When I look around at the teachers I know, I shudder at them teaching critical thinking and logical analysis. Better they just baby-sit.
When I was in middle school there was an “Academic Games” competition which included a math game, English game, “Mr. Presidents” which was trivia about the Presidents, and a game called “Propaganda.”
It was played in groups of three. The proctor read a statement and the students had to identify the logical fallacy that was used. For example, the proctor might say, “You are opposed to the death penalty. I suppose you want all murderers to run loose!”
Then the three students would try to identify the fallacy. If two students selected “False Dilemma” and the other decided “Excluded Middle” then the one student could “challenge” and risk points. If he won the challenge, he would get 2 points and the two students would get -2 points. If he refused to challenge, then the two students would get 1 point and he would get 0, even if he was correct. (I don’t recall the rules if everyone selected something different.)
A trick q that I will never forget (because it got me points) was the statement, “Stonewall Jackson got his nickname because it was said that he “stood like a stone wall” at the first battle of Bull Run” Two students in my group used “argument by analogy” and I challenged with “no technique” as it was simply reciting a statement of fact, not making an argument. I won and went to the National Competition due to the points from that one win.
Not sure that a critical thinking course is the preventative for torture killing of women believed to be witches.
Even assuming that the belief in witches can be eradicated by education (I’m certainly willing to accept that education, along with other actions wihelp with this), it was 50 people out of hundreds present who actually did the torturing and killing. I think it’s likely that even if everyone there agreed that punishment/revenge/deterrence was needed and justified, everyone knew that torture and murder was wrong and unnecessary.
I know this is a sidetrack to your point but I think there’s a danger in placing too much “faith” in thinking as an antidote for human evil.
I agree on language. A more useful course would be the origin of word roots that appear in English. And, since critical thinking is a byproduct of language it should be integrated into the English curriculum.
The taxonomy of formal logic is difficult to apply, but it is basic to critical thinking.
There are dangers though. The problem being that religious folks, politicians, the commercial community and to some extent parents do not want young people who are logical and able to think critically. Skill in logic opens a broad field for examination:
“In God We Trust” - really?
Is Transubstantiation endocannibalism?
Geology vs the flood of Noah?
“All Hazards” insurance policies.
Medicare Plan D.
The Reagan administration.
My daughter took a college course in Critical Thinking. The instructors basic example was ‘whether or not to be a vegetarian’. What a waste! My logic professor had forged a press pass to get admission to the HUAC hearings in San Francisco. We spent time examining the questions and process. Definitely more relevant, but a logical approach to that kind of issue or some of those listed above could get a teacher fired.
Crane
Sure, as long as it’s taught in a good way, and not like most logic courses. I have a college book from one, and it’s set up like it’s a separate class, rather than something you’d use in real life. The advice is good, but most students will wind up only using it for that subject, just like every other subject.
I’d actually be showing Harry Potter and the methods of rationality if the author hadn’t felt the need to include that gratuitous swipe at people who believe in heaven. I realize Harry not believing in it and Dumbledore believing in it is important to the story, but there’s no reason Harry should have won that argument.
I get that the author thinks that believing in heaven is irrational and wants to discourage it. But doing so directly is a surefire way to make people reject your work and thus all the other good stuff in it. Religious people who refuse to ever question their religion are the most likely to refuse to question anything else. We need to try to reach these people without insulting their religion.
We should always avoid hot topics in school if possible. We may not, for example, be able to avoid evolution in biology, but we can avoid telling people not to believe in God. Heck, I’m pretty sure that would fall afoul of the establishment clause, anyway.
See, that’s exactly the type of thing I don’t like. Knowing the specific reason something is illogical is relatively unimportant. You need to know whether an argument is being made and whether the argument is logical, not the specific name for why it is illogical.
I mean, those kids failed horribly at learning the important part. That shouldn’t have even been a trick question. Good on you for catching it, but I’d rather have it be common knowledge.
I really wish people would stop with the conspiracy theories. No religious person is fighting against logic being taught in class because they are afraid that kids will start questioning their religion. Religious people think that their religion is logical or rational. That’s why they believe in it.
Questioning religion is a good thing. But it’s something you have to do for yourself, not something someone else can tell you to do. You just can’t directly tell anyone to disregard strong inherent beliefs and expect them not to get defensive. That is something I was taught in school: it’s part of rhetoric. We even had to write speeches where we held the opposite view of our intended audience, and you’d get counted off if you tried to attack rather than provide information.
Which schools are saying you need 28 credits to graduate? That’s what you’d need for everything to be full up. It’s seven credits a year, and four years of high school. Junior high has more room, and elementary school has a ton of room, as the teachers implementing the concept have shown.
The idea that another topic would be shortened or dropped is silly. But, if so, so what? There’s a lot of stuff that we go too far on. Most of the year long courses would work as semester courses, since their purpose is just to get the kids feet wet in the concept to see if they might like to pursue it, and not because we think every kid should know all of it.
Logical thinking is something that will help kids in real life. Heck, it’s more important than even teaching evolution, unless, of course, the kid is going to go into the biological or medical sciences.
And don’t get me started on the incessant repetition. Stop teaching kids to memorize so that they will wind up forgetting. Teach them to learn, to internalize something to the point that they can’t forget it. The big picture is much more important than the little picture.
Well, it’s been over 20 years, so all of the guns, money, and pussy from being on the national team is gone. (and they never showed up as promised anyways. )
But I would slightly disagree with you. It’s important to know WHY an argument is bad so you can explain it to other people. It’s important to say, “Just because she is against the death penalty doesn’t mean that she doesn’t want harsh punishment” or “We aren’t trying to sell you anything by telling you how Stonewall Jackson got his name.”
The game wasn’t perfect, but I remember it 20 plus years later.
BigT,
“No religious person is fighting against logic being taught in class because they are afraid kids will start questioning their religion”
Pardon the labeling, but that’s a mighty big Universal Positive.
A requirement of most religions is that every member commit to a belief that cannot be confirmed by education or experience and is considered implausible by outsiders. These core beliefs identify religious organizations and bond their members together. All beliefs that cannot be confirmed by education or experience are illogical and subject to rigid critique (there’s a universal positive for you).
No conspiracy is required. It is within my experience that religious leaders and their members reject logic and even the study of history outside of their romantic narratives.
Crane
Someone should tell that to the authors of the Port-Royal Logic. But I guess religious adherents aren’t alone in disdaining the study of history outside their own romantic narratives.
History is not always a romantic narrative.
Crane
It’s time you widened your experience. You could start with oh, say, me, my rector and the other members of the Episcopalian church of which I am a member.
Of course there are religious people who not only wish to prevent their own children from learning important aspects of science and history and being exposed to books and ideas they consider pernicious, but also to prevent all students from learning those things.
There are many of us who not only want our kids to be well and fairly educated, but want to prevent religious distortions from being imposed on any students.
Personal experience can tell you what sometimes happens, but not what always happens or even what usually happens. Consider the relationship of “anecdote” to “data.”
I find it odd that you claim that “beliefs that cannot be confirmed by … experience are illogical,” since logic and experience are two different—and in fact complementary—things. Logic is valuable in interpreting experience. Experience is valuable in providing the correct “givens” on which to apply one’s logic. Either without the other leads to nuttery.
Huck,
You make an important point and that is why I did not say “…all religions…”
Boink,
Logic must be taught, so logic is a part of education. All education is a part of experience.
Faith is acceptance of things unseen, so outside of experience, education and logic.
Crane
All this talk about Darwin and religion as examples of clear thinking against dogmatism… The actual title of the Origin of Species is:
“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”
Has anyone read it?
Huck,
“… but want to prevent religious distortions from being imposed on any students”
Would critical analysis constitute ‘religious distortions’?
Crane
pungi,
Yes, it is a surpisingly interesting book, both in the information presented and the manner of argument.
Crane
Also check out his follow up, The Descent of Man (1871), where he ranks races according to their likeness to gorillas. Then, proposes the extermination of races he “scientifically” defined as inferior. AND, If this was not done those races, having higher birthrates than “superior” races, would exhaust the resources needed for the survival of superior people, eventually ruining “civilization".
I have 2 things to say: 1. Darwin was a charlatan eugenicist. 2. Hopefully you’re not Irish
pungi,
I have not read The Descent of Man - I will when I have the opportunity.
Crane