What a bunch of hysteria over nothing. We should invite him to Languish! :D
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/?smid=fb-share&_r=0
QuoteWhy Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts
By Justin P. McBrayer
March 2, 2015 3:25 am March 2, 2015 3:25 am
The Stone
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.
What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it's wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?
I was. As a philosopher, I already knew that many college-aged students don't believe in moral facts. While there are no national surveys quantifying this phenomenon, philosophy professors with whom I have spoken suggest that the overwhelming majority of college freshman in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture.
A misleading distinction between fact and opinion is embedded in the Common Core.
What I didn't know was where this attitude came from. Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles, some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame. But they aren't. There are historical examples of philosophers who endorse a kind of moral relativism, dating back at least to Protagoras who declared that "man is the measure of all things," and several who deny that there are any moral facts whatsoever. But such creatures are rare. Besides, if students are already showing up to college with this view of morality, it's very unlikely that it's the result of what professional philosophers are teaching. So where is the view coming from?
A few weeks ago, I learned that students are exposed to this sort of thinking well before crossing the threshold of higher education. When I went to visit my son's second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read:
Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.
Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes.
Hoping that this set of definitions was a one-off mistake, I went home and Googled "fact vs. opinion." The definitions I found online were substantially the same as the one in my son's classroom. As it turns out, the Common Core standards used by a majority of K-12 programs in the country require that students be able to "distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a text." And the Common Core institute provides a helpful page full of links to definitions, lesson plans and quizzes to ensure that students can tell the difference between facts and opinions.
So what's wrong with this distinction and how does it undermine the view that there are objective moral facts?
First, the definition of a fact waffles between truth and proof — two obviously different features. Things can be true even if no one can prove them. For example, it could be true that there is life elsewhere in the universe even though no one can prove it. Conversely, many of the things we once "proved" turned out to be false. For example, many people once thought that the earth was flat. It's a mistake to confuse truth (a feature of the world) with proof (a feature of our mental lives). Furthermore, if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative. Something might be a fact for me if I can prove it but not a fact for you if you can't. In that case, E=MC2 is a fact for a physicist but not for me.
But second, and worse, students are taught that claims are either facts or opinions. They are given quizzes in which they must sort claims into one camp or the other but not both. But if a fact is something that is true and an opinion is something that is believed, then many claims will obviously be both. For example, I asked my son about this distinction after his open house. He confidently explained that facts were things that were true whereas opinions are things that are believed. We then had this conversation:
Me: "I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?"
Him: "It's a fact."
Me: "But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion."
Him: "Yeah, but it's true."
Me: "So it's both a fact and an opinion?"
The blank stare on his face said it all.
How does the dichotomy between fact and opinion relate to morality? I learned the answer to this question only after I investigated my son's homework (and other examples of assignments online). Kids are asked to sort facts from opinions and, without fail, every value claim is labeled as an opinion. Here's a little test devised from questions available on fact vs. opinion worksheets online: are the following facts or opinions?
— Copying homework assignments is wrong.
— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.
— All men are created equal.
— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism.
— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.
— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.
— Drug dealers belong in prison.
The answer? In each case, the worksheets categorize these claims as opinions. The explanation on offer is that each of these claims is a value claim and value claims are not facts. This is repeated ad nauseum: any claim with good, right, wrong, etc. is not a fact.
In summary, our public schools teach students that all claims are either facts or opinions and that all value and moral claims fall into the latter camp. The punchline: there are no moral facts. And if there are no moral facts, then there are no moral truths.
The inconsistency in this curriculum is obvious. For example, at the outset of the school year, my son brought home a list of student rights and responsibilities. Had he already read the lesson on fact vs. opinion, he might have noted that the supposed rights of other students were based on no more than opinions. According to the school's curriculum, it certainly wasn't true that his classmates deserved to be treated a particular way — that would make it a fact. Similarly, it wasn't really true that he had any responsibilities — that would be to make a value claim a truth. It should not be a surprise that there is rampant cheating on college campuses: If we've taught our students for 12 years that there is no fact of the matter as to whether cheating is wrong, we can't very well blame them for doing so later on.
Indeed, in the world beyond grade school, where adults must exercise their moral knowledge and reasoning to conduct themselves in the society, the stakes are greater. There, consistency demands that we acknowledge the existence of moral facts. If it's not true that it's wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged? If there are no truths about what is good or valuable or right, how can we prosecute people for crimes against humanity? If it's not true that all humans are created equal, then why vote for any political system that doesn't benefit you over others?
Our schools do amazing things with our children. And they are, in a way, teaching moral standards when they ask students to treat one another humanely and to do their schoolwork with academic integrity. But at the same time, the curriculum sets our children up for doublethink. They are told that there are no moral facts in one breath even as the next tells them how they ought to behave.
We can do better. Our children deserve a consistent intellectual foundation. Facts are things that are true. Opinions are things we believe. Some of our beliefs are true. Others are not. Some of our beliefs are backed by evidence. Others are not. Value claims are like any other claims: either true or false, evidenced or not. The hard work lies not in recognizing that at least some moral claims are true but in carefully thinking through our evidence for which of the many competing moral claims is correct. That's a hard thing to do. But we can't sidestep the responsibilities that come with being human just because it's hard.
That would be wrong.
Justin P. McBrayer is an associate professor of philosophy at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo. He works in ethics and philosophy of religion.
Fact: The guy has no idea what he is talking about
Opinion: The guy is a fucking moron
See? I demonstrated a difference. :P
QuoteFacts are things that are true.
Oh dear lord. Not in this context :bleeding:
Fuck values.
Quote— Copying homework assignments is wrong.
— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.
— All men are created equal.
— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism.
— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.
— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.
— Drug dealers belong in prison.
But all of these statements are in fact opinions - they are not facts (with the possible exception of the part about vegetarians, as this could be verified objectively, potentially).
Everything else is an opinion (and ones that, in most cases, are debatable, especially if used as blanket, universalistic statements). I don't really get the author's view on this.
He thinks facts > opinions and facts are about truth. When in this context facts may not be true at all, they are just provable. Kind of embarrassing a professor cannot understand elementary school concepts.
Yeah it's just that he is all over the place. Especially as the "opinions" he lists are really value statements that not only are not provable but are also debatable even within the Western morality.
For example:
— Copying homework assignments is wrong - fine, if we operate in a system of equal opportunity, but otherwise probably it can be justifiable when some kids receive preferential treatment, the others have to cheat to keep up. Plus if you have been kidnapped by a psychopath who will kill you and your family if you fail a homework assignment, probably copying it off someone else so you can succeed is not wrong anymore...
— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior. - depends on what kind of school. Probably cadets in a military school can curse. Or students in Hogwart in the "Curses and Omens" class.
— All men are created equal. - This is purely a value judgement. In fact, biologically speaking it's the opposite.
— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism. - Debatable like hell.
— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol. - Not really. Irrespective of the fact that kids can (and in some cultures do) drink in moderation, 21 is a purely arbitrary age - most countries allow drinking from the age of 18.
— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat. - As I said, the only statement here which could theoretically be provable, subject to some additional assumptions and caveats.
— Drug dealers belong in prison. - Not really. See: pharmacists.
The FACT that you people think "copying homework assignments is wrong" is an OPINION is a disturbing FACT.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2015, 09:18:06 AM
The FACT that you people think "copying homework assignments is wrong" is an OPINION is a disturbing FACT.
But according to the elementary school definition it is an opinion. It is a value judgment, and not something provable.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 09:21:39 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2015, 09:18:06 AM
The FACT that you people think "copying homework assignments is wrong" is an OPINION is a disturbing FACT.
But according to the elementary school definition it is an opinion. It is a value judgment, and not something provable.
This is the point the author is trying to make: that Common Core is at fault for perpetuating "Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts." But no, everybody's giving the author shit about what he's trying to say, even though he spells it all out.
Leave it to lawyers, Assburgers and Millennials to forget there's something called a moral compass. I hope all of you die in wheat thresher combine accidents, you amoral autistic Nuremberg fuckwits.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2015, 09:26:35 AM
This is the point the author is trying to make: that Common Core is at fault for perpetuating "Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts." But no, everybody's giving the author shit about what he's trying to say, even though he spells it all out.
The point I am trying to make is that facts are not better than opinions. Especially in regards to morality.
QuoteLeave it to lawyers, Assburgers and Millennials to forget there's something called a moral compass. I hope all of you die in wheat thresher combine accidents, you amoral autistic Nuremberg fuckwits.
Your inability to grasp simple concepts does not make my an idiot.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 09:29:24 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2015, 09:26:35 AM
This is the point the author is trying to make: that Common Core is at fault for perpetuating "Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts." But no, everybody's giving the author shit about what he's trying to say, even though he spells it all out.
The point I am trying to make is that facts are not better than opinions. Especially in regards to morality.
That's not being disputed here.
QuoteQuoteLeave it to lawyers, Assburgers and Millennials to forget there's something called a moral compass. I hope all of you die in wheat thresher combine accidents, you amoral autistic Nuremberg fuckwits.
Your inability to grasp simple concepts does not make my an idiot.
I wasn't addressing you, unless you fall under the three categories I have identified; you also spelled spelled "me" wrong.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2015, 09:32:30 AM
That's not being disputed here.
Well I think that is what is annoying him here. Kids use the 'well that's just an opinion' thing to be assholes the same way they claim 'freedom of speech' gives them the right to tell their mother to 'fuck off'. Just kids using whatever they can find to fuck with adults.
QuoteI wasn't addressing you, unless you fall under the three categories I have identified; you also spelled spelled "me" wrong.
If I had a penny for every simple word I misspell or leave out I would be
What the hell is a moral fact? The author appears to be a moran.
This discussion reminds me of the difficulty which sometimes arises when decision making bodies comprised of academics are told they need to make findings of "fact" from evidence presented to them. They often object to that characterization and say that what they are expressing is their view of evidence not "facts". Try explaining to them there is no difference when they are, in fact :P, the decision maker.
Fuck common core.
Now I understand why it sucks.
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2015, 01:48:00 PM
Fuck common core.
Now I understand why it sucks.
Wait til you see how it teaches math. Do simple arithmetic to quickly solve a problem? Oh, no. You use number lines and other time-wasting bullshit.
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2015, 01:48:00 PM
Fuck common core.
Now I understand why it sucks.
This distinction has been around for far longer than common core. I do not recall having any problem telling right from wrong because I understood "fact" from "opinion".
QuoteWait til you see how it teaches math. Do simple arithmetic to quickly solve a problem? Oh, no. You use number lines and other time-wasting bullshit.
What the hell is wrong with number lines? Maybe I don't understand the context but the entire point of those is to teach simple arithmetic. Using simple arithmetic to learn simple arithmetic seems like a non-starter.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 01:59:13 PM
What the hell is wrong with number lines? Maybe I don't understand the context but the entire point of those is to teach simple arithmetic. Using simple arithmetic to learn simple arithmetic seems like a non-starter.
They're a hindrance, at least for my kid. The "old" way is easier and quicker for him.
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2015, 02:06:27 PM
They're a hindrance, at least for my kid. The "old" way is easier and quicker for him.
What was the old way?
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2015, 01:48:00 PM
Fuck common core.
Now I understand why it sucks.
This distinction has been around for far longer than common core. I do not recall having any problem telling right from wrong because I understood "fact" from "opinion".
QuoteWait til you see how it teaches math. Do simple arithmetic to quickly solve a problem? Oh, no. You use number lines and other time-wasting bullshit.
What the hell is wrong with number lines? Maybe I don't understand the context but the entire point of those is to teach simple arithmetic. Using simple arithmetic to learn simple arithmetic seems like a non-starter.
We went through this all with my daughter. I see both sides, really.
Some of this common core stuff is trying to teach that there is more to math than understanding the buts and bolts of how to solve a problem. That knowing how to add 5 and 8 to get 13 is great, but understanding that there is more to it than simply understanding the steps to arrive at the answer.
My daughter is a perfect example. You could teach her how to do basic multiplication, for example. And she could handle "What is 6 times 5"? and get "30" - she knew how to apply the process to get the answer (5+5+5+5+5+5 = 30, or just memorize).
However, it never clicked to her what that really meant, and how math relates. In other words, you could show her a flash card for 5x6=?, and she could work out the answer. Then you could *immediately* show her another flash card with 30/5 = ?, and she could work out that answer as well. *But it would never occur to her that if she knew the answer to the first, she new the answer to the second*. Because it just didn't click with her that the questions have anything to do with one another, even if she could go through the algorithm to figure out the answer to both. She has never really grasped the fundamental underneath the algorithms.
Common core math is an effort to not just teach kids how to answer problems, but to teach them how math works, how it all works together. It totally failed with my daughter, but my son picked it up immediately, and "grokked" math intuitively. Needless to say, he is vastly more successful at math than his sister. I don't know if common core can really work to teach someone like my daughter those concepts - it was incredibly frustrating for her.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2015, 02:06:27 PM
They're a hindrance, at least for my kid. The "old" way is easier and quicker for him.
What was the old way?
The simpler method of simply doing the arithmetic.
Example:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhechingerreport.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fcommoncoremath.png&hash=c84b9b001d6506226fd4fd80009d9d6b6df73f5c)
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2015, 02:06:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 01:59:13 PM
What the hell is wrong with number lines? Maybe I don't understand the context but the entire point of those is to teach simple arithmetic. Using simple arithmetic to learn simple arithmetic seems like a non-starter.
They're a hindrance, at least for my kid. The "old" way is easier and quicker for him.
The problem with the "old way" is that it is really just teaching someone a recipe for how to solve a particular problem that is presented in a particular format. If you then give them a similar problem but in a different format, they don't have the tools to understand how to solve that problem, because they don't necessarily recognize the underlying similarities.
Personally, I always "got" math, and was able to understand those underlying principles without much help, while I learned that "simple" and traditional methods for solving particular problems. So common core would probably have been easy for me, since I was always good at understanding those principles pretty intuitively. Common core, I think, is the effort to come up with a way of getting not just exceptional students to understand those principles, but average students as well. That adds some additional complexity to otherwise simple forumlaic problems, but the idea is that it it worth it in the long run.
I think where it turns into a real problem is with below average math students, who really are going to struggle with the simple algorithms anyway, and the effort to teach them that additional layer of complexity is too much.
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2015, 01:52:39 PM
Wait til you see how it teaches math. Do simple arithmetic to quickly solve a problem? Oh, no. You use number lines and other time-wasting bullshit.
I thought your kid went to private school, and therefore not subject to such medievalisms.
I remember kindergarten staff explaining mulitiplication to me using a plaid tablecloth. Worked fine.
The method of doing arithmetic is doing arithmetic? Fascinating.
The number line method IS EXACTLY THE SAME as doing the arithmetic. You subtract 300, then 10, then 6. Boom. What is the difference? But you get to see it graphically which can be useful.
So color me baffled by the dumbass Engineer. Besides arithmetic is jack all to do with upper level mathematics. I took many hours in upper level electro-magnetism and large and small scale electric circuits but I doubt I could teach electricians how to do remedial wiring.
The problem in education is the presumption that there is "one right way". Different methods work better for different students, and it's best if the teacher has more tools at their disposal rather than straight jacketing into "this is the best method to explain math to kids".
Quote from: frunk on March 03, 2015, 02:26:11 PM
The problem in education is the presumption that there is "one right way". Different methods work better for different students, and it's best if the teacher has more tools at their disposal rather than straight jacketing into "this is the best method to explain math to kids".
Thinking about it the best way would be to teach multiple methods and just let the kids pick the one they want to use. Having a HW assignment making you explain how to use a method right is a bit annoying. So I guess I can see the annoying Engineer parent's point on that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2015, 02:17:19 PM
I thought your kid went to private school, and therefore not subject to such medievalisms.
He did for pre-school and Kindergarten. We have a pretty good school district so we put him in public school this year for first grade. Besides, all the private schools nearby are Catholic :o
Oddly enough, I saw more common core BS in his Kindergarten class than I'm seeing this year.
Quote from: frunk on March 03, 2015, 02:26:11 PM
The problem in education is the presumption that there is "one right way". Different methods work better for different students, and it's best if the teacher has more tools at their disposal rather than straight jacketing into "this is the best method to explain math to kids".
This
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 01:19:32 PM
This discussion reminds me of the difficulty which sometimes arises when decision making bodies comprised of academics are told they need to make findings of "fact" from evidence presented to them. They often object to that characterization and say that what they are expressing is their view of evidence not "facts". Try explaining to them there is no difference when they are, in fact :P, the decision maker.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2015, 02:28:14 PM
Oddly enough, I saw more common core BS in his Kindergarten class than I'm seeing this year.
Excelling at stuff you think is BS is what school is all about.
Languish has many tools at its disposal. :)
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 02:30:39 PM
Excelling at stuff you think is BS is what school is all about.
Which is why I hated it.
Schools are sexy.
I love history but man did I hate history class. I knew I was going to have to build a Spanish Missionary Diaroma, write a short story from the point of view of a Tonkawa Indian, or make a salt map of Stephen F Austin's colony or other such bullshit. All this garbage to help me feel 'really engaged' with the history. But it sure did prepare me for the workforce more than actually learning history did :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 02:40:41 PM
I love history but man did I hate history class. I knew I was going to have to build a Spanish Missionary Diaroma, write a short story from the point of view of a Tonkawa Indian, or make a salt map of Stephen F Austin's colony or other such bullshit. All this garbage to help me feel 'really engaged' with the history. But it sure did prepare me for the workforce more than actually learning history did :lol:
It really is dreadful the disservice they do to history in schools.
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2015, 02:17:00 PM
I think where it turns into a real problem is with below average math students, who really are going to struggle with the simple algorithms anyway, and the effort to teach them that additional layer of complexity is too much.
I think it also has to do with the fact that students learn differently and so the more ways students can be taught to solve a problem the better the chance students will understand the concept.
They tried to teach me math in all sorts of ways: open learning, "new" math, tutoring, Spanish Inquisition. Didn't change the fact that I wanted to read a book instead.
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2015, 01:52:39 PM
Wait til you see how it teaches math. Do simple arithmetic to quickly solve a problem? Oh, no. You use number lines and other time-wasting bullshit.
The Common Core standards don't "teach" anything. The often shitty curricula that implement the standards do. The math standard does not mention methods, number line or otherwise, at all. Unfortunately the curricula have been conflated with the standards to such a degree that particular curricula are used as illustrations of how Common Core "requires" certain topics to be taught.
QuoteThe Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.
Translation: We're a bunch of pedants and self-agrandizing morons.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2015, 09:26:35 AM
This is the point the author is trying to make: that Common Core is at fault for perpetuating "Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts." But no, everybody's giving the author shit about what he's trying to say, even though he spells it all out.
Because his point is not well argued and ironically (given your criticism) it is not well argued in significant part because it relies on semantic gamesmanship instead of confronting the merits of what he is arguing against.
Put aside the semantics and the labels and what the Common Core apparently is doing, based on his description (NB no idea if that is what it actually does), is teach a simplified version of Popper's theory of knowledge - i.e. that true knowledge of "facts" is restricted to that which can be tested or falsified. My own 2 cents is that while Popper's theory has its problems, it's not a bad starting point for teaching youth. Other might disagree - and I would respect that disagreement IF that disagreement was presented as an argument on the merits. But instead OP plays word games and shifts premises around.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 03, 2015, 03:20:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2015, 01:52:39 PM
Wait til you see how it teaches math. Do simple arithmetic to quickly solve a problem? Oh, no. You use number lines and other time-wasting bullshit.
The Common Core standards don't "teach" anything. The often shitty curricula that implement the standards do. The math standard does not mention methods, number line or otherwise, at all. Unfortunately the curricula have been conflated with the standards to such a degree that particular curricula are used as illustrations of how Common Core "requires" certain topics to be taught.
Semantics.
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2015, 03:51:01 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 03, 2015, 03:20:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2015, 01:52:39 PM
Wait til you see how it teaches math. Do simple arithmetic to quickly solve a problem? Oh, no. You use number lines and other time-wasting bullshit.
The Common Core standards don't "teach" anything. The often shitty curricula that implement the standards do. The math standard does not mention methods, number line or otherwise, at all. Unfortunately the curricula have been conflated with the standards to such a degree that particular curricula are used as illustrations of how Common Core "requires" certain topics to be taught.
Semantics.
It's not semantics. The standards and the curricula are not the same thing. I could, if I so desired, write a Common Core compliant curriculum made up almost entirely of the "old" ways of doing things.
Yeah, semantics.
You're a hopeless semantic.
He's an anti-Semant.
This is intolerable!
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 03, 2015, 04:08:22 PM
It's not semantics. The standards and the curricula are not the same thing. I could, if I so desired, write a Common Core compliant curriculum made up almost entirely of the "old" ways of doing things.
Facts are of no use in a discussion like this.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 03, 2015, 03:31:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2015, 09:26:35 AM
This is the point the author is trying to make: that Common Core is at fault for perpetuating "Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts." But no, everybody's giving the author shit about what he's trying to say, even though he spells it all out.
Because his point is not well argued and ironically (given your criticism) it is not well argued in significant part because it relies on semantic gamesmanship instead of confronting the merits of what he is arguing against.
Put aside the semantics and the labels and what the Common Core apparently is doing, based on his description (NB no idea if that is what it actually does), is teach a simplified version of Popper's theory of knowledge - i.e. that true knowledge of "facts" is restricted to that which can be tested or falsified. My own 2 cents is that while Popper's theory has its problems, it's not a bad starting point for teaching youth. Other might disagree - and I would respect that disagreement IF that disagreement was presented as an argument on the merits. But instead OP plays word games and shifts premises around.
CDM is wondering why you brought Blues Traveler into this.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 03, 2015, 05:11:18 PM
CDM is wondering why you brought Blues Traveler into this.
Why you wanna give him a run-around?
The core rules for Traveler were excellent but then the standards dropped.
Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2015, 05:39:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 03, 2015, 05:11:18 PM
CDM is wondering why you brought Blues Traveler into this.
Why you wanna give him a run-around?
It's a sure fire way to speed things up.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 05:41:50 PM
The core rules for Traveler were excellent but then the standards dropped.
Two Ls. :ultra: :nerd:
rulles?
I loathe young people
I love Peanutbutter cups
Vancouver smells
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 03, 2015, 06:14:23 PM
Vancouver smells
With the sweet aroma of cherry blossoms blooming early this year.
You're all a bunch of snobs. Back in the day, we were taught multiplication by being hit severely over the head with a dead cod multiple times. That's how you teach maths. Cod and violence.
After the practice was abandoned, math scores plummeted. The need for going to the school nurse too.
Seriously, this is a community of people who mostly don't teach. Ed and PDH are the only ones I can think of. I temped as a teacher after I finished my master, and became a victim of thinking "yeah, they probably aren't THAT stupid". These students couldn't even name what our parliament is called. And they were high school graduates. I flunked the fuck out of them, then got told off by the principal.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 09:29:24 AM
The point I am trying to make is that facts are not better than opinions. Especially in regards to morality.
Part of the problem might simply be in the terminology. I don't much like the term "moral facts". Morals are basically values and opinions. And while one fact is not inherently "better" or superior to any other fact, some morals, values, and opinions are better than others.
For example, facts:
20-11=9.
In baseball, a batter is out after 3 strikes.
In the U.S. it's against the law to falsify information on your Federal Income Tax Return.
Chester Nimitz was an Admiral in the U.S. Navy during WWII.
All of those are fairly easily verifiable, but none is a "better" fact than any of the others (though some may be more important, or more relevant in a given context).
Of course, something presented as a statement of fact isn't necessarily an actual fact. if someone writes that "Humphrey Bogart was a Union General in the American Civil War", the person making the statement is either deliberately lying for some reason; making a really, really obvious mistake; or trying to entertain someone with a work of fiction.
On to opinions. Some opinions, of course, don't involve moral judgments as such. For example:
Willie Mays was a better baseball player than Hank Aaron.
Omar Bradley was actually a better general than Patton.
We should replace the graduated income tax with a flat tax.
All of those, I think, are at least reasonably arguable. And while I don't think any of them are moral value statements, the supporting arguments for or against them might involve values (especially the last one).
Now lets move on to actual moral values:
Lying is wrong.
Women who are raped should be stoned to death for adultery.
In the criminal justice system, the punishment should fit the crime.
All 3 of those statements are moral values that some people somewhere in the world believe. All of us here, I hope, would agree at least in the abstract with the 1st and 3rd statements (though many of us might note various exceptions or such with the 1st, and we would most certainly disagree in many instances as to what punishment best fits a given crime--or even if certain acts should be criminal or not), and vehemently disagree with the 2nd.
So I would argue that while one fact isn't better than another, some values are better than others. I have no problem saying that the 1st and 3d value statements I used for examples state far, far, better values than the 2nd.
And that might be the real crux of the problem that the author of the article was trying to get at. Are we actually teaching our children that some values are better than others?
I think the real crux of the problem is that--
QuoteJustin P. McBrayer is an associate professor of philosophy at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo. He works in ethics and philosophy of religion.
--and the possibility of
any concept even remotely related to religion--from which "moral facts" originate--absolutely chafes to no end a board like Languish, which is overpopulated by an inordinate number of obnoxiously snot-nosed and cynical atheists, lawyers and Europeans.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2015, 09:57:27 PM
I think the real crux of the problem is that--
QuoteJustin P. McBrayer is an associate professor of philosophy at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo. He works in ethics and philosophy of religion.
--and the possibility of any concept even remotely related to religion--from which "moral facts" originate--absolutely chafes to no end a board like Languish, which is overpopulated by an inordinate number of obnoxiously snot-nosed and cynical atheists, lawyers and Europeans.
Well, in fairness, those of us who are neither atheists, lawyers, nor Europeans tend to be kind of obnoxious and cynical.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2015, 09:57:27 PM
I think the real crux of the problem is that--
QuoteJustin P. McBrayer is an associate professor of philosophy at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo. He works in ethics and philosophy of religion.
--and the possibility of any concept even remotely related to religion--from which "moral facts" originate--absolutely chafes to no end a board like Languish, which is overpopulated by an inordinate number of obnoxiously snot-nosed and cynical atheists, lawyers and Europeans.
and rightfully so, too.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2015, 09:57:27 PM
I think the real crux of the problem is that--
QuoteJustin P. McBrayer is an associate professor of philosophy at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo. He works in ethics and philosophy of religion.
--and the possibility of any concept even remotely related to religion--from which "moral facts" originate--absolutely chafes to no end a board like Languish, which is overpopulated by an inordinate number of obnoxiously snot-nosed and cynical atheists, lawyers and Europeans.
I recognize "moral facts". :)
Children tend to be very black and white in nature. There are two options to them in most things: Right and Wrong. The concept of gray areas come much later in life (usually by middle school it's starting to show and it solidifies as a concept, though not in practice, in high school).
I think that this particular individual is saying that playing off that, we need to teach "right" and "wrong" as absolutes in a way that children will understand and carry forward. As they get older and start to recognize gray areas, then the concept of "mostly right" and "mostly wrong" can be introduced. And this continues all the way through to autonomy (18 for some, 25 for others, 40 for the Seedy's of the world ;) ).
By using the term "facts", he's saying that these are what we, as a society, have determined to be Right and/or Wrong, when the gray areas are stripped away. They don't work on adults because, well, we understand that while stealing is wrong, a man taking a loaf of bread to feed his family is only kind of wrong. This idea of teaching children absolutes went out of favor about 20 years ago, roughly the same time "building up self-esteem" became the cause celebre'. We were told that it was better not to confuse children with absolutes, to let them find their own way, etc. I failed at this and taught them the absolutes in my home, which ended up with some interesting conversations with teachers and principals. *shrugs*
In general, I tend to think that we should teach things in a way that children will understand them at the level they are at. This means that absolutes are absolutely necessary until they're not. :)
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 10:37:18 PM
I recognize "moral facts". :)
Sometimes a few too many, but that's OK. :P
Quote from: Norgy on March 03, 2015, 07:46:36 PM
You're all a bunch of snobs. Back in the day, we were taught multiplication by being hit severely over the head with a dead cod multiple times. That's how you teach maths. Cod and violence.
After the practice was abandoned, math scores plummeted. The need for going to the school nurse too.
Cod is dead. Cod remains dead. And we have killed it.
Every educator worth his or her salt has attended classes on child development and understands Piaget's research into the intellectual and emotional development of children, and knows how to present moral issues in an age-appropriate manner. whether they do so, of course, is another question. Interestingly, Meri far underestimates the development of moral reasoning in typical children, and so is probably preaching absolute values after her kids understand how inadequate those are, but that's a parent's privilege. I'm sure her teachers found those discussions as... interesting... as she did. *shrugs*
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 06:18:42 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 03, 2015, 06:14:23 PM
Vancouver smells
With the sweet aroma of cherry blossoms blooming early this year.
I think he meant the weed.
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2015, 08:01:26 AM
Every educator worth his or her salt has attended classes on child development and understands Piaget's research into the intellectual and emotional development of children, and knows how to present moral issues in an age-appropriate manner. whether they do so, of course, is another question. Interestingly, Meri far underestimates the development of moral reasoning in typical children, and so is probably preaching absolute values after her kids understand how inadequate those are, but that's a parent's privilege. I'm sure her teachers found those discussions as... interesting... as she did. *shrugs*
I'm going based entirely on what my kids were able to deal with based on the discussions that we had on their behavior, not on what was taught elsewhere about the theory of it. (By the way, I also took those classes in college. I found that children are remarkably and individually different in real life than they are in a text book or a classroom for a few hours a day.) I'm also talking about adjusting the discussions as necessary on a day-by-day basis, something that becomes less possible in a classroom setting.
I'm not sure I understand your point here, grumbler. Are you agreeing with the article in the OP? Disagreeing with it? Just being snarky for the sake of snarkiness? Personally, I agree to an extent with the article. Of course, I'm not a professional, am I? Just a volunteer amateur with 21+ years experience watching the same individuals grow and learn. Quite a bit different than a classroom setting to be sure.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 04, 2015, 08:23:50 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 06:18:42 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 03, 2015, 06:14:23 PM
Vancouver smells
With the sweet aroma of cherry blossoms blooming early this year.
I think he meant the weed.
So did CC.
Every year, those obsessive stoners meddle with the genetics of BC Bud ... :P
I don't think it is school's job to teach children absolute moral values especially as really most of them are not absolute and are really an extension of parents' worldviews.
I think as a society we are better off instead if schools teach kids how to deconstruct the prejudices their parents try to instill in them.
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 10:40:52 AM
I don't think it is school's job to teach children absolute moral values especially as really most of them are not absolute and are really an extension of parents' worldviews.
I think as a society we are better off instead if schools teach kids how to deconstruct the prejudices their parents try to instill in them.
Parental prejudice number one: that education is a good thing for kids. :D
Well I don't think you need to care about teachers not teaching that education is good since that would put them out of work. :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 10:46:21 AM
Well I don't think you need to care about teachers not teaching that education is good since that would put them out of work. :P
So they will somehow teach kids how to deconstruct prejudices but only keeping them squarely focused on their parents? Dude we have a hard enough time teaching them basic math.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 10:51:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 10:46:21 AM
Well I don't think you need to care about teachers not teaching that education is good since that would put them out of work. :P
So they will somehow teach kids how to deconstruct prejudices but only keeping them squarely focused on their parents? Dude we have a hard enough time teaching them basic math.
I believe there was a period of time when I was a child that I would rigidly follow that teachers told me and call my parents out if they tried to tell me something that ran counter to what my teachers said. :Embarrass:
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2015, 10:52:20 AM
I believe there was a period of time when I was a child that I would rigidly follow that teachers told me and call my parents out if they tried to tell me something that ran counter to what my teachers said. :Embarrass:
Maybe Marty's plan has already been in effect for a long time :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 10:51:06 AM
So they will somehow teach kids how to deconstruct prejudices but only keeping them squarely focused on their parents?
Why would they want to do that?
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2015, 10:52:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 10:51:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 10:46:21 AM
Well I don't think you need to care about teachers not teaching that education is good since that would put them out of work. :P
So they will somehow teach kids how to deconstruct prejudices but only keeping them squarely focused on their parents? Dude we have a hard enough time teaching them basic math.
I believe there was a period of time when I was a child that I would rigidly follow that teachers told me and call my parents out if they tried to tell me something that ran counter to what my teachers said. :Embarrass:
The good folks at Stalin Memorial Academy were so proud. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2015, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 10:51:06 AM
So they will somehow teach kids how to deconstruct prejudices but only keeping them squarely focused on their parents?
Why would they want to do that?
So that way Marty's plan wouldn't contain the flaw Malthus pointed out :P
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2015, 10:52:20 AM
I believe there was a period of time when I was a child that I would rigidly follow that teachers told me and call my parents out if they tried to tell me something that ran counter to what my teachers said. :Embarrass:
I think that lots of kids go through that phase. It is part of growing up, and realizing that parents are not infallible.
Seriously though - I think the task of a good teacher is in part to teach critical thinking skills that can be applied to just about any situation going forward. Then it is up to the kid whether he or she finds flaws in parental or societal attitudes, or not.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 10:55:12 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2015, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 10:51:06 AM
So they will somehow teach kids how to deconstruct prejudices but only keeping them squarely focused on their parents?
Why would they want to do that?
So that way Marty's plan wouldn't contain the flaw Malthus pointed out :P
Well, Stalin wasn't exactly the model parent. I don't think we have to create plans that work with him.
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2015, 10:58:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2015, 10:52:20 AM
I believe there was a period of time when I was a child that I would rigidly follow that teachers told me and call my parents out if they tried to tell me something that ran counter to what my teachers said. :Embarrass:
I think that lots of kids go through that phase. It is part of growing up, and realizing that parents are not infallible.
Yes, before generalizing that to all adults, first said infallibility gets relocated. -_-
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2015, 10:58:39 AM
Seriously though - I think the task of a good teacher is in part to teach critical thinking skills that can be applied to just about any situation going forward. Then it is up to the kid whether he or she finds flaws in parental or societal attitudes, or not.
Fearless disrespect?
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2015, 10:58:39 AM
Seriously though - I think the task of a good teacher is in part to teach critical thinking skills that can be applied to just about any situation going forward. Then it is up to the kid whether he or she finds flaws in parental or societal attitudes, or not.
Exactly. As a teacher, one of the most gratifying moments is when a student argues that you are wrong, using the very attitudes and methods that you have taught them to use.
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2015, 10:59:19 AM
Well, Stalin wasn't exactly the model parent. I don't think we have to create plans that work with him.
But he taught his daughter to deconstruct his prejudices!
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2015, 10:59:19 AM
Well, Stalin wasn't exactly the model parent. I don't think we have to create plans that work with him.
A five year old gets a Five Year Plan.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2015, 09:57:27 PM
I think the real crux of the problem is that--
QuoteJustin P. McBrayer is an associate professor of philosophy at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo. He works in ethics and philosophy of religion.
--and the possibility of any concept even remotely related to religion--from which "moral facts" originate--absolutely chafes to no end a board like Languish, which is overpopulated by an inordinate number of obnoxiously snot-nosed and cynical atheists, lawyers and Europeans.
You think wrong.
Because McBrayer's odd screed does not object from the standpoint of the philosophy of religion. He is quibbling with, and manipulating, definitions.
Tell you what - if you can explain what McBrayer's argument is, I will be open to reconsidering my view.
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2015, 10:54:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2015, 10:52:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 10:51:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 10:46:21 AM
Well I don't think you need to care about teachers not teaching that education is good since that would put them out of work. :P
So they will somehow teach kids how to deconstruct prejudices but only keeping them squarely focused on their parents? Dude we have a hard enough time teaching them basic math.
I believe there was a period of time when I was a child that I would rigidly follow that teachers told me and call my parents out if they tried to tell me something that ran counter to what my teachers said. :Embarrass:
The good folks at Stalin Memorial Academy were so proud. ;)
garbon would be the new Pavlik Morozov. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 11:45:28 AM
garbon would be the new Pavlik Morozov. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov
:lol:
On a serious note, my mom-in-law actually remembers being given candy (and told there would be more if a kid informed on his or her parents) by teachers in pre-war Ukraine.
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2015, 11:52:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 11:45:28 AM
garbon would be the new Pavlik Morozov. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov
:lol:
On a serious note, my mom-in-law actually remembers being given candy (and told there would be more if a kid informed on his or her parents) by teachers in pre-war Ukraine.
See, that's what I call good education. :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 11:58:09 AM
See, that's what I call good education. :P
I don't get this. You seem to like your parents yet seem to hate parents so much.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 12:00:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 11:58:09 AM
See, that's what I call good education. :P
I don't get this. You seem to like your parents yet seem to hate parents so much.
I think parents are the main obstacle to society progressing.
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 12:02:21 PM
I think parents are the main obstacle to society progressing.
They certainly stopped the Soviets from completely destroying Polish society. Do you wish you had been made a good Russian by the People's Revolutionary Creche? :P
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 12:15:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 12:02:21 PM
I think parents are the main obstacle to society progressing.
They certainly stopped the Soviets from completely destroying Polish society. Do you wish you had been made a good Russian by the People's Revolutionary Creche? :P
Well, Soviets were Russians, so no. That being said, I regret Germans did not properly Germanise us under Bismarck. We would have been progressive atheists, like Czechs, by now rather than backward Catholics.
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 12:21:31 PM
Well, Soviets were Russians, so no. That being said, I regret Germans did not properly Germanise us under Bismarck. We would have been progressive atheists, like Czechs, by now rather than backward Catholics.
The Czechs did not become that way because of the Habsburgs efficient Germanisation program. They seem to have had this sort of thing going on since Jan Hus. Not sure why.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 12:21:31 PM
Well, Soviets were Russians, so no. That being said, I regret Germans did not properly Germanise us under Bismarck. We would have been progressive atheists, like Czechs, by now rather than backward Catholics.
The Czechs did not become that way because of the Habsburgs efficient Germanisation program. They seem to have had this sort of thing going on since Jan Hus. Not sure why.
Still, one can hope. The only good thing about being Polish is that one is not Russian. :P
Actually you would have simply been wiped out by the Russians.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2015, 10:52:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 10:51:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 10:46:21 AM
Well I don't think you need to care about teachers not teaching that education is good since that would put them out of work. :P
So they will somehow teach kids how to deconstruct prejudices but only keeping them squarely focused on their parents? Dude we have a hard enough time teaching them basic math.
I believe there was a period of time when I was a child that I would rigidly follow that teachers told me and call my parents out if they tried to tell me something that ran counter to what my teachers said. :Embarrass:
Every. One. Of. My. Children. <_<
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2015, 10:58:39 AM
Seriously though - I think the task of a good teacher is in part to teach critical thinking skills that can be applied to just about any situation going forward. Then it is up to the kid whether he or she finds flaws in parental or societal attitudes, or not.
Agreed.
Quote from: merithyn on March 04, 2015, 02:32:24 PM
Every. One. Of. My. Children. <_<
:console:
Damn I hadn't considered this problem before.
Quote from: merithyn on March 04, 2015, 02:32:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2015, 10:52:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 10:51:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 10:46:21 AM
Well I don't think you need to care about teachers not teaching that education is good since that would put them out of work. :P
So they will somehow teach kids how to deconstruct prejudices but only keeping them squarely focused on their parents? Dude we have a hard enough time teaching them basic math.
I believe there was a period of time when I was a child that I would rigidly follow that teachers told me and call my parents out if they tried to tell me something that ran counter to what my teachers said. :Embarrass:
Every. One. Of. My. Children. <_<
+ all of languish.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 02:38:04 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 04, 2015, 02:32:24 PM
Every. One. Of. My. Children. <_<
:console:
Damn I hadn't considered this problem before.
Wait until the teacher gives your child her opinion as fact, and then you have to explain the difference between facts and opinions. But of course, you're an idiot and the kid's teacher knows everything. After all, she's a TEACHER and you're just MOM. :rolleyes:
Oh, those were fun days....
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2015, 10:58:39 AM
Seriously though - I think the task of a good teacher is in part to teach critical thinking skills that can be applied to just about any situation going forward. Then it is up to the kid whether he or she finds flaws in parental or societal attitudes, or not.
But when they try to do that, parents whine and bitch about how schools don't teach kids "simple" ways of solving problems that are OBVIOUSLY the best way, and why can't they just learn the way we learned????
Sparta. :contract:
Quote from: Berkut on March 04, 2015, 03:48:31 PM
But when they try to do that, parents whine and bitch about how schools don't teach kids "simple" ways of solving problems that are OBVIOUSLY the best way, and why can't they just learn the way we learned????
Well, the concept that there are multiple ways to teach things and that different kids learn differently is just an opinion, so don't try to present it as a fact.
Quote from: merithyn on March 04, 2015, 02:32:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2015, 10:52:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2015, 10:51:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2015, 10:46:21 AM
Well I don't think you need to care about teachers not teaching that education is good since that would put them out of work. :P
So they will somehow teach kids how to deconstruct prejudices but only keeping them squarely focused on their parents? Dude we have a hard enough time teaching them basic math.
I believe there was a period of time when I was a child that I would rigidly follow that teachers told me and call my parents out if they tried to tell me something that ran counter to what my teachers said. :Embarrass:
Every. One. Of. My. Children. <_<
Don't think I ever went through that phase. Possibly because I had already figured out that my mom was far from infallible before I ever started school, and I realized on the first day of school that my first grade teacher was a bitch (I don't think I even knew that term yet, but I recognized the personality traits).
Quote from: dps on March 04, 2015, 07:45:23 PM
I realized on the first day of school that my first grade teacher was a bitch (I don't think I even knew that term yet, but I recognized the personality traits).
My first grade teacher (which is when I believe this happened) was definitely a bitch but then I've never had a problem with bitches. :blush:
Bitches tell it like it is. :yes: