Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 91 (209068)
05-17-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by hitchy
05-17-2005 2:13 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Ohhh now ya gone and done it!
I cannot agree that inserting philosophy into the h.s. science curriculum of a specific class is a good idea.
Agreed, one must master the basics of a system before getting into the minutiae. Science classes should be taught as what current theories are in science. It may include some history to show how some of the major theories came about, but generally there isn't enough time to cover the practical knowledge in a field given the time alloted.
Now, you could say that if they were taught philosophy earlier in education, they would be more "mentally" advanced in high school and able to discuss philosophy in a biology class. Try to fit that in to a state's curriculum!
This however is a very poor argument. We shouldn't prepare students properly because we don't have time in the current curriculum? Ad pauperum?
The fact is that philosophy, specifically logic, underlies most human endeavours and all of science. To teach people how to speak, without giving them the practical skills of how good communication works, or how thoughts are assembled coherently, is almost pointless. You merely create bigoted ad hoc sophists.
To teach people to speak and then teach them science, without the practical skills above, is certainly pointless. You merely create bigoted ad hoc sophists with a few practical skills so they get the illusion they know everything.
What our current educational system ends up doing is teaching logic in a piecemeal and disjointed fashion, at best mentioning philosophy with a tone of disdain as if that belonged to Greek civilization or freaks with hi IQs. We teach a few skills, with the hope that they'll pick up how to arrange facts properly from other kids on the playground, along with how babies get made. That is backward.
EVERYONE uses philosophy, at the very least, logic.
By focusing on one major thing--philosophy--other things, such as art and music (and some of my brightest bio students are very gifted musically and artistically) that would allow high school students to "evolve" mentally at a reasonable pace would be sacrificed. The in-depth philosophical treatment required would be of benefit to only a few in high school. Face it, most of my students have no need for philosophy in order to go on with their day to day lives as productive citizens.
This is a stock dilemma. Why exactly would philosophy take up any more time than any other singular class? I took logic and it was a single class, between other classes including sports classes.
Also, what use is music and art to the average productive citizen? Why is it necessary for them to learn it in school? How does it help the to "evolve" mentally more than a philosophy course would? It seems to me understanding how facts fit together, and what the underpinnings of science and knowledge are, would be much more useful in helping students "evolve" intellectually. In the first place they could actually identify fallacious arguments, rather than relying on their "emotional" side.
I loved the philosophy classes I took in college--Existentialism, Existentialism in Education, Logic, Environmental Ethics, Philosophy of Religion--but I will say that I could still carry out a productive role as almost anything without a philosophy class. Academic jobs, would of course, need the required philosophy of such-and-such in college, but a general philosophy course in high school would merely be looked at as a waste of time.
That's funny because, even as a science major, I never needed biology at all. I would argue that most people could carry out a productive role as anything without a biology class. Or a math class. Or a history class. etc etc.
Unless one is studying what one will major in, there is little use for any class. The key (as far as I understood it) of primary education is to develop certain skills one might need as well as giving one a sufficient exposure to a broad range of subjects one might encounter in life. Some of the fields of philosophy you mentioned would not be useful, but logic certainly is.
Indeed the biggest problem I seem to be having at EvC is people have very little knowledge of philosophy and make some very silly mistakes regarding knowledge, which then carry on to debates in science and ethics. Everyone appears to think they can be as good as any philosopher just by being able to listen and talk. Like you, people seem to think they can get along just fine ARGUING without understanding LOGIC and EPISTEMOLOGY... with perhaps a nod to a few terms like ad hominem and strawman.
You cannot be a productive scientist, nor politician, nor in short "a thinker", without a healthy practice in logic and epistemology.
The whole debate between ID and Evo rests in epistemology (which I just noted was made explicit in the thread on the Kansas ID issue), so how one can argue people don't need to understand it in general, when people in general are going to decide if ID gets taught, seems a bit shortsighted. What are they supposed to do, just take your word for it?
Being in the dark regarding logic and epistemology, your word is going to sound just as good as the IDists word, but maybe a few music majors will feel yours doesn't sound right to them due to emotional issues and not realize that isn't valid.
I find it particularly interesting that after that diatribe against the use of philosophy, you deliver and extensive argument, including discussions of epistemic issues. With what did you construct your argument? Logic. On what did you base your premises for the utility of naturalism for science? Epistemology.
You use it all the time. You just didn't learn it in a cohesive fashion (or maybe in this case YOU did), or recognize the fact that you use it every day.
I use logic almost every day. I don't even use math that much. And what person does.
Okay so that's my plug. We do need to teach philosophy from an earlier age. It should be mandatory and cover logic at the very least. For those moving on into science they should also learn epistemology along with the philosophy of science. This is before they get to, or in tandem with, actual hands on science classes.
As a nod to the ID question, they could certainly learn the debate as an example issue within such a course (epistemology or philosophy of science). My guess is IDists will start having problems when students begin realizing the practical implications ID poses for knowledge.
At the very least students will learn that ID is not a part of modern science, as it does not use the rigorous methods of methodological naturalism.
This message has been edited by holmes, 05-17-2005 03:27 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by hitchy, posted 05-17-2005 2:13 AM hitchy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by hitchy, posted 05-20-2005 1:11 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 47 of 91 (209266)
05-18-2005 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
05-18-2005 12:10 AM


Re: This is great!
Thanks, that was good.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 05-18-2005 12:10 AM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 48 of 91 (209267)
05-18-2005 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by coffee_addict
05-17-2005 6:19 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Having been a tutor and TA for quite a while (don't worry, I'm a step closer to a phd everyday ), I am quite sure that students at a middle school and high school level are not mentally and intellectually equipped to start learning the philosophical standpoint behind science. I am convinced that it is better for them to criticize science out of ignorance than to hate science out of total shock.
This utter lack of faith in human comprehension and reinforcement of low expectations is extremely disturbing to me. Why would understanding how arguments are assembled, or how evidence is used within a logical framework and tested to draw a conclusion, be any harder than learning math or history?
As it stands math uses the same instructional techniques and ideas as logic, it is a form of logic. If your claim is true we ought to abandon math as well.
The idea that it is better to teach kids to argue anything out of ignorance is astounding to me. Why even have schools at all at that point?
And I see you are from Illinois? Wait a second... is this Troy?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by coffee_addict, posted 05-17-2005 6:19 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 82 of 91 (209930)
05-20-2005 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by hitchy
05-20-2005 1:11 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
In the meantime, come down off the horse.
Let me start by explaing something to you. I responded to your post, which was a guy on his high horse explaining why ID was bunk, and how philosophy is not only pointless to be taught in and of itself, but actually could be detrimental. If anyone was sitting high in the saddle first, and so asking to get knocked off, it was you.
I apologize if my using caps, because I was writing quickly, made it seem as if I was shouting instead of emphasizing. Lately I've been trying to stick with italics, but sometimes I revert back for speed.
You did appear to have misunderstood a couple of my statements. I was not saying that you yourself had no understanding of logic and epistemology. Indeed I think I nodded to the fact you mentioned you had some formal training in it. What I was criticizing is your view, which most people share, that people in general can get along fine arguing (specifically in science) without understanding such things.
I guess when I used "they" instead of "people" it sounded like it was all self-reflective. Speed kills and in that case I was simply trying not to use "people" twice in the same sentence.
Have you ever worked with teenagers who could not read above a third-grade level? Or tried to get two coherent sentences down on paper from a student with dislexia? Or tried to convice a student with ODD that he/she needs to do something, anything, in order to be successful?
Your argument above has nothing to do with the teaching of philosophy, particularly logic, to students in addition to science courses. All of these people would/could also have problems with math, art, and music.
I teach biology to students who do not give a shit about anything. Or they cannot study at all b/c they have to take care of brothers and sisters while mom works the late shift at some low-end hole in order to keep the lights and the heat on. If I get something across to them then I call it a victory.
Again, this does not address what I was talking about. If anything it is ignoring the very points I was making. I do not believe that you as a biology teacher should have to teach philosophy of science, much less philosophy itself. I am totally on board that science courses from beginning, till late in high school, should stick with the modern accepted theories in the fields as well as (if not most importantly) the methods.
What I was addressing is you assertion that one could not find time to stick logic (at the very least) into any time slot in a students curriculum, and if one did it would not be understood and perhaps reduce their ability to understand other things. You have done much assertion, or should I say preaching, on the low expectations we should have for our students. I found it insulting both to my own intelligence and to their's.
Any discussion about philosophy of whatever with these kids would be like running into a brick wall.
Other than your assertion of low expectations, why is this true? Especially given the very next statements...
So I simplify and if I can get them to think a little more logically, then I consider it a victory. Besides, most of my students don't need to know the definitions of LOGIC and EPISTEMOLOGY in order to use them.
So they can use the skills, and you can teach them the skills, but it is simply learning the names or in a way that is specific to how and why they are used in everday life is what will prevent them from understanding? This makes no sense.
I agree that everyone uses philosophy. You cannot escape it. However, does everyone need to perfect the use of anything dealing with philosophy in order to be successful? Just like some Euglena, an eye spot is better than no "vision" at all!
I could use the same argument for any other field of human knowledge. Why does it stand more for philosophy than any other field?
If we are going to go with the idea that students have a limited capacity for knowledge as well as time and we need to cut down on what they learn, then I am for cutting out biology altogether.
Even as a scientist, I did not need biology. No one I know ever needed biology, except those who went into biology in college. Yet as you point out, everyone does use philosophy. Whether they know it or not, they have to as soon as they construct an argument or begin to assess the validity of another person's argument.
So rather than giving them "weak eyes" in logic, I woud argue they are best met by giving them "sharp eyes" in logic. After all that will go on to serve them in any further field they enter... including biology. Why would this not make sense?
Of course this is only to buy into the stock dilemma you have offered.
Taking away from that in order to insert something they might not be able to handle due to their stage of cognitive development could be detrimental to their future cognitive development. I just don't think its a good idea to risk stunting their cognitive growth by attempting to fast-forward it.
I want some data on this. I want some data and an actual argument. Beyond assertion it is bigoted ad hominem pure and simple. Philosophy is artificially attempting to fast-forward cognitive development and will result in stunted growth? Philosophy is the equivalent of intellectual cigarette smoking?
How does this hold for philosophy any more than any other field of knowledge? Replace your statement with the assumption of any other activity taught to students and see if it sounds correct.
Emotional issues cloud every high school student and I feel that the impact of social withdrawl and lack of parental supervision and attention being felt by my students increases every year. You cannot divorce emotion from any interaction with high school students. It is impossible. You should try it!
So what we need is less education and more psychologists and social workers? I am not getting your point here. Either we can educate students and so try to do it, or we shouldn't. How this points to us trying to teach kids biology is beyond me.
Come sit in my classroom for 180 days and observe how I teach biology. Then you can evaluate what I teach about LOGIC and EPISTEMOLOGY and say what you want.
I did not say you didn't teach well, nor even that you ought to be teaching philosophy. If you had read my post correctly you should have understood that.
I am suggesting that along with language, logic is the next most important subject we should be teaching students as it is the only bridge between just rambling in coherent sentences, and actually building a coherent position with coherent sentences. That comes before and underlies everything else which counts as knowledge.
There should be time made for at the very least logic, if not theories of knowledge (if "epistemology" is too much of a mouthful) and philosophy of science, prior to or concurrent with science courses. It is perhaps even more important than math as a skill in every day life as well as a tool of science.
This does not have to be taught to people younger than the fourth or fifth grade, nor to students with advanced learning disabilities... just as biology is often not addressed to kids in that position.
It also should not be taught as a subject within science courses, which I wholeheartedly agree should be devoted to understanding the field in question and not "meta" issues, or cutting edge minutiae.
If there is a time or resources crunch, then art and music should be out of the picture before logic. Art and music can be done (and often is done) outside of school. But I'm sure we can squeeze it in.
I do believe the only reason that it is being discussed here as a "high level" concept in science, or something that will confuse people, is because that is the bias of this culture given that people are not brought up understanding its ground level utility and inherent connection to science.
Philosophy (specifically logic and epistemology) is not the end or high reaches of science, it is the foundation. And it is very basic, just like the math we require in science (which is simply a form of symbolic logic).
In the meantime, come down off the horse.
I'll dismount as soon as I know the joust has ended. Do you yield, or shall we tilt some more?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by hitchy, posted 05-20-2005 1:11 AM hitchy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Jazzns, posted 05-20-2005 1:07 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 86 by hitchy, posted 05-23-2005 8:22 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 91 by hitchy, posted 05-25-2005 10:10 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 84 of 91 (210161)
05-21-2005 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Jazzns
05-20-2005 1:07 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Integration is fine in part. I guess I'd like to see it more within english classes, than in science courses (though they will be a part of the methdology of science). Once you start learning to put words together into sentences, they might want to start on the basics of how sentences get formed into meaning something.
I don't think terminology has to be so important as how it is applied. For example a teacher can instruct how to find hidden parts of an argument, and what problem it creates, and not have to deliver the exact philosophical term.
Then again, as soon as kids can learn algebra and the terms within that, they can certainly handle philosophical language. It just sounds weird now because no one is used to saying them.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Jazzns, posted 05-20-2005 1:07 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024