, and because many people, including scientists, impose their beliefs onto others in the name of science, we have the big problem that scientists and their followers force their beliefs onto others while pretending that they are not belief but scientific fact, something that others should accept. They can't pinpoint what makes that fact "scientific" in a coherent way, if they attempt to apply a criterion to demarcate science and non-science then that criterion will include facts that they deem to be non-scientific, and yet they will keep on disregarding or ridiculing claims that they deem to be non-scientific. In that sense science becomes a tool for oppression.

Scientists don't observe that the Earth orbits the Sun, they observe the apparent motion of the Sun, from the Earth or from a spacecraft. That motion can be described in the reference frame of the Earth. We can assume that the Sun and other planets revolve around the Earth and describe their orbits as accurately as we do when we assume that the Earth revolves around the Sun. We can model gravity in a different way to account for these orbits. There is nothing there that shows in any way that the Earth orbits the Sun rather than the other way around, it is just simpler to describe these orbits and gravity in the reference frame of the Sun, but simpler doesn't mean more true. There is not some absolute space we have detected that allows us to say that the Earth really orbits the Sun rather than the other way around. And yet scientists will say it is a scientific fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and will ridicule those who dare want to believe that the Sun is revolving around the Earth, and claim that this is a triumph of science over religion, of reason over obscurantism, of fact over belief, which is quite ironical when they are precisely pushing a belief without realizing it. That's one instance where science is a tool for oppression.

You’ve not said anything sensible enough that warrants further reply. I do plan to make a thread that touches this area so maybe we’ll find some common ground in the future. This looks like a dead end so I’ll just step aside for now.

Thanks for the replies.

Science has also been a strong force in destroying other cultures and traditions. — leo

Traditions like belief in there existing witches and black magic. How noble traditions have been destroyed by science. The ugly (ghasp!) Eurocentric / Western colonialist science!!!

So if we can't even characterize precisely what is science and what isn't science, it is presumptuous to claim that science is better than other practices or traditions, — leo

We can't define what science is? Not even a bit? Is it ridiculous even to try?

. They can't pinpoint what makes that fact "scientific" in a coherent way, if they attempt to apply a criterion to demarcate science and non-science then that criterion will include facts that they deem to be non-scientific, and yet they will keep on disregarding or ridiculing claims that they deem to be non-scientific. In that sense science becomes a tool for oppression. — leo

Ah!!!! Science is a tool for oppression!!! :death:

You say I conflate scientists with science, but what is science if not what scientists do? — leo

Simply the actual method it is?

Nope? So it's a sinister tool of oppression used by the White patriarchy to enrich the gains of the Capitalists?

Sorry, but you do conflate scientists with science. Especially everything else they can do or think that isn't science. Because they are scientists, they seem to be the new caste of priests in service of power to you, I presume.

Traditions like belief in there existing witches and black magic. How noble traditions have been destroyed by science. — ssu

Or, you know, spiritual beliefs that saw man as more than a heap of atoms, that saw nature as more than a resource to exploit, that saw love as more than the release of a chemical in the brain, that saw death as more than the end.

We can't define what science is? Not even a bit? Is it ridiculous even to try? — ssu

It isn't ridiculous to try, but come up with a definition, and you will see that some things that are considered science do not fit this definition, or some things that are considered non-science fit the definition.

Ah!!!! Science is a tool for oppression!!! :death: — ssu

Replace "Science" with "Religion", and I suppose that's something you would have said back when Religion had the status that Science has today.

Simply the actual method it is? — ssu

And if so-called scientists do not use that method you have in mind, who practices the science you have in mind? And if no one practices it, what are you talking about?

Sure there is a lot of what they do that fits the method you have in mind, and also a lot that doesn't.

Sorry, but you do conflate scientists with science. Especially everything else they can do or think that isn't science. — ssu

They do not practice the science outlined in your method, the science you have in mind exists as an idea, not as a practice. But what they do professionally, people call science. I am not talking about what they do in their private life, I am talking about what they do that they call science and that doesn't follow the "scientific" method that they claim to follow (or that others claim scientists follow).

Science is used as a tool for oppression in the same way that organized religion has been used as a tool for oppression, in that their followers force their beliefs onto others, because they are convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong. Followers of organized religion are convinced they spread the word or wish of God, followers of Science are convinced they spread Truth. God and Truth are seen by their followers as a supreme ideal that ought to be spread to the world. If people don't want to accept the God or the Truth that is imposed on to them, they are ridiculed, attacked, ostracized. Like, you know, what you are doing now.

But you will protest, you will say that science is not like religion, science has brought benefits, it has brought technology! It has brought death and destruction also. Religion has brought benefits as well, and technology in a sense, not a technology that makes you fly around the world or gives you the ability to kill millions of people in seconds, but a method that can make people feel love. Both religion and science have been and can be used for good or for bad, when it becomes dangerous is when their followers stop seeing that their beliefs are beliefs, and not some greater thing that has to be forced onto everyone else.

Science is used as a tool for oppression in the same way that organized religion has been used as a tool for oppression, in that their followers force their beliefs onto others, because they are convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong. Followers of organized religion are convinced they spread the word or wish of God, followers of Science are convinced they spread Truth. — leo

Wonder what you don't think to be a tool of oppression...

Both religion and science have been and can be used for good or for bad, when it becomes dangerous is when their followers stop seeing that their beliefs are beliefs, and not some greater thing that has to be forced onto everyone else. — leo

And with that happy note we can end this discussion. :smile:

The idea that anything is innately "Eurocentric" is absurd. It's a notion that Europeans, because they did this or that, have only ever come up with terrible and oppressive ideas and should have their entire history diminished to "white male patriarchy" and "oppression". It's racism. It discredits all things that are not politically or religiously convenient, even if they're obviously true, based on who or where they came from.

It's all just idiocy. That anyone even feels compelled to say this is absurd. "Enculturate", really? These are the same people who say that whites have no culture. How can anyone "enculturate" into an absence of culture? What is anyone even saying anymore, it's all just make-believe? Are we heading into just willful stupidity?

I'm triggered, man, this is just blind hatred. There's no philosophy in it.

Wonder what you don't think to be a tool of oppression... — ssu

Consider that the same set of observations can be explained in various ways, according to various world views. A lack of oppression would be allowing each world view to flourish, rather than saying that world views different from the one accepted by mainstream scientists are unscientific or lack merit and should be discarded, while they account for the same evidence. Science could be free of oppression, but the way it is practiced and communicated is not. One wonders why it elicits such strong reactions to point it out.

I'm triggered, man, this is just blind hatred. There's no philosophy in it. — whollyrolling

Helpful advice: don't get angered about the most heated debate or the most ignorant or ludicrous comments (especially from students that don't know much if anything).

The points that the actual academic people talking about decolonization make are far more subtle and interesting and are open for a serious debate.

There's nothing interesting about it. I'm not angry about comments from students, I'm angry about comments from the adults indoctrinating them.

Adults who possess authority and stupidity and lack maturity and are exploiting students to create a generation of idiots.

People willing to discuss these things is a good first step. Admittedly it is hard to judge how best to use your time to stem the flow.

I cannot fully blame people for being entranced by philosophical rhetoric and misinterpreting the words of others. Philosophy is a problematic game as it shifts between subject matters so easily that people will tend to conflate ideas and points with each other.