Notices
Results 1 to 38 of 38
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By cosmictraveler
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr

Thread: should basic philosophy be taught in grade school?

  1. #1 should basic philosophy be taught in grade school? 
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    I do not mean teaching the concepts to 5 year olds.
    for u.s. it could start at grade 6 or 7.
    roughly around age 10.


    could this benefit kids?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    It already is. Well not in US public schools but around the world it is taught in general. We teach our children pretty early on that it's not nice to bite their siblings, or that it is wrong to squish the life out of a small helpless animal that unfortunately found itself in the clutches of a toddler. This may be simple philosophy but that is how teaching works. We start with the simple basics and work our way up.

    Schools tend to teach basic academics, but philosophy weasels it's way in when kids start asking deeper questions and teachers cannot resist the opportunity to impart on the kids what they BELIEVE to be right or wrong, real or unreal. Fortunately our culture is pretty diverse and even being the parent doesn't guarantee that you will be the greatest influence over your child's philosophical development. This is an age where they can be influenced by people all over the world. Making friends on the opposite side of the planet and comparing notes with them. They have access to so many different ideas that they can pick and choose which ones to ponder over and expand on for themselves. We can lock our kids up physically but we cannot lock up their minds. They can and will start thinking at some point. Usually when you least expect it. But rarely as soon as you wish they would.

    I think in theory, it could benefit kids, but in reality, I doubt it would play out as well as it looks on paper. Philosophy is so much like religion in that perceptions of reality are unique. For every human being there is, there is a different unique view of reality. Sure there may be millions who's philosophy seems identical, but in small subtle ways they differ. And it only takes a small variance to inspire a whole new way of looking at things.

    I think it would be best to leave official philosophy teachings to older students. And it shouldn't be teaching philosophy so much as nurturing it and trying to understand how one reaches the conclusions they reach. Critical thinking. Logic. Scientific methods.


    .... on second hand, maybe I don't really understand what philosophy is myself. and I don't really understand it's purpose. There are lot's of things that humans occupy their minds with that make no sense to me.

    If comparing the human mind to a computer, I would probably compare philosophy to the crap bundle software that computer manufactures pre-install that usually end up just slowing down the performance of the operating system and distract you from using the computer for anything useful.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    01. Be normal, and the crowd will accept you. Be deranged, and they will make you their leader.
    02. Every great man was thought to be insane before he changed the world. Some never changed the world. They were just insane.
    03. I don't fail. I succeed at finding what doesn't work.
    04. It's always funny until someone gets hurt. Then it's funnier.
    05. When in doubt, do it.
    06. A crappy life is a great excuse to live a crappy life.
    07. Always apologize first--it annoys the crap out of people.
    08. "Losing builds character." You know who said that? A loser.
    09. Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Cry, and the world laughs harder.
    10. There's a one-in six-billion chance that you'll find your soulmate. And that's if they're not dead.
    11. Learn from your parents' mistakes. Use birth control.
    12. The government favors the most diplomatic language. That's why any letter to them should always start with, "Dear turkeys and foul maggots..."
    13. Everyone has an enemy. It's why God gave us baseball bats. Well, He gave us trees, but we knew what He meant.
    14. Born free. Taxed to death.
    15. I don't suffer from insanity--I enjoy every minute of it.
    16. We are brought into this world cold, weak, and helpless. Then it gets worse.
    17. Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
    18. Passion, manners, and 80 ounces of beer will win the heart of any woman. And if it doesn't, you'll be too hammered to remember.
    19. If at first you don't succeed, then drag racing isn't for you.
    20. Take the time to smell the roses. Sooner or later, you'll inhale a bee and die.
    21. No problem is so big and difficult that it can't be blamed on somebody else.
    22. Revenge is good. It's what separates us from the animals and the hippies.
    23. Whenever you're pissed off, just remember that it's better than being pissed on.
    24. Screwed-up people settle fights through violence. Screwed-up people start wars that could kill millions. Normal people settle fights through cookies, cakes, and pies. Normal people are fat.
    Neverfly likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Re no. 18: anyone who gets hammered on a mere 4 pints (shared or not) is getting off very lightly.
    And don't nos. 3 and 19 contradict each other?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    And don't nos. 3 and 19 contradict each other?
    No, the one who lost the race found what didn't work on that run, perhaps they will find their weakness and win next time.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    It already is. Well not in US public schools but around the world it is taught in general. We teach our children pretty early on that it's not nice to bite their siblings, or that it is wrong to squish the life out of a small helpless animal that unfortunately found itself in the clutches of a toddler. This may be simple philosophy but that is how teaching works. We start with the simple basics and work our way up.

    Schools tend to teach basic academics, but philosophy weasels it's way in when kids start asking deeper questions and teachers cannot resist the opportunity to impart on the kids what they BELIEVE to be right or wrong, real or unreal. Fortunately our culture is pretty diverse and even being the parent doesn't guarantee that you will be the greatest influence over your child's philosophical development. This is an age where they can be influenced by people all over the world. Making friends on the opposite side of the planet and comparing notes with them. They have access to so many different ideas that they can pick and choose which ones to ponder over and expand on for themselves. We can lock our kids up physically but we cannot lock up their minds. They can and will start thinking at some point. Usually when you least expect it. But rarely as soon as you wish they would.

    I think in theory, it could benefit kids, but in reality, I doubt it would play out as well as it looks on paper. Philosophy is so much like religion in that perceptions of reality are unique. For every human being there is, there is a different unique view of reality. Sure there may be millions who's philosophy seems identical, but in small subtle ways they differ. And it only takes a small variance to inspire a whole new way of looking at things.

    I think it would be best to leave official philosophy teachings to older students. And it shouldn't be teaching philosophy so much as nurturing it and trying to understand how one reaches the conclusions they reach. Critical thinking. Logic. Scientific methods.


    .... on second hand, maybe I don't really understand what philosophy is myself. and I don't really understand it's purpose. There are lot's of things that humans occupy their minds with that make no sense to me.

    If comparing the human mind to a computer, I would probably compare philosophy to the crap bundle software that computer manufactures pre-install that usually end up just slowing down the performance of the operating system and distract you from using the computer for anything useful.
    Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    What is Philosophy? A Philosophy Definition

    I have been cuaght up on some of the similar attributes. I am unaware as to what grade schools outside u.s. teach.

    1.The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.
    2.A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it.

    I wouldn't want the thoughts of existence or reality to be taught to youngens as I view it as having potentially damaging affects. that's just what I think. however, I was concerned for the critical thinking and human logic protion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I do not mean teaching the concepts to 5 year olds.
    for u.s. it could start at grade 6 or 7.
    roughly around age 10.
    could this benefit kids?
    So long as you do mean this part:
    however, I was concerned for the critical thinking and human logic protion
    Then I concur whole-heartedly.
    How to think is far more important than what to think.
    (Sadly far too many people, including some who choose to participate in the philosophy sub-forum of this board [and a number of others] have failed to learn either of those).

    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Philosophy is so much like religion in that perceptions of reality are unique. For every human being there is, there is a different unique view of reality. Sure there may be millions who's philosophy seems identical, but in small subtle ways they differ. And it only takes a small variance to inspire a whole new way of looking at things.
    I think it would be best to leave official philosophy teachings to older students. And it shouldn't be teaching philosophy so much as nurturing it and trying to understand how one reaches the conclusions they reach. Critical thinking. Logic. Scientific methods.
    .... on second hand, maybe I don't really understand what philosophy is myself. and I don't really understand it's purpose. There are lot's of things that humans occupy their minds with that make no sense to me.
    Hmm, virtual slap for the majority of that.
    At the very least you seem to be confusing and conflating philosophy - as a discipline - with "personal philosophy" - one's outlook on on life 1.

    If comparing the human mind to a computer, I would probably compare philosophy to the crap bundle software that computer manufactures pre-install that usually end up just slowing down the performance of the operating system and distract you from using the computer for anything useful.
    Probably a more accurate comparison would be that the equivalent of philosophy/ [products of the] human mind with computing is logic & electronics/ computer.
    Philosophy lets us know, or work out, broadly how we can decide what is worthwhile and what isn't. And WHY we can make such decisions with any confidence.

    1 And make no mistake: philosophy is highly disciplined, whereas a personal philosophy can be, and usually is, as woolly minded as the proponent holding it - refer to my earlier comment about particpants, too many think the woolly-minded outlook is the real thing and therefore consider it worth posting...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    It already is. Well not in US public schools but around the world it is taught in general. We teach our children pretty early on that it's not nice to bite their siblings, or that it is wrong to squish the life out of a small helpless animal that unfortunately found itself in the clutches of a toddler. This may be simple philosophy but that is how teaching works. We start with the simple basics and work our way up.

    Schools tend to teach basic academics, but philosophy weasels it's way in when kids start asking deeper questions and teachers cannot resist the opportunity to impart on the kids what they BELIEVE to be right or wrong, real or unreal. Fortunately our culture is pretty diverse and even being the parent doesn't guarantee that you will be the greatest influence over your child's philosophical development. This is an age where they can be influenced by people all over the world. Making friends on the opposite side of the planet and comparing notes with them. They have access to so many different ideas that they can pick and choose which ones to ponder over and expand on for themselves. We can lock our kids up physically but we cannot lock up their minds. They can and will start thinking at some point. Usually when you least expect it. But rarely as soon as you wish they would.

    I think in theory, it could benefit kids, but in reality, I doubt it would play out as well as it looks on paper. Philosophy is so much like religion in that perceptions of reality are unique. For every human being there is, there is a different unique view of reality. Sure there may be millions who's philosophy seems identical, but in small subtle ways they differ. And it only takes a small variance to inspire a whole new way of looking at things.

    I think it would be best to leave official philosophy teachings to older students. And it shouldn't be teaching philosophy so much as nurturing it and trying to understand how one reaches the conclusions they reach. Critical thinking. Logic. Scientific methods.


    .... on second hand, maybe I don't really understand what philosophy is myself. and I don't really understand it's purpose. There are lot's of things that humans occupy their minds with that make no sense to me.

    If comparing the human mind to a computer, I would probably compare philosophy to the crap bundle software that computer manufactures pre-install that usually end up just slowing down the performance of the operating system and distract you from using the computer for anything useful.
    Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    What is Philosophy? A Philosophy Definition

    I have been cuaght up on some of the similar attributes. I am unaware as to what grade schools outside u.s. teach.

    1.The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.
    2.A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it.

    I wouldn't want the thoughts of existence or reality to be taught to youngens as I view it as having potentially damaging affects. that's just what I think. however, I was concerned for the critical thinking and human logic protion
    I do remember in 3rd grade (age 8) we read stories called fables (Aesop's Fables to be specific) and we had to figure out what the moral of the story was. Our assignment, officially, was to understand and recognize the different types of literature and figure out the message the author was trying to convey. I guess some would see that as a sneaky way of teaching philosophy to young children, but that still was not age 5 or 6. I'm guessing story telling has been the most effective means of passing philosophy on from one generation to the next but I honestly cannot remember anything that would be considered philosophical teaching prior to the age of 8 that didn't take place at home or in a church.

    I doubt it would be considered ethical but I often wonder what wisdom humans would glean from each other if children from the age of 2 were isolated from adults, intellectually speaking and always provided with appropriate means of caring for themselves (without direct contact) but never taught how to behave towards one another. Would they discover how to farm how to hunt, how to recognize, threatening behaviors in each other, how to avoid confrontations. .... would make an interesting scifi movie I guess.

    I think I am going off in a tangent. As you said, critical thinking, I believe absolutely should be taught. How often are children not sure how to recognize when they are being manipulated. We teach them in black and white but we don't teach them to be discerning in gray areas until later. And as it is, we simply cannot be with our kids 24/7 for any part of their childhood. I do believe that our modern culture of convenience has led to the over sheltering of children. I was deeply criticized for explaining to my kids in graphic detail when they were 3-4 years old why they do not trust strangers. I told them that not all adults are their friend, and that sometimes adults take children and do horrible things to them. And I graphically described things serial killers and rapists have done to people including children. I showed them pictures of mutilated bodies that I could find on the internet. And then I taught them how to scream kick and fight as hard as they could to get away if someone tried to get them. I wanted them to understand and use fear for what it was best used for. Motivation to escape harm. None of them are screwed up in the head as far as I can tell. Well no more screwed up than I am. I guess you can say, I thought them about the harsh realities of the world and refused to fill their heads with fairy tales. They are not gullible and they even know not to trust me. Because I randomly punch them in the gut for no reason. These kids are always alert and ready in case someone who seems safe goes crazy. I haven't been able to land a punch in a long time (when i say punch i mean a minor play fight type of punch, never anything that actually causes harm and any one of my kids could seriously hurt me at this point if they chose to)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I do remember in 3rd grade (age 8) we read stories called fables (Aesop's Fables to be specific) and we had to figure out what the moral of the story was.
    Wasn't the basic moral: do your best to ignore dead Greeks that write drivel about talking donkeys?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I do remember in 3rd grade (age 8) we read stories called fables (Aesop's Fables to be specific) and we had to figure out what the moral of the story was. Our assignment, officially, was to understand and recognize the different types of literature and figure out the message the author was trying to convey. I guess some would see that as a sneaky way of teaching philosophy to young children, but that still was not age 5 or 6. I'm guessing story telling has been the most effective means of passing philosophy on from one generation to the next but I honestly cannot remember anything that would be considered philosophical teaching prior to the age of 8 that didn't take place at home or in a church.

    I doubt it would be considered ethical but I often wonder what wisdom humans would glean from each other if children from the age of 2 were isolated from adults, intellectually speaking and always provided with appropriate means of caring for themselves (without direct contact) but never taught how to behave towards one another. Would they discover how to farm how to hunt, how to recognize, threatening behaviors in each other, how to avoid confrontations. .... would make an interesting scifi movie I guess.

    I think I am going off in a tangent. As you said, critical thinking, I believe absolutely should be taught. How often are children not sure how to recognize when they are being manipulated. We teach them in black and white but we don't teach them to be discerning in gray areas until later. And as it is, we simply cannot be with our kids 24/7 for any part of their childhood. I do believe that our modern culture of convenience has led to the over sheltering of children. I was deeply criticized for explaining to my kids in graphic detail when they were 3-4 years old why they do not trust strangers. I told them that not all adults are their friend, and that sometimes adults take children and do horrible things to them. And I graphically described things serial killers and rapists have done to people including children. I showed them pictures of mutilated bodies that I could find on the internet. And then I taught them how to scream kick and fight as hard as they could to get away if someone tried to get them. I wanted them to understand and use fear for what it was best used for. Motivation to escape harm. None of them are screwed up in the head as far as I can tell. Well no more screwed up than I am. I guess you can say, I thought them about the harsh realities of the world and refused to fill their heads with fairy tales. They are not gullible and they even know not to trust me. Because I randomly punch them in the gut for no reason. These kids are always alert and ready in case someone who seems safe goes crazy. I haven't been able to land a punch in a long time (when i say punch i mean a minor play fight type of punch, never anything that actually causes harm and any one of my kids could seriously hurt me at this point if they chose to)
    that helps me. I can't remember what I did for most my grade school other than science, reading (which were different books than you mentioned) and math. then there was my second grade teacher, and she distracted me every day.

    you are correct about your concept. what would the kids do? your thought reminds me of "Lord of Flies", though those kids had some adult intervention prior to their shipwreck to a deserted island. where they had to defend for themselves completely and therefore has nothing absolutely the same as what you mentioned.

    anyways...
    you share an interesting comment. culture of convenience adds to over sheltering.
    I am not sure how far I would want to go with my kids (if I have any) in terms of images. this would follow part of the "whats too much" I mentioned earlier for philosophy. I saw some movie/show (can't remember which) where an adult kept muttering things and a kid would freak out and worry about it the whole time. its that part I am most concerned about. a child should not loose their childhood or what ever sense we have in understanding what a childhood should be like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    So long as you do mean this part:
    however, I was concerned for the critical thinking and human logic protion
    Then I concur whole-heartedly.
    How to think is far more important than what to think.
    (Sadly far too many people, including some who choose to participate in the philosophy sub-forum of this board [and a number of others] have failed to learn either of those).
    I don't know about these forums, but I would agree this is an issue on the streets.
    I ran into this problem w/ myself some years ago. I didn't understand why for many aspects of life I was committed to. I am not sure if what I have done thus far is correct or what I should have done or be doing. . . but we'll see I guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Re no. 18: anyone who gets hammered on a mere 4 pints (shared or not) is getting off very lightly.
    And don't nos. 3 and 19 contradict each other?
    Anyone who gets hammered on 4 pints is a big girls blouse - I've just had 8 in the pub (winning the pub quiz as well) and I'll be at work tomorow as normal...
    I'd need a catheter
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    "should basic philosophy be taught in grade school?"

    Emphatically, NO! jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    So long as you do mean this part:
    however, I was concerned for the critical thinking and human logic protion
    Then I concur whole-heartedly.
    How to think is far more important than what to think.
    (Sadly far too many people, including some who choose to participate in the philosophy sub-forum of this board [and a number of others] have failed to learn either of those).
    I don't know about these forums, but I would agree this is an issue on the streets.
    I ran into this problem w/ myself some years ago. I didn't understand why for many aspects of life I was committed to. I am not sure if what I have done thus far is correct or what I should have done or be doing. . . but we'll see I guess.
    Life is making mistakes and learning from them.

    I think we all form our own "philosophy's" along the way, based on experience, location, education, and those we relate to and with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Even if we were to put philosophy as a subject in the schedule of pupils, then we should first ask the opinion of the pupils.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Life is making mistakes and learning from them.
    I think we all form our own "philosophy's" along the way, based on experience, location, education, and those we relate to and with.
    A personal philosophy isn't philosophy.
    scoobydoo1 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Life is making mistakes and learning from them.
    I think we all form our own "philosophy's" along the way, based on experience, location, education, and those we relate to and with.
    A personal philosophy isn't philosophy.
    Why not? Sir Ducky?

    Philosophy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Your own link (nearly) elucidates.
    Philosophy, as a discipline, relies on careful reasoning and supported argument.
    A personal philosophy doesn't (necessarily) do that.
    It's an ad-hoc empirical construct that can be, normally, challenged on many levels and usually gets no "better" reply than "Well it works for me/ that's how I see it".

    The first definition to come up on my Google search lays it out better:

    1. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.
    2. A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it.

    One's an academic discipline, the other's a set of personal views, requiring no consistency or intellectual rigour (although they can be involved they're not required).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Your own link (nearly) elucidates.
    Philosophy, as a discipline, relies on careful reasoning and supported argument.
    A personal philosophy doesn't (necessarily) do that.
    It's an ad-hoc empirical construct that can be, normally, challenged on many levels and usually gets no "better" reply than "Well it works for me/ that's how I see it".

    The first definition to come up on my Google search lays it out better:
    1. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.
    2. A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it.
    One's an academic discipline, the other's a set of personal views, requiring no consistency or intellectual rigour (although they can be involved they're not required).
    What about the others such as this on the same site?

    philosophy

    noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
    Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs. Philosophy may also be defined as reflection on the varieties of human experience, or as the rational, methodical, and systematic consideration of the topics that are of greatest concern to humanity. Philosophical inquiry is a central element in the intellectual history of many civilizations. Difficulty in achieving a consensus about the definition of the discipline partly reflects the fact that philosophers have frequently come to it from different fields and have preferred to reflect on different areas of experience.

    Not required, yes, but they are a part of the study, per the definition.

    same reference.....

    Oh, I know I'm gonna get drek on this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    What about the others such as this on the same site?

    philosophy

    noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
    Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs. Philosophy may also be defined as reflection on the varieties of human experience, or as the rational, methodical, and systematic consideration of the topics that are of greatest concern to humanity. Philosophical inquiry is a central element in the intellectual history of many civilizations. Difficulty in achieving a consensus about the definition of the discipline partly reflects the fact that philosophers have frequently come to it from different fields and have preferred to reflect on different areas of experience.

    Not required, yes, but they are a part of the study, per the definition.

    same reference.....

    Oh, I know I'm gonna get drek on this.
    Again: that definition refers to the discipline, the academic practise, not a "personal philosophy".
    A personal philosophy is, essentially, whatever you believe and try to adhere to.
    Here's one take on it:
    1) What do you get up each and every morning wanting to do?
    That's a personal choice, based on personal preferences. It may be a justifiable choice, but usually it's "justified" 1 on little more than "because I like to".
    2) What directs your actions and decisions, especially the impulsive ones?
    Er, okay, how do you have a reasoned justification for impulsive actions? (You could justify them after the event, but hardly before).
    3) What gives you a sense of satisfaction at the end of the day?
    Again, a personal choice, not generally rational, methodical and systematic.
    4) What feeling is in the core of your soul that you know to be self-evident.
    Here it departs considerably.
    Philosophy as a discipline doesn't usually accept "self-evident" as such except when unavoidable, and then only by consensus.
    5) Why are your beliefs important to you?
    Personal again.
    6) How does your philosophy measure up to higher standards and ideals?
    Do people rationally and logically assess why "higher standards and ideals" are so and why they're worth striving for? Or do they "simply decide" that "hey, that seems like a good target to shoot for"?

    Philosophy the discipline looks at things like:


    A personal philosophy is a bricolage, a "whatever gets you through life", it rarely needs to be justified, or critically examined 3.

    1 I'd go so far as to say that generally people rationalise their (daily life) decisions post hoc rather than arrive at them rationally.
    2 A lovely bit of recursion. How do I know I'm using philosophy correctly when I don't know what philosophy is? I know, I'll decide what it is philosophically and work up from there!
    3 Which is not to say a personal philosophy doesn't change: even dumb people are capable of getting the hint when certain aspects consistently fail, in which case that bit can be discarded and something else - that looks good - can be adopted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Your own link (nearly) elucidates.
    Philosophy, as a discipline, relies on careful reasoning and supported argument.
    A personal philosophy doesn't (necessarily) do that.
    It's an ad-hoc empirical construct that can be, normally, challenged on many levels and usually gets no "better" reply than "Well it works for me/ that's how I see it".

    The first definition to come up on my Google search lays it out better:
    1. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.
    2. A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it.
    One's an academic discipline, the other's a set of personal views, requiring no consistency or intellectual rigour (although they can be involved they're not required).
    ooops

    twenty more feathers....irregardless....they are.....may have to have a little duck breast here soon......involved......if not....required....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    irregardless
    Critics also use the argument that irregardless is not, or should not be, a word at all.
    It grates! Horribly!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    What about the others such as this on the same site?

    philosophy

    noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
    Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs. Philosophy may also be defined as reflection on the varieties of human experience, or as the rational, methodical, and systematic consideration of the topics that are of greatest concern to humanity. Philosophical inquiry is a central element in the intellectual history of many civilizations. Difficulty in achieving a consensus about the definition of the discipline partly reflects the fact that philosophers have frequently come to it from different fields and have preferred to reflect on different areas of experience.

    Not required, yes, but they are a part of the study, per the definition.

    same reference.....

    Oh, I know I'm gonna get drek on this.
    Again: that definition refers to the discipline, the academic practise, not a "personal philosophy".
    A personal philosophy is, essentially, whatever you believe and try to adhere to.
    Here's one take on it:
    1) What do you get up each and every morning wanting to do?
    That's a personal choice, based on personal preferences. It may be a justifiable choice, but usually it's "justified" 1 on little more than "because I like to".
    2) What directs your actions and decisions, especially the impulsive ones?
    Er, okay, how do you have a reasoned justification for impulsive actions? (You could justify them after the event, but hardly before).
    3) What gives you a sense of satisfaction at the end of the day?
    Again, a personal choice, not generally rational, methodical and systematic.
    4) What feeling is in the core of your soul that you know to be self-evident.
    Here it departs considerably.
    Philosophy as a discipline doesn't usually accept "self-evident" as such except when unavoidable, and then only by consensus.
    5) Why are your beliefs important to you?
    Personal again.
    6) How does your philosophy measure up to higher standards and ideals?
    Do people rationally and logically assess why "higher standards and ideals" are so and why they're worth striving for? Or do they "simply decide" that "hey, that seems like a good target to shoot for"?

    Philosophy the discipline looks at things like:
    A personal philosophy is a bricolage, a "whatever gets you through life", it rarely needs to be justified, or critically examined 3.

    1 I'd go so far as to say that generally people rationalise their (daily life) decisions post hoc rather than arrive at them rationally.
    2 A lovely bit of recursion. How do I know I'm using philosophy correctly when I don't know what philosophy is? I know, I'll decide what it is philosophically and work up from there!
    3 Which is not to say a personal philosophy doesn't change: even dumb people are capable of getting the hint when certain aspects consistently fail, in which case that bit can be discarded and something else - that looks good - can be adopted.
    You are a hoot. (that is a compliment...so is a whack and a smack, by the way...)

    SO you are saying that THIS PHILOSOPHY, of which you are referring does not apply to:

    philosophy

    noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
    Philosophy may also be defined as reflection on the varieties of human experience

    as per that definition...

    as what was my thought.

    I see.

    Mahalo Sir Duckness.

    did ya miss me!! *Laughing*

    I hear the NO echoing!! *L*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    irregardless
    Critics also use the argument that irregardless is not, or should not be, a word at all.
    It grates! Horribly!
    I know...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    SO you are saying that THIS PHILOSOPHY, of which you are referring does not apply to:

    philosophy

    noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
    Philosophy may also be defined as reflection on the varieties of human experience
    If by "this philosophy" you mean the topic of the thread then I took it as being "philosophy the discipline".
    How would one teach a personal philosophy in "grade school" (whatever that is)?
    It's possible to teach what one is, and maybe how to arrive at one, but you can't teach someone what their own personal philosophy is: that's a lesson that life itself "teaches" you.
    Any personal philosophy adopted at a young age (and, maybe any adopted before the late teens) is going to be radically altered with experience. If only because schools are a "sheltered" environment and don't provide the range of experiences available that would (should?) be required for the formulation of a personal philosophy.

    did ya miss me!! *Laughing*


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    SO you are saying that THIS PHILOSOPHY, of which you are referring does not apply to:

    philosophy

    noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
    Philosophy may also be defined as reflection on the varieties of human experience
    If by "this philosophy" you mean the topic of the thread then I took it as being "philosophy the discipline".
    How would one teach a personal philosophy in "grade school" (whatever that is)?
    It's possible to teach what one is, and maybe how to arrive at one, but you can't teach someone what their own personal philosophy is: that's a lesson that life itself "teaches" you.
    Any personal philosophy adopted at a young age (and, maybe any adopted before the late teens) is going to be radically altered with experience. If only because schools are a "sheltered" environment and don't provide the range of experiences available that would (should?) be required for the formulation of a personal philosophy.

    did ya miss me!! *Laughing*


    I knew ya didn't!! *sobbing*

    That would be the philosophy I was referring to...and taught to children in the sense of personal experiences shared..as children like to do and for you to listen to theirs.....not in your sense. I have worked with children in all ages at schools...not administratively and not as as "teacher" but as part of the hell what did they call us...well I had a few titles so..."staff"....philosophy to you, is not what I wished to impart to them, when confronted with something in my capacity at the school.

    I believe we speak of a different philosophy.


    and if you are going to stick out your tongue...then Sir Ducky....do it or I shall have to set that kitty after you.....and I will have fulfilled my wee down pillow...you do have siblings? Perhaps?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,541
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I do not mean teaching the concepts to 5 year olds.
    for u.s. it could start at grade 6 or 7.
    roughly around age 10.


    could this benefit kids?
    I certainly think that older children who are taking science to a more advanced level (what we call the 6th Form in the UK) should be taught some principles of the philosophy of science. However I think this is best done in science lessons, to show it is an embedded part of learning the subject, not a bolt-on philosophical extra. Things such as Popper's idea of falsifiability of hypotheses, the converse impossibility of proving them unambiguously "true", and the idea of theories as models approximating reality are good to enable the student to understand how science advances and the need for different models for different purposes. Some of this is taught, I think, but I am disturbed by the number of scientists who speak too freely of "facts" when they mean theories, and so on. A little humility about the subject breeds open-mindedness, in my view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I do not mean teaching the concepts to 5 year olds.
    for u.s. it could start at grade 6 or 7.
    roughly around age 10.


    could this benefit kids?
    I certainly think that older children who are taking science to a more advanced level (what we call the 6th Form in the UK) should be taught some principles of the philosophy of science. However I think this is best done in science lessons, to show it is an embedded part of learning the subject, not a bolt-on philosophical extra. Things such as Popper's idea of falsifiability of hypotheses, the converse impossibility of proving them unambiguously "true", and the idea of theories as models approximating reality are good to enable the student to understand how science advances and the need for different models for different purposes. Some of this is taught, I think, but I am disturbed by the number of scientists who speak too freely of "facts" when they mean theories, and so on. A little humility about the subject breeds open-mindedness, in my view.
    Humility is handed to me consistently in here! *L*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    Philosophy is a tickling subject. It would be intersting to teach philosophy to students and get their views.
    believer in ahimsa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    Teaching philosophy is meaningless because critical thinking is pretty much a requirement - and you cant teach someone to be a critical thinker. Or can you?
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    Teaching philosophy is meaningless because critical thinking is pretty much a requirement - and you cant teach someone to be a critical thinker. Or can you?
    Not all brains are geared the same way, so no, in my humble opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    Teaching philosophy is meaningless because critical thinking is pretty much a requirement - and you cant teach someone to be a critical thinker. Or can you?
    Not all brains are geared the same way, so no, in my humble opinion.
    That would, possibly, mean that some people can't be taught critical thinking, not that it can't be taught at all.
    Plus, of course, the "gearing" is generally speaking the same - unless some people haven't evolved from the same roots as the rest of us.
    Common heritage, common "wiring".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    Teaching philosophy is meaningless because critical thinking is pretty much a requirement - and you cant teach someone to be a critical thinker. Or can you?
    Not all brains are geared the same way, so no, in my humble opinion.
    That would, possibly, mean that some people can't be taught critical thinking, not that it can't be taught at all.
    Plus, of course, the "gearing" is generally speaking the same - unless some people haven't evolved from the same roots as the rest of us.
    Common heritage, common "wiring".
    got the some people can't be taught part......and no it isn't that it can't be taught Sir Ducky , but taught and grasped are two different things!

    as for the gearing....I don't get what you are trying to say...be more explicit...that just coast you 50 feathers.....thank goodness I don't need your beak
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    got the some people can't be taught part......and no it isn't that it can't be taught Sir Ducky , but taught and grasped are two different things!
    That puts it at the same difficulty/ ease as mathematics. Or any other discipline.
    And it is a discipline.
    Critical thinking is, basically, a "set of rules".
    So long as you apply them, and take notice of the results of that application, then you can learn it.
    Making it "second nature" however... again, the same as any other skill.

    as for the gearing....I don't get what you are trying to say...be more explicit...that just coast you 50 feathers.....thank goodness I don't need your beak
    We're all human, we all have an essentially similar brain structure (down to the fine details), we all share a common (human) psychology - ergo we all share common thought processes.
    What one can learn, all can learn (to a broad approximation).

    Learning critical thinking is much the same as learning any new skill.
    If someone can't learn critical thinking then they shouldn't be allowed, for example, to drive.
    At least critical thinking isn't as time-sensitive as driving skills: you can always sit back and go over the process before coming to a conclusion.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    got the some people can't be taught part......and no it isn't that it can't be taught Sir Ducky , but taught and grasped are two different things!
    That puts it at the same difficulty/ ease as mathematics. Or any other discipline.
    And it is a discipline.
    Critical thinking is, basically, a "set of rules".
    So long as you apply them, and take notice of the results of that application, then you can learn it.
    Making it "second nature" however... again, the same as any other skill.

    as for the gearing....I don't get what you are trying to say...be more explicit...that just coast you 50 feathers.....thank goodness I don't need your beak
    We're all human, we all have an essentially similar brain structure (down to the fine details), we all share a common (human) psychology - ergo we all share common thought processes.
    What one can learn, all can learn (to a broad approximation).

    Learning critical thinking is much the same as learning any new skill.
    If someone can't learn critical thinking then they shouldn't be allowed, for example, to drive.
    At least critical thinking isn't as time-sensitive as driving skills: you can always sit back and go over the process before coming to a conclusion.
    I disagree, Sir Ducky! You are generalizing in all aspects.

    That doesn't work with some things


    Not everyone can learn to sing or carry a tune so therefore some people cannot learn that "critical" thinking skill.

    "quoting you"

    So long as you apply them, and take notice of the results of that application, then you can learn it. UNQUOTE


    It is also a discipline, but not everyone is able to do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I disagree, Sir Ducky! You are generalizing in all aspects.
    You have to start somewhere.

    Not everyone can learn to sing or carry a tune so therefore some people cannot learn that "critical" thinking skill.
    Is carrying a tune a physical ability? (That's a genuine question BTW - I can carry a tune in my head, but you do not want to be in the same room, or possibly county, when I forget myself and sing out loud).
    I.e. reproducing the correct sound?

    So long as you apply them, and take notice of the results of that application, then you can learn it.
    Oops, you just failed your critical thinking test.
    Does someone who can't carry a tune recognise that they can't?
    Does someone who can't run a four-minute mile recognise they can't?
    But that won't affect their physical ability to do so in future.

    Critical think, to use the Wiki page, is a disposition (possibly) as much as a skill. (And that's a mental skill, not a physical one).
    If you can create a chain of logic you should be able to learn critical thinking.
    And I don't mean a high falutin' world-shattering chain of logic either.
    Most everyday problems are solved by the application of basic logic, but large numbers of people fail to continue applying that logic when it comes to, uh, other stuff.
    They accept an argument because they like the way it sounds.
    They stick with an idea because they thought of it.
    Because grandma told them.
    Because everyone else says so.
    Because it just feels right.

    All that's required for first steps is to say "Hold on a second, is that true? How do you know? Can you show me that it's right?".
    This isn't the same as mistrust per se, but a certain amount of mistrust - of everything - is a good thing.
    Or, maybe, a better way to say it is that initial blind trust is a no no.
    seagypsy likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I disagree, Sir Ducky! You are generalizing in all aspects.
    You have to start somewhere.

    Fair enough

    Not everyone can learn to sing or carry a tune so therefore some people cannot learn that "critical" thinking skill.
    Is carrying a tune a physical ability? (That's a genuine question BTW - I can carry a tune in my head, but you do not want to be in the same room, or possibly county, when I forget myself and sing out loud).
    I.e. reproducing the correct sound?

    It is, to me not a physical thing but more of a "brain registry" thring. I don't know that I can explain that to you in terms you'd understand. One can hear something in their head, but, replicating it in tone is another thing. I don't think it is physical. I think it is a mental thing.

    So long as you apply them, and take notice of the results of that application, then you can learn it.
    Oops, you just failed your critical thinking test.

    those were your words...not mine

    Does someone who can't carry a tune recognise that they can't?

    Yep

    Does someone who can't run a four-minute mile recognise they can't?

    yep

    But that won't affect their physical ability to do so in future.

    I don't know that they tried...can't answer that question.

    NO, but if you can't carry a tune you won't be able to do so in the future.

    Period. SOME PEOPLE JUST CANNOT DO THIS! and will never be able to!


    You have to hear it in your HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I don't know how to explain that.


    Critical think, to use the Wiki page, is a disposition (possibly) as much as a skill. (And that's a mental skill, not a physical one).
    If you can create a chain of logic you should be able to learn critical thinking.
    And I don't mean a high falutin' world-shattering chain of logic either.
    Most everyday problems are solved by the application of basic logic, but large numbers of people fail to continue applying that logic when it comes to, uh, other stuff.
    They accept an argument because they like the way it sounds.
    They stick with an idea because they thought of it.
    Because grandma told them.
    Because everyone else says so.
    Because it just feels right.

    That is different from what I was saying.

    I was speaking of music....you can love it, hear it...and hear it in your head, but you might not be able to sing a single note!



    All that's required for first steps is to say "Hold on a second, is that true? How do you know? Can you show me that it's right?".
    This isn't the same as mistrust per se, but a certain amount of mistrust - of everything - is a good thing.
    Or, maybe, a better way to say it is that initial blind trust is a no no.
    I have tried to teach students who can't sing (but want to or their parents want them to), and frankly I say ENOUGH!

    Some people are on the tottering..some just freaking can't

    Don't know if we are answering each others questions or creating new ones Mr. Ducky...but this is how I read you. If I am correct....*chuckle* I don't have feathers..and I ain't giving you a plucking license buddy.

    I don't do this format very well so see above to the answers.....no disrespect intended!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,541
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I disagree, Sir Ducky! You are generalizing in all aspects.
    You have to start somewhere.

    Not everyone can learn to sing or carry a tune so therefore some people cannot learn that "critical" thinking skill.
    Is carrying a tune a physical ability? (That's a genuine question BTW - I can carry a tune in my head, but you do not want to be in the same room, or possibly county, when I forget myself and sing out loud).
    I.e. reproducing the correct sound?

    So long as you apply them, and take notice of the results of that application, then you can learn it.
    Oops, you just failed your critical thinking test.
    Does someone who can't carry a tune recognise that they can't?
    Does someone who can't run a four-minute mile recognise they can't?
    But that won't affect their physical ability to do so in future.

    Critical think, to use the Wiki page, is a disposition (possibly) as much as a skill. (And that's a mental skill, not a physical one).
    If you can create a chain of logic you should be able to learn critical thinking.
    And I don't mean a high falutin' world-shattering chain of logic either.
    Most everyday problems are solved by the application of basic logic, but large numbers of people fail to continue applying that logic when it comes to, uh, other stuff.
    They accept an argument because they like the way it sounds.
    They stick with an idea because they thought of it.
    Because grandma told them.
    Because everyone else says so.
    Because it just feels right.

    All that's required for first steps is to say "Hold on a second, is that true? How do you know? Can you show me that it's right?".
    This isn't the same as mistrust per se, but a certain amount of mistrust - of everything - is a good thing.
    Or, maybe, a better way to say it is that initial blind trust is a no no.
    Agree. OF COURSE critical thinking can be taught! Critical thinking is essentially the underlying purpose of any good advanced level education.

    While the facts and detailed rules of a discipline may be forgotten, the main thing that remains is the ability to sort fact from emotion, hearsay and the rest, to identify and analyse a problem or a situation and to think and argue rationally. This is true whether you learn latin, chemistry or the history of art.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. why i wanst taught about the minto wheel in thermodinamics
    By luxtpm in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: March 6th, 2012, 09:05 AM
  2. Spectrophotometric grade vs. Reagent grade
    By starfire09 in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 1st, 2011, 12:52 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 31st, 2009, 04:48 PM
  4. Good Grade Bad Grade
    By Schizo in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 16th, 2008, 06:28 AM
  5. What they never taught us
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 18th, 2007, 09:09 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •