On Tuesday, 7 October 2014 at 08:19:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
But regardless: Yes, there *is* a theoretical side to logic,
but logic is also *extremely* applicable to ordinary everyday
life. Even moreso than math, I would argue.
Yep, however what the human brain is really bad at is reasoning
about probability. I agree that primary school should cover modus
ponens, modus tollens and how you can define equivalance in terms
of two implications. BUT I think you also need to experiment
informally with probability at the same time and experience how
intuition clouds our thinking. It is important to avoid the
fallacies of black/white reasoning that comes with propositional
logic.
Actually, one probably should start with teaching "ad hoc"
object-oriented modelling in primary schools. Turning what humans
are really good at, abstraction, into something structured and
visual. That way you also learn that when you argue a point you
are biased, you always model certain limited projections of the
relations that are present in real world.
up to that point. Students can handle theory just fine as long
as it isn't the more advanced/complex stuff...Although college
students should be *expected* to be capable of handling even
that. Now, *cutting edge* theory? Sure, leave that for grad
students and independent study.
Educational research shows that students can handle theory much
better if it they view it as useful. Students have gone from
being very bad at math, to doing fine when it was applied to
something they cared about (like building something, or
predicting the outcome of soccer matches).
Internalized motivation is really the key to progress in school,
which is why the top-down fixed curriculum approach is
underperforming compared to the enormous potential kids have.
They are really good at learning stuff they find fun (like games).
This is VERY simple, and crucial, stuff. And yet I see SOOO
many grown adults, even ones with advanced graduate degrees,
consistently fail completely and uttery at basic logical
reasoning in everyday life (and we're talking very, very
obvious and basic fallacies), that it's genuinely disturbing.
Yes, social factors are more important in the real world than
optimal decision making, unless you build something that can fall
apart in a spectacular way that makes it to the front page of the
newspapers. :-)
big international sporting events. I get the feeling this'll be
something that'll get bigger and bigger until either A. the
right people get together and do something about it, or B.
things come to a head and the shit *really* starts to hit the
fan. (Yes, I like outdated slang ;) ) Nothing good can come
from the current trajectory.
Yeah, I think the trajectory will keep going upwards until there
are no more less-democratic countries willing to pay the price to
look civilized.
It is probably also the result of it being increasingly hard to
be heard in the increased and interactive information flow of
media, so being big and loud is viewed as a necessity. The
Internet makes it much easier to escape from the events, in the
80s the olympics would be on all media surfaces. I barely noticed
the last winter olympics despite the 20 billion price tag.
Was this off-topic?
It was off-topic several posts up. :)
At some point the forum will split into a developer-section and a
end-user-section. It is kind of inevitable :). The current
confusion about the roles of developer vs end-user is kind of
interesting. Maybe it is a positive thing. Not sure. :-)
