Ian, I suggest you read Sue Ieraci's post above and then honestly reflect.

How often have you expressed an opinion that is in direct contradiction to the weight of evidence and been challenged (in effect possibly claiming an implicit right to your own facts) as opposed to expressed an opinion that might be considered a personal view and been told you can't hold it?

If it's the latter then I would support your concerns. If it's the former I think you need to do some reflecting.

I suspect sometimes you've been unfairly judged. But is it all the time?

Your right to speak is not at issue either. But do not expect your opinion to be given equal weight becuase of this. As this article points out, ideas have no rights in and of themselves.

Perhaps you could take the red marks as other's judgment of your ideas - but definitely not of you or your right to express them

Regardless do persist. Red marks aside so long as you are genuinely motivated and consistent, and willing to alter your views when the logic or evidence clearly indicates this might be useful, you will be heard.

And anyone who follows that approach makes a useful contribution

A bit from side A and a bit from side B I have to admit.
No more angry posts (I hope) from now on.
Allen, don't get me wrong, I've worked with young people, trained with young people and
even done some training of young people as well. One on one or in a group situation we usually get on well.
I tend to find out what interests them and try and find time to talk about that if I can, as well as inspire them in some small way, even if it's just getting involved in a disscussion.
I have even been told I have an ability to talk and relate to people of all ages by a couple of tutors, in the past.
I don't want to end up a GOM (grumpy old man) yelling "GET OFF MY LAWN!". (We don't even have a front lawn to speak of.) I found out a couple of things in the last couple of days and it's taken a lot of stress off me and I can get on with things more calmly. Peace everyone.

While I wouldn't agree with all of Dale's views, I certainly agree that too many people seem prepared to simply add to the red score rather than challenging a view with a fact or an argument.
In fact, at times, I have managed to garner a quite high red score with a deliberately ambiguous comment.

Ambiguity doesn’t matter.

Try pointing out the negatives of a multicultural society, or say something positive about the male gender, and the red score rises off the scale.

There are a range of non-ambiguous facts that cannot be mentioned in an academic environment, or it becomes career suicide.

Dale, would you admit that it is possible that at least in some instances of your posts that it is the presentatio of unambiguous opiion that you confuse with fact that might just possibly be causing the red marks?

No. It seems that within the academic world, only some facts can be mentioned, and not others. The academic world is heavily censored. As for complete lack of science and facts, there are articles published such as this one.

http://theconversation.edu.au/subversion-schadenfreude-and-drama-addiction-in-private-games-8749

There are a whole series of statements made, but not a single referenced fact is mentioned, and very few academics question it.

I attribute this complete lack of science and facts to the introduction of humanities and feminist courses in universities.

Sorry to disappoint you Dale, but out of the humanities and sciences, sciences is the johnny-come-lately to universities - except in the form of either natural philosophy or medicine, neither of which was necessarily terribly "scientific" in modern parlance at inception. Theology, law and the liberal arts, including at that time mathematics and geometry, heavily outweighed "science" in curriculum time and prestige. So, humanities, which since the 70s or so (i.e. for 40 years) has included gender studies and feminist approaches, has been at the core of universities far longer than science. Arguably, both humanities and sciences have now been displaced at the core by business studies. Also, I believe the linked article, labelled as "academic thoughts on popular culture" makes no claim to fact but is clearly opinion or reflection about an observed phenomenon.

I think you're being disingenuous and cherry-picking the content of Dale's post to which you wish to respond.

The central thesis of his post is that a "gender studies and feminist approach" is causal with respect to a lack of rigour more generally within academic humanities faculties. Much of the reasoning I see presented in reports is of a circular nature, reminiscent of theology more than disinterested enquiry. Sophistry abounds. A great deal of it unabashedly advocates for a particular predetermined POV and either ignores contradictory evidence, or deliberately asks questions that exclude the possibility of such evidence being considered.

When combined with very poor statistical analysis based on tiny sample sizes, often self-selected and skewed as a result, the genuine usefulness of much of the"best" research is at best small.

In the context, I don't really think it matters whether humanities were there first or last - what's important is that as things stand today a great deal of the enquiry within the fields is debased.

Dennis Alexander
There are scientific laws, but no scientific laws have ever been produced by the humanities or social science, and it is farcical to believe a scientific law will ever be produced from feminist courses at universities.

Some science is not good science, and leaving out data is not good science, but I have seen plenty of evidence of that.

For all Mr Bloom's serial and narcissistic whining there is a valid epistemological point that he makes. What is the value of the knowledge gained in the humanities if the 'truths' cannot be verified by objective or quantitative method? Does it have the same truth value as the sciences where the quality of gaining truth is predicated on the falsifiablity of the method?
Is a theory such as postmodernism falsifiable? is it really a theory at all?

Johanne, to answer your question I suggest you read this

http://www.acperesearch.net/waysofknowing.pdf

Whilst I'm a personal fan of intersubjective empircism, best practiced through what is known as the scientific method, as a way of knowing reality, expecially external reality, I am not so arrogant as to believe that is the only way or even he best way, regardless of one's epistemological position.

I would suggest Dale's approach is limited by seeing things solely through the lens of empricism.

Though, mind you, you will find me in the vanguard of debate when those from the humanities attempt to apply their hermeneutic rationalism and revelatory approaches to matters that ARE observable testable phenomena

https://theconversation.edu.au/your-brain-on-the-internet-a-response-to-susan-greenfield-8694

Mark, that is pretty useful.Cheers.

I would argue that it is the responsibility of teachers to present both perspectives, and to provide arguments in favour of both points of view. It is then their role to teach them how to analyse these perspectives, and logical flaws in arguments.
I would suggest that the sign of an educated person is someone who can consecutively convincingly persuade two different people of the merits of opposing views.
Unfortunately I see little evidence that many teachers take this approach.
In fact, I have seen a number of cases where teachers direct students to a social activist website, that provides students with so-called facts and then directs them to contact a third party supporting their point of view.

"In my opinion" is an often useful preposition for teachers or "it is the policy of".
The student then knows the source of the opinion.
Remember that students also are bombarded with the opinions of their parents, their friends, FM radio (including Kyle Sandilands), TV (including Today Tonight), magazines (including Kim Kardashian and One Direction).

I'm glad that you mentioned homeopathy, Sean.
The science teachers and other teachers who consider their opinions so well-informed apparently need homeopathy, Chinese herbal remedies, shaitsu, myotherapy and of course aromatherapy.
No doubt they make mention of these health remedies as they warn of the dangers of climate change.
http://www.teachershealth.com.au/our-products/combined-cover/coreelect/

Rajan, I would suggest Peter is not saying there are too many ideas beyind scrutiny, just a few people who act as if there should be - meaning that when ideas they hold are subject to scrutiny they take it as a personal attack, possibly because their identity is too closely bound up in their ideas. Though to be fair possibly sometimes because the people attacking their "idea" make it a personal attack.

It's how to improve the public (and private) discourse to recognise and avoid this issue that I would suggest this article is aiming at - especially in the classroom?

Mark, I suspect you're right. That being the case, I think the article is a bit less profound than it perhaps purports to be. To say that for some people their ideas are tied up with their identities is pretty straight-forward. I suspect in fact that that applies to all of us. Similarly, to say that some people react strongly when some of their most cherished ideas are questioned is a truism. In fact, I sometimes think it is a healthy thing that, before attacking other people's ideas, we remind ourselves that receiving a blood-nose in return is a real possibility (the absence of this caution is a reason I believe why on-line debate can get so out of hand).

Hi, Rajan. I didn't see evidence of the author purporting to write something "profound" - I see this topic as very practical.

We can all give our views, but, in areas that lend themselves to empirical verification, we can't all expect our views to be seen to have equal validity.

Anti-intellectualism in the name of "rights" and "equality" is still anti-intellectualism. People tend to know and understand stuff in their areas of training and practice better than those outside that area. Insight requires us to recognise which are those areas for ourselves. Nothing profound about that, is there?

I suppose that's true Sue. I suppose it never hurts to remind ourselves that all our ideas can and should be subject to scrutiny when we air them in the public domain. And also that, while not holding back in our scrutiny of the ideas of others, we should at the same time be courteous when doing so, mindful of the value that we all place in our most cherished ideas and prejudices.