Scenario: The government is proposing a 3 month, full time course to be completed before someone leaves high school. Even those dropping out of high school early, must complete the course before they are legally entitled to look for work. Completion of the course is also required (for those born after 1995) before being eligable to vote.
The government views the course as vital for everyone to become an active and useful member of society.
In addition to offering the course free of charge for all citizens, the government will run regular television, adverts, and web episodes. These will give reviews of the topics covered in the course.
The course contains a five week block on philosophy. What subjects (be very specific. eg: not "epistimology". This would be too broad a field. You could pick something within the field of epistimology though) do you think should be taught in such a course?
I am not a philosopher (I don't even know what "epistimology" is) so I don't have too many ideas. Here are mine:
Inductive Reasoning - Strengths and Weaknesses (four days)
Deductive Reasoning - Strengths and Weaknesses (four days)
Logical Fallacies (two days)
That is all I have.
Reasons:
Both inductive and deductive reasoning are used on a regular basis by the individual. If we are able to recognise what logic we are using, we will then be able to see the inherent weaknesses and strengths of our reasoning.
We will also be able to judge debates (eg political debates) better.
By enhancing our reasoning abilities, politicians will need to be more informative about their policies. Rather than just saying "I will fix the problem! I know how, trust me"
People appearing in court unrepresented will have a be in a better position to argue before the court. More importantly, the decision maker will be better qualified to spot errors in argument. This would improve the decisions being handed down by the courts.