On 10/07/2014 04:55 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
On 10/7/2014 5:19 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Anyway, when I say "teach logic in schools" I just mean (at the very
least) the basic things: Like recognizing and identifying the basic
logical fallacies (no need necessarily to dive into the actual latin
names - the names aren't nearly as crucial as understanding the concepts
themselves), recognizing ambiguity, understanding *why* the fallacies
and ambiguity are flaws, and the problems and absurdities that can occur
when such things aren't noticed and avoided.
In other words, critical thinking. This is something that, at least in
America, is not at all part of the primary school experience.
Pretty much, yea.
In all my years of schooling, I only had one class that actually covered
any of that stuff (as an actual stated topic anyway, rather than just as
an implied part of another topic): It wasn't until college, *and* it was
just an elective. Formal Logic, IIRC, or something along those lines,
from the Philosophy dept (aiui, logic *is* considered a branch of
philosophy, at least historically. Which does make sense IMO).
It was actually a good course (not much new to me though since I was
already neck-deep in programming, which basically *IS* applied logic.
But it's one of the few courses I've ever actually been impressed with.)
The downside of the course, though: Ever since I took it I've been
ashamed at society for placing such incredibly minimal emphasis on
something so crucially fundamental and important. :/ Just something that
make me scream in by head "Yes! Everybody needs to know this!!!"
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.
I've personally seen two university courses offered under different
guises that try to correct this problem. One is called "Introduction to
Mathematical Thinking" and is taught by Keith Devlin at Stanford. The
other is called "Think Again: How to Reason and Argue", headed by alter
Sinnott-Armstrong at Duke. Despite the disparity in the course titles
and the very different approaches taken by the instructors, the content
is directed at the same goal -- pushing students to get past their
cognitive biases and critically and logically examine any data presented
to them.
Personally, I think that not presenting it *as* logic may be somewhat of
a mistake. Makes it sounds almost like some self-help or management
seminar or something. Less respectable-sounding, and obscures the true
core nature of the material: logic.
But then again, MANY people seem to be repelled by any mention of logic,
whereas I've aways been attracted to it, so maybe that's just my own bias.
Sadly, American culture seems to increasingly encourage the opposite of
critical thinking. It has almost become a badge of honor among some
(rather large) circles to embrace a form of willful ignorance rooted in
rejecting logic and hard, cold data in favor of falling victim to
confirmation bias.
Unfortunate, yes.
Of course, there have *always* been things that have quite blatantly
encouraged people to deliberately *not* think, reason, or question
assumptions. So it's naturally not limited to just a modern american
culture thing, FWIW.
