May 25th, 2005
|02:13 pm - Warning: Evolution might be involved!|
I would approve of putting evolution warning stickers on text books if they looked like this:
Maybe it's time to make such stickers and distribute them to certain school boards. Any takers?
Current Mood: amused
Current Music: "She's Going Out of My Mind", -JB
They totally don't understand what science asserts, let alone what the scientific method is. It's one gigantic equivocation between the technical sense of "theory" and the popular sense of "theory", as you pointed out; but could they understand that equivocation is a logical fallacy? Probably not ... and that's kind of sad, really, but I can't feel much, if any, pity for them when they try to enforce their ignorant dogmatism on other people.
I'm a firm believer that logic should be taught when we start teaching algebra. Honestly, if they don't know logic, or are willing to reject even uncontroversial things like the basic rules of introduction for the logical operators, then there's absolutely no point in attempting to debate them.
|Date:||May 25th, 2005 07:12 pm (UTC)|| |
I am of the opinion that logic and thinking for oneself should be taught in Kindergarten... the letters and numbers bit can wait for first grade.
Well... actually, I'm in favor of parents teaching their children to think for themselves and to use logic, but one can't often get blood from turnips, at least not without Guantanamo-level torture.
I've been (half) jokingly talking about teaching my son logic as soon as he can grasp the concepts ... then turning him loose on the world.
I'd like to sit in on that class. :) Seriously, I'm in my 40s with a MA in education, and I struggled through math classes in HS and college. Never had a course in logic, and I really wish I could get one now. Especially since I'm supposed to start doing trainings for Excel, and I'm having to remediate myself on the terminology of logic. Ack...
I have to warn you, though, I'm decidedly not a classical logician; not only do I deny the principle of the excluded middle, but I deny the principle of non-contradiction (since it leads to the absurd consequences of non-relevant logics). I'm completely out in left-field according to most logicians.
Well, you must be good... you've lost me already. :(
I'll put it in layman's terms: there are more than two truth-values and there is at least one statement that is both true and false.
Ah, the Sri Syadasti school.
Basically. However, what makes it all the more beautiful is that I came to it after studying academic logic derived from the Aristotelian tradition ... that and the fact that my birthday is March 19 (go Van Van Mojo! ... or is it Patamunzo Lingananda?). I came to the first part since prelinearity (for all statements, p and q, (p -> q) v (q -> p)) follows from bivlance (for all p, p v ~p) and, in natural language argumentation, prelinearity is total bullshit, and if a logical principle doesn't work with natural language, I don't find it acceptable; I came to the second by considering the irrelevant consequences of ex contradictione quodlibet (such as, for all q and p, q -> (p -> q) ), which follows from the law of non-contradiction. I just consider statements like "This statement is false" as all that's sufficient to show that there is at least one true contradiction (it's true if and only if its false).
I'm rationally justified in my apparent irrationality! It's sweet!
|Date:||May 25th, 2005 07:36 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: You prolly already know this...
I also think that informal logic should be taught around the same time, most likely in an English class, or something similar.
|Date:||May 25th, 2005 07:43 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: You prolly already know this...
I don't see how critical thinking doesn't belong in any academic subject. If they're not going to make it an explicit course, maybe we can talk the liberal literature-lovers into sneaking it in between the officially-required syllabus.