Crane, I’m not sure if you think I’m singling you out or something, because I’m not. I intended to post this to the thread for anyone’s edification.
I’m not really interested in debating here… of course the liberal arts (grammar, logic, rhetoric) should be taught from the earliest age - that’s just self evident to me. I read things that bother me and have to say something.
When I said “religious distortions” I meant claptrap like “creation science,” or recasting history to remove or gloss over wrongs that came about as a result of or in the guise of religion.
I am strenuously in favor of keeping church and state, hence religion and public education, separate.
And I am also of course opposed to teaching religion instead of science, or instead of any other subject.
Also, I said above that I am 100% in favor of teaching (and encouraging) critical thinking and logic for and from all students.
. . . No, I don’t think so. That is not psychologically true. Some will make logical arguments for points of doctrine, but no one ever was converted by such. In the words of the Reverend Dr. Dr. Mr. M.D. David N. Meyer III, Pope of All New York City and the Great Pacific Northwest, "You do not use your mind to think about your religion!"
Darwin was the first theorist of biological evolution, or very nearly so. Of course he made some mistakes. And Isaac Newton was an alchemist and a writer of religious tracts; doesn’t invalidate his work in physics.
I do agree that Newton had tried to scientifically argue for supernatural pseudo-entities such “Absolute” space/time which were based on religious beliefs. But, I’m not sure if your comparison works here - you have to really stretch. I also agree that even the best scientist make mistakes (usually corrected through further experimentation though).
Darwin simply codified what was already known to even ancient people through selective breeding (evolution) of animals and plants with a eugenicist agenda which should be taken into account when evaluating his “contributions”.
I also think it’s worth noting, although it is conjecture, that religions were initially opposed to the eugenics aspect of his work which was the quickly re-routed via the Hegelian dialectic into “science” vs. “dogma”.
This. I was writing a check (I’ve repeatedly asked my bank to send me one of them new-fangled debit cards they have, but no dice. Nor card.) at WallyWorld. They have a machine that reads the routing and account numbers and prints the check, but if you ask for cash back the cashier has to manually put in the new total. My subtotal was $18.20 and I asked for $20 over. The cashier, a grown-ass man in his twenties who probably has a high school diploma, his face blank, laid his head on the register, and asked, “So how much will that be?” I said, “Thirty-eight-twenty,” and the purchase continued.
Maybe before we expect students to understand logic we should make sure they understand adding by tens, which he should’ve learned in first grade. Just seems logical.
“A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. . .Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan they produce many more children. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits…”(Descent, Chapter Five: On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties During Primeval and Civilised Times: Natural selection as affecting civilised nations.)
"Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. . .Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man. . . .The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. (Darwin, Descent of Man, Conclusion)
OTOH, considering the prejudices of his time, and the "scienfic racism’ which predated his theories, most of what Darwin had to say about “race” in The Descent of Man was extremely Fair For Its Day.
Dude you were at wallmart. You might as well order your steak medium rare at McDonalds. There are pleeeeeeeenty of kids who are more than smart enough to understand these concepts.
Liberals insist that we need a Critical Thinking Course in high schools.
Conservatives angrily rejet the idea, saying this is obviously a ploy to get anti-Republican and anti-Christian propaganda taught in schools.
And they’ll be right- the SDMB’s liberals don’t even TRY to pretend otherwise! Most of the posters on this thread are enthusiastic about Critical Thinking precisely BECAUSE they think it’s a great way to undermine their political opponents!
I think you’ve made a lot of sense in this thread, Kimmy. Understanding what fallacies and cognitive biases are is great (especially if one’s goal is to understand human psychology), but a person who thinks critically should be able to spot a faulty conclusion or assertion without knowing the difference between fallacy X and fallacy Y.
Intuitively it seems like the most efficient way to teach kids to think critically is to get them in the habit of arguing and describing ideas. This can be taught in English, social studies, and even math. You don’t need to have a special class set aside for this. Move the focus away from logic theory and place it on actual application. The ability to think critically should be an outcome of a curriculum that balances memorization with deductive reasoning.
My wish is that people would be smart enough to formulate cogent, well-supported arguments for their positions. Progress doesn’t come from knocking down other’s ideas; it comes from creating new ones.
Something to keep in mind, though. A logical fallacy means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is not NECESSARILY true because of whatever particular fallacy that is mentioned. It doesn’t mean that the conclusion is absolutely false.
For example, The “Appeal to Authority” fallacy: “A world famous doctor, Dr. Iknoweverything says that smoking is harmful to your health. Therefore, you should not smoke.”
Now, just because the good doctor says it doesn’t necessarily make it true. But other research supports his position and makes the argument sound. People seem to misunderstand and somehow say that if there is a logical fallacy in your argument that the argument MUST be false. If there is extrinsic evidence, the logically unsound argument can be used with the extrinsic evidence to support the proposition.