THanks for all the feedback, people. Clearly most seem to agree that introducing a formal logic class at the high school level would be asking our teenagers to comprehend a bit too much; I can understand this, since the Logic class I took in college was a straight, no-bullshit, dive right in with both feet affair, and no one that took it didn’t already have a prior interest in philosophy.
But that’s not to say, I don’t believe, that a “watered down” introductory course couldn’t be whipped up that avoids the more difficult aspects of formal logic while still addressing the “common sense” aspect alluded to by someone earlier. I do agree that not everyone even wants to learn to “think straight” (damn, lots of quotations fingers in this post) but it would give a definite head start to the type of young adult that later figures out such concepts as the Straw Man argument and identifying fallacies on his/her own. Just a thought, wish I had time to elucidate further, but hopefully you get the drift.
Side note, most of what you’re describing isn’t logic, which is fundamentally a math disipline required in some for in several states like NY, but instead basic debate skills. Evaluating sources, flowing arguments, cutting to the meat of points etc can’t really be taught in courses, at least i know of no time it has. If these skills were acquired and used by large portions of the public, our political system would collapse. While this would not terribly upset me, it does explain why it will never happen.
As a parent and husband of a teacher, cousin of teachers, great-nephew of teachers, and great-grandson of political party local committee members and chairs, here is the problem:
Education requirements are set by “boards” who are answerable to political processes.
Most attempts at creating “critical thinking” curricula are done by people with rather specific political axes to grind, even if they don’t think they they are biased. How do you tell that an educator is biased? It’s in direct proportion to the vehemence with which they deny bias.
The political prejudices of “professional” curriculum creators generally are at odds against the political prejudices of most ordinary parents, who get the input into the political processes mentioned before.
Result: “Critical thinking” is an obscene term in education. It would be possible to develop a “critical thinking” curriculum that would be acceptable to most parents, but the people most likely to develop “critical thinking” curricula either don’t give a damn about most parents or are actively hostile to them.
Right, the compromised version would not entail what we think of as a course in logic per our current university standards, but it would include elements of those courses such as an overview of the fallacies, truth tables, etc. The truth tables alone would seem to me to be a great precursor to Geometry, and I don’t see why the above couldn’t be taught lucidly in any public school system (OTOH, the political points raised are harder to sweep under the rug).
Oh, please. Can’t resist throwing a little partisan cheap shot into the works, can you?
But your post highlights what I mean. You think that your side is blessed with logic, while the opposition is illogical. That’s what I was alluding to in my message - the mistaken notion that there is only one true path to the ‘right’ ideas. If you know logic, you’ll be guided to your enlightened principles, because only they are logical.
This is, frankly, a load of hogwash. There is nothing fundamentally illogical about liberalism, conservatism, communism, libertarianism, or any other ‘ism’. Teaching logic in high school won’t create more liberals or conservatives.
But some people are arrogant enough to think that whatever beliefs they hold are borne of pure reason and logic.
I’m in basic agreement with the OP, but I don’t think it’s necessary to have an entire course dedicated to logic and critical thinking. That might be nice, but given the mindset of most school boards, a practical impossibility. I think we could accomplish most of what we want by having a couple of weeks in English dedicated to a basic set of logical fallacies, a couple of weeks in Biology dedicated to the scientific method, and a couple of weeks of math dedicated to statistics.
Oh god, there is no possible way in which this should be a partisan issue. His point was a good one, that teaching logic won’t necessarily lead someone to the “correct” decision, though I don’t really see that as being an issue. Just having people use rational and logical reasons to back up whatever ideas they come up with would an incredible improvement.
(PS: I’ve seen no evidence that conservatives are more or less rational than liberals, or they’d benefit somehow by having people lack critical thinking. For every hard right Christian Conservative, you have one of those postmodern liberal people.)
Being in England I don’t know much about the HS curriculum, but surely basic statistics is a mandatory requirement as is the basics of the scientific method?
I do remember doing a few lessons on debating in English, but I didn’t encounter logic until I did a further maths A-level when I was 16.
It’s been 35 years since high school for me, so maybe things have changed, but I don’t think we were taught any statistics, and the scientific method was only given a glancing blow by our biology teacher/assistant football coach.
the basic skills are taught, in nice compartmentalized sections. attempts to integrate these skills and apply them to the issues of the day are not easily evaluated by standardized tests and, therefore, are discouraged. In college i see a great many people who know how to evaluate physical sciences in a logical manner yet never seem to realize that the same tools can be used in th social sciences.
Note, when i say “the basic skills are taught”, I’m refering to NY. Other places may be different.
I’ve always had the sneaking suspicion that cirriculum is designed to *discourage * critical thinking. Learning has been reduced to mindless regurgitation of facts, often times devaluing the lesson. Is it more important for a kid to know the date on which the Revolutionary war started, or the reasons behind it?
Educators seem to fear debate, as if allowing students to question, say, the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, the kids may begin to challenge all authority and anarchy will ensue.
I fear that this makes the American public more credulous and gullible when it comes to the modern media. “But it was in the newspaper! It must be true!” We teach children to trust printed sources by presenting texts as universal truths which must be memorized. We don’t encourage them to check other sources or other points of view. Thus, as adults, many people simply accept what is presented to them by the “Teacher”-- the news, books, or politicians, not thinking to question it.