If it wound you up, then I will allow myself a short giggle, but it was not my intention.

“Even if my conclusion is indoctrination, this does not disprove my argument”.
I’m not interested in the argument anymore, once the veil has been lifted and the possibility that your conclusions equate to indoctrination are shown then it is open season on your views. As with any attempt at the reductio I leave it to the reader to guage how absurd your arguments may be.

We will agree to disagree on how well you understand Feyerabends position. Suffice to say that an ‘athiest school’ that picks its pupils on ‘atheist beliefs’ and teaches ‘atheist methods’, though not in accordance with my tastes, is a perfectly valid concept. If it is brainwashing it is brainwashing insofar as all teaching is brainwashing.

That Feyerabend is quite willing to attack science makes him no more or no less appealing to me, that is a bit of low punch on your behalf. Feyerabends intentions are that philosophers, indeed all people, should follow the methods, doctrines and beliefs about which they feel comfortable or uncompromised. Consequently my experience is that Feyerabend makes a fitting addittion to my reading list following on from Wittgenstein.

You are using Libertarianism as an axiom. That has no bearing on my original argument since I did not employ that axiom and we don’t agree on it (for the purposes of this thread).

“When you … conclude that in order to avoid this one must abolish faith schools. How is this not an expression of a doctrine?”

Again, you are attacking the nature of the argument, not the argument itself. Even if my conclusion is indoctrination, it does not disprove my argument.

“A faith school does not expel a pupil nor sack its staff for stating ‘there is no God’, … This just does not happen!”

You don’t address my argument. I said “if X then Y”. You said “Y never happens”. The fact “Y never happens” does not disprove my argument!

“So in essence (if you genuinely support school uniforms) are you are saying that one social value system (faith) is less desireable to you than other?”

I already said my other views on faith and uniforms are not relevant to my argument. I try to refrain from accusing fallacies but you repeated this ad hominem circumstantial. (Last time you said “Yet his opposition to this is grounded in the idea that a faith ethos is a bad thing, in essence that faith is bad method.”)

“Finally, you have misunderstood Feyerabend.” “The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education” (Feyerabend)

Oh, I think I get his meaning better than you think. Faith schools are a systematic attempt at educating a value system (as are arguably all schools). If there was a school that had atheism classes, humanistic values and selected the majority of students on their atheistic beliefs, I imagine you might consider that brain washing – but how is this “lack of faith school” any worse than a faith school in indoctrination?

“He qualifies this with a tirade against institutional science,”

I think Feyerabend’s views on science biases you towards him. Why the big quote on science – was this relevant to the discussion on faith schools or just to wind me up?

AC1

1, 2 & 3.
Attempting to reduce ‘freedoms’ into ‘rights’ is the problem here. It is a naturalistic fallacy. That I have the freedom to pick my weapon of choice and to kill someone does not mean that I ought to. That I ought to do something or that I have a right to do something is not the same as the simple existential fact that I am free to do something.
Freedom of action and freedom of thought is indentical insofar as they are questions of liberty and autonomy. The libertarian agenda that says we must defend freedom (not declared rights) also adresses the problem of conflicting freedoms.
If I have the right to kill and you have the right to life, then they are conflicting rights, but as has been previously argued neither of these are natural rights, all rights are assumed, and effectively all rights are legislative ideals, or to use your phrase social values.
But being free to kill and free to live (although in conflict) are natural states of affairs. They are both the offspring of being free agents.
Likewise freedom to choose, and freedom to act in accordance with those choices. Both inseparbly connected notions with the ideal of freedom, and being free.

When conflict occurs our social norm is to restrict or limit one freedom over the other. To formulate rights: thus the right to live is given priority over the right to kill. This is an unnatural act inasmuch as the freedom to choose, the freedom to be a moral agent is denied.
That we restrict wholesale freedom in such ways is itself a reflection of a social value!

When such conflict occurs the libertarian response is not to restrict or dilineate freedoms. Rather the ideal is to bring about consensus. Which in a way if you like is to conjure up the illusion of rights, to thus make the restriction of freedom more palatable to the society at large. But is it really a restriction? Is it not possible that one may freely choose non-violence, and not-killing as a viable course of action?

But it is in extreme cases that we can talk of conflicting freedoms in this way. Most people though free to kill, equally agree that they are free not to kill, and are content to abide by this.

4
I was indeed attempting a reductio.
For what you are proposing is ‘bad’ in the eyes of libertarianism, you are restricting freedom.

When you state indoctrination to be bad, and then when you state your belief that faith schools indoctrinate, and then conclude that in order to avoid this one must abolish faith schools. How is this not an expression of a doctrine? And when you choose to argue in support of this doctrine, hoping that people may ‘see reason’ may be ‘convinced of the validity of your arguments’ or indeed may be ‘forced to concede that your opinions are correct/more desireable to a particular outcome’, how may I ask is this not the result of indoctrination?

Do not all schools (as they are) represent a value system? This is what I had argued before. Whether that value system is expressed in a faith ethos, in its uniform rules, rules of discipline, are they not then defending a system of values? I think we would agree that by this defintion they do, and by such a definition if those values are integral to its continuity and being then rule breaches are indeed policed.
But this is my point about the real activity taking place. A faith school does not expel a pupil nor sack its staff for stating ‘there is no God’, or for refusing to attend religious ceremonies (which are non compulsory anyway). This just does not happen!
Yet, schools do exclude for the non-adherence to its uniform policy. And as I remember (unless you have sinced changed your views, which you are entitled to do) you support uniforms in principle as they (paraphrasing you) promote academic and social discipline.

So in essence (if you genuinely support school uniforms) are you are saying that one social value system (faith) is less desireable to you than other?

In essence as all schools and indeed all institutions are arbiters and promoters and defenders of peculiar social values why dont we just do away with the lot of them?

Finally, you have misunderstood Feyerabend. As a relativist libertarian grounded in the ideals of open debate he would not support any policy of restriction.
“Who am I to tell these people what and how to think” is his renunciation of intellectualism. His renunciation of the idea that he has any notion better than anybody else over what constitutes good education fills him with revulsion.

There are some quotes that would help clear up his idea of education policies.

“The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education”

He qualifies this with a tirade against institutional science, and the agenda of rationalists/realists in the education sector.

“But science still reigns supreme. It reigns supreme because its practitioners are unable to understand, and unwilling to condone, different ideologies, because they have the power to enforce their wishes, and because they use this power ‘ just as their ancestors used their power to force Christianity on the peoples they encountered during their conquests. Thus, while an American can now choose the religion he likes, he is still not permitted to demand that his children learn magic rather than science at school. There is a separation between state and church, there is no separation between state and science.

And yet science has no greater authority than any other form of life. Its aims are certainly not more important than are the aims that guide the lives in a religious community or in a tribe that is united by a myth. At any rate, they have no business restricting the lives, the thoughts, the education of the members of a free society where everyone should have a chance to make up his own mind and to live in accordance with the social beliefs he finds most acceptable. The separation between state and church must therefore be complemented by the separation between state and science.”

In a free society “all traditions have equal rights and equal access to the centres of power”.

Thus faith schools must be defended as a principle of freedom. And open debate must be guarunteed.
Neither Feyerabend nor myself are arguing that all schools should be uniform, that all schools should be faith schools, or that one way is better than another. What we do propose is that all citizens should be free to make that choice.

“…the notion that freedom to choose a method… could be seperate from the notion of free thinking is incomprehensible.”

I have a few comments on this:
1) You have not actually stated why freedom of actions and freedom of thought are inseparable. You did call it “incomprehensible”, “tyranny” and “contrary to all libertarian ideals” but I don’t actually see any argument to refute.

2) Giving everyone freedom of choice (or action) is impossible. Person A would have freedom to kill person B. Then person B would not have his freedom to live. Their rights immediately conflict and therefore universal freedom of action is impossible.

3) We have previously agreed natural rights are an illusion, including freedom of action. (But you have every right to reverse your views; as do I).

4) You are saying the consequence of my argument is tyranny. Saying the consequences of my argument is “bad” is irrelevant to disproving my argument. (Unless its a valid reductio ad absurdum, naturally.)

“Yet his opposition to this is grounded in the idea that a faith ethos is a bad thing, in essence that faith is bad method.”

My other views are not relevant to disproving my argument. Since we started this thread on education, did I make a value judgment on faith? I think I was careful not to do so in my axioms.

“It is ironic, but I can think of no greater an example of the propaganda and indoctrination of one methodic worldview over another, than this one.”

I find it amusing you call my argument “indoctrination”. My argument is, briefly, “faith schools indoctrinate regarding systems of values” and “indoctrination is bad” therefore “faith schools are bad”. I did not state what action we could take, so why accuse this of indoctrination?

“AC-1 is as we should now know opposed to their indoctrination techniques, as though a faith school employs a thought police that weeds out heresy and malpractise. This should be exposed for the utter rot that it is.”

I am taking the position of “indoctrination is bad” as a view just for this thread. Currently, I don’t think it is a universal value, but I know you are rather attracted to this idea and hence I used it as a temporarily agreed axiom.

I am not objecting to the curriculum the school provides (generally speaking). A faith school stands for a set of values. If someone disobeys the values of the school, which are often codified as “the rules”, then the teachers are indeed a kind of police.

“A faith school like any other seeks to churn out succesful students (albeit a standard of success that I disagree with) not soldiers of God.”

Soldiers of God is their aim! From that prospectus: “The school seeks to [promote development], where everyone shares a vision based on the teachings and exemplary life of Jesus Christ”.”.

Ask yourself, does the school (from it’s senior leadership and official policy) stand for one value system or more than one?
Is this value system presented in an uncritical manner? (Also considering teachers can’t usually openly violate school policy.)

Finally, my objection to faith schools could not have been stated more simply than: “Who was I to tell these people what and how to think?” – Feyerabend

I think you will find support for Feyerabend and support for faith schools are incompatible beliefs, at least as far as I can see.

AC1