Let's talk about 101

[coberst]

Let’s talk about 101

 

Most colleges have a numbering system identifying the courses being taught. In the college catalogue you are apt to find that your freshman courses are Physics 101, Chemistry 101, Literature 101, Geography 101, etc. The introductory course to a particular domain of knowledge is likely to be numbered 101. This has led to the common usage of 101 as meaning an introductory course.

 

If elementary schools followed this format, which they do not, you would see first graders taking Reading 101, Writing 101, and Arithmetic 101.

 

Only recently have our (US) educational institutions come to the realization that teaching youngsters what to think is necessary but not sufficient. The educational community has decided that our schools and colleges must begin to teach young people HOW to think. Our schools and colleges must begin teaching Reasoning 101.

 

Twelve years after graduating with an engineering degree I took a night course, Logic 101 (i.e. Reasoning 101), from the physics department of a local college. I was amazed to discover that I had no knowledge about this fundamental human capacity of reasoning before I took this course. I pondered the unbelievable fact that after 16 years of education I had no comprehension of the science of reasoning. I recognized at that moment that my educational system had seriously short-changed me.

 

That this serious omission is still universal was once again brought to my attention recently when I posted this response to a fellow forum member: “Reading is fundamental. Writing is fundamental. CT (Critical Thinking) is fundamental. These fundamental elements of human knowledge appear constantly and in all matters because of their fundamental nature.” With the following reply: “…sleeping is even more fundamental than all of those... I don't think everyone needs to study sleeping - practice seems good enough.”

[Bobo]

Having been a teacher for a bit, the standarization of education has serious consequences. Children are being taught how to pass standardized tests, but have not critical thinking skills. VERY few can answer a question with THEIR thoughts. They might be able to look at someones suggestion and accept it, but really have no ability to formualte their own interpetation of the facts. This is the main reason I have moved out of the education field. I had no interest in perpetuation such a system. (In today's school environment cirricula are as homoginized as the standarized tests and in TX they are starting to link teacher pay to student scores on such standardized tests.) This only leads to educators playing CYA to make their paychecks cranking out cookie cutter autonamtons that can do little more than regurgitate information with no real insight or understanding of WHAT is actually there other than a series of words that are the answer a pre-stated question thay have practiced a dozen times before.

[CraigD]

Few, I think, would question that the general population would benefit from better education in logic and critical thinking. I’m especially surprised that such classes aren’t more common, as, in my experience, most students consider them as among the most enjoyable.

 

Despite taking a lot of classical and modern philosophy in grades 9-12, I didn’t have an “introduction to logic” (the standard Boolean kind) class until my first year of college, in 1978. I’ve never had a class in critical thinking, only studied it through organizations like CFI.

 

Though I’ve not studied it much, I’ve a suspicion that K-12 instruction in formal logic has actually worsened, at least in the UK, since the Victorian era (roughly 1830-1900). Though I lack at present a study supporting the idea, I have the impression that 19th century children’s textbooks often included small logic puzzles, such as the “two doors puzzle” (in which you must determine which of 2 doors is the correct one by questioning 2 guardians, on who always lies, the other who always tells the truth), but that such puzzles are less common in present-day, more structured textbooks.

 

Even if the need for it is identified, changes in early education in logic and CT may be slow in coming, as such a change is most easily made only by teachers who themselves have been well educated in it. So, first a change must be made increasing emphasis on it in college Education curriculums, then teachers educated in these programs must become teachers, replacing older teachers who have not. A change in textbooks when teachers are not comfortable with the new subject matter can be ineffective.

 

The increased teaching of CT may be confounded by belief in the supernatural, both by students and teachers. People with such beliefs are often critical of skeptics and skeptical organization, and reluctant to accept CT because it is promoted by these people and organizations.

[coberst]

I am even more despondent than when I posted the OP.

[Monomer]

I was amazed to discover that I had no knowledge about this fundamental human capacity of reasoning before I took this course. I pondered the unbelievable fact that after 16 years of education I had no comprehension of the science of reasoning. I recognized at that moment that my educational system had seriously short-changed me.

 

That this serious omission is still universal was once again brought to my attention recently when I posted this response to a fellow forum member: “Reading is fundamental. Writing is fundamental. CT (Critical Thinking) is fundamental. These fundamental elements of human knowledge appear constantly and in all matters because of their fundamental nature.” With the following reply: “…sleeping is even more fundamental than all of those... I don't think everyone needs to study sleeping - practice seems good enough.”

 

I feel the same way about my education system. I think we have the capacity to read, write, think critically and even sleep, but that doesn't mean we know how to automatically do them and do them well. Look at all the insomniacs. Teaching kids critical thinking, negotiation skills and communication skills would surely reap long-term benefits for society. It appears that kids are left to themselves to figure out these skills, or they learn them from parents who's knowledge is flawed, and so many adults still can't communicate or negotiate effectively. We could function so much more as a 'society' if we all had adequate knowledge of these skills.

 

 

The increased teaching of CT may be confounded by belief in the supernatural, both by students and teachers. People with such beliefs are often critical of skeptics and skeptical organization, and reluctant to accept CT because it is promoted by these people and organizations.

 

Change it's name and maybe people will be fooled long enough to realise it's not just linked to beliefs in the supernatural. I think critical thinking should be taught along with negotiation, conflict resolution and communication skills. They are all really important and they're all linked.

[coberst]

Who is the judge? I am the judge for me and you are the judge for you. One cannot hide from this truth and it is a no brainier that each of us is well advised to become as proficient in this matter as possible.

 

The Catch-22 is that the person who has little learning regarding this matter is the person most in need of self-study of this subject. In other words, the person with the least ability in making good judgments is the person who will make the judgment as to whether to spend the effort and time in acquiring the knowledge required to make good judgments.

 

Each of us makes many judgments every day. Each judgment made has some effect on our life. There are bad judgments, good judgments, and better judgments. The more ‘better judgments’ we make in our life the better our life will be, generally speaking.

[Pyrotex]

I have heard many many folks complain the same things about our education system. Especially in my state, Texas, where we have "Everybody Left Behind".

 

I grew up in a small town in north Alabama, population 8,000. Most high school grades had around 100 students. (Years 1962-65.) We didn't specifically have a "reasoning" class or a "logic" class, but these things WERE taught. They were taught in ALL classes.

 

Discussions in class often wandered away from the textbook, and the teachers often prodded us to explain our answers. We had to write explanatory essays (called "theme papers") from grade 7 to 10, and full research papers in the 11th and 12th grades. They were graded on content and reasoning.

 

The "Civics" and "Government" classes, taught in 9th and 10th grades, were almost purely exercises in explanatory debate, reasoning and writing. I remember that in "Civics" we had one homework assignment each week which was to write a one page paper answering a question that began with "Why...?"

 

But those days were a different era. No drugs. Very little alcohol. The sexiest thing on TV was Annette Funiccello on The Mickey Mouse Club. (I'm not kidding!) Very few highschoolers had cars! Maybe 20% of the senior class. Kids were usually well behaved, I never saw ANY backtalk or sass to teachers in 4 years! We grumped about homework, but we DID it. (mostly) There were no tee-shirts with words or pictures of any kind. I never heard the "S" word or the "F" word until I was in college.

 

I think I had a pretty damn good education for the most part. I think the current generation should feel "cheated" and should arise in arms (if necessary) to demand better from our school systems.

[coberst]

Pyrotex

 

How can I know what I do not know? How can I trace that boundary between knowledge and ignorance?

 

In the dialogue “Apology” Plato writes about Socrates while in the dungeon just before drinking the hemlock that the citizens of Athens condemned him to be executed.

 

In the dungeon shortly before drinking from the hemlock cup Socrates spoke to his followers. He spoke about the accusations against him at the trial. He said that the sworn indictment against him was “Socrates is guilty of needless curiosity and meddling interference, inquiring into things beneath Earth and in the Sky…” Socrates further adds that he is accused of teaching the people of Athens, to which Socrates vehemently denies that he is a teacher. He points out that in matters of wisdom he has only a small piece of that territory; the wisdom that he does have is the wisdom not to think he knows what he does not know. Socrates conjectures that he has the wisdom to recognize the boundary of his present knowledge and to search for that knowledge that he does not have. “So it seems at any rate I am wiser in this one small respect: I do not think I know what I do not.”

 

For Socrates a necessary component of wisdom is to comprehend what one is ignorant of.

 

Am I wise? Do I know what I am ignorant of? I certainly know that I am ignorant of astronomy and psychology. There are many things about which it is obvious to me that I am ignorant of. Are there things about which I am not even aware of my ignorance? Are there matters about which I think I am knowledgeable of but which I am, in fact, ignorant of?

 

When I ask myself these questions I become conscious of a great number of things about which I am ignorant. Does this mean I am like Socrates in this matter? I do not think so. Socrates is speaking about two types of ignorance about which most people are unconscious of.

 

I think that Socrates is speaking of our ‘burden of illusion’. People are unconscious of the superficiality of much that they think they know and they are unconscious of a vast domain of knowledge that is hidden from the non critical thinker.

 

The uncritical mind has no means for discovering these illusions. CT (Critical Thinking) is the keystone for discovering these illusions. The Catch-22 here is how can one develop a critical mind when they are deluded into thinking they have a critical mind? When our educational system has not taught our citizens how to think critically how can our citizens ever pull themselves out of this deep hole of illusion?

[Pyrotex]

...How can I know what I do not know? How can I trace that boundary between knowledge and ignorance?...When our educational system has not taught our citizens how to think critically how can our citizens ever pull themselves out of this deep hole of illusion?

Coberst,

you may just have asked the most important questions ever posted here at Hypography. No kidding.

 

There is what you KNOW you don't know.

There is what you DON'T KNOW you don't know.

 

Drawing the line between these two has never been easy or quick or painless. Welcome to the "BEING" of Human Being. And as to the illusions, all I can say that it is better (in this regard) to be somewhat of a skeptic than a "true believer". Not everything I "know" may be true, and I constantly keep an eye out for alternate answers, alternate questions.

 

As a wise man once said, "The fastest horse does not always win the race, but that is the way to bet."

 

And your second question. How do we pry people out of their illusions that they "know enough"? That they know enough to tell the rest of us we are wrong. That they don't need any new knowledge or new science. That their illusions are all they need.

 

Well, History (with a capital H) has an answer for that. Civilizations rise. And they fall, to be replaced by something new. The very cultures that made the greatest breakthroughs and progress eventually became barriers to further progress. They culturally turned their knowledge into illusions and resisted further change. When enough back-pressure developed against them, BOOM! The Wheel of History rolled over them and ground them into the dust.

 

There is always one way to prove people wrong. Allow them to believe they are right, and sit back watch the consequences. After the COLLAPSE, the few survivors, and especially their children, will be singing a new tune. OH! They will say. OH! We have learned new knowledge at a horrible cost! We will turn from our stupid ways and be open to new things and value knowledge and reason. This time we have learned!

 

And they will pick themselves out of the ashes, rebuild their civilization anew over the centuries, with a different culture and different answers, until they, too become hardened like stone. "We know everything we need to know! Go away and teach us not!"

 

And then BOOM! again.

 

The Greeks. The Persians. The Romans. The Catholic Empire. The Ottoman Empire. The Spanish Empire. The American Empire. And so it goes.

[coberst]

Pyrotex

 

I have recently been introduced to an author they speaks about these sorts of matters. Ernest Becker's "Beyond Alienation" is the best I have read about this whole matter and I suspect you might find it to be very interesting. He has also authored several other great books. I always check books out of the library before buying them and thus I seldom buy a book but I have bought three of his.

 

I will be away from my computer for two weeks and will not be able to reply for awhile.