GameBanshee Forums

In a very interesting blog post right here, economics wonk Matt Yglesias suggests:

I think we might do a lot of good in the world, and even improve people’s personal decision-making, if we made everyone take a basic statistics class in high school.

He goes on to offer an excellent example of why this training would help counter fearmongering, but for the sake of this thread, I wanted your opinions of what would be important subjects, by your standards, to teach at some point between the ages of 5 and 17. Your choice where, but remember, this isn't a joke thread, and explain why you would want whatever you've got to propose taught. Oh, and you might expect to be challenged.

I'd personally like to see the basics of logic taught at an early age. Many problems in life, I think, can be avoided if people don't feel locked into making decisions based entirely upon split second decisions engineered by expert handlers of emotions. You can always choose to disregard logic, and I've got no problems with that, since logic isn't a cureall: it's just a tool. A very useful one.

Over to you.

I personally think that the science programs in high school need to be seriously revamped. I've loved science since I was a kid, but still hated high school science course; at least, the ones in my public system seemed to be designed to explicitly make the students hate science.

It can be an incredibly interesting subject, but the way it was taught, no one liked taking the courses. The result is that most people go into university without a working knowledge of how cells function, how the planets revolve around the Sun, or that the word 'Theory' in the "Theory of Evolution" does not actually imply that it's complete guesswork.

On a more general note, the best course I took in high school (and probably my entire education) was a grade 10 business/marketing/politics course. The teacher ignored any kind of curriculum and taught us based on current news articles and events. We pretty much learned how to critically think about the world and to analyze almost everything we read. Learning the basics of critical thinking gave the few of us in the class a tremendous advantage over all the other people that took drama instead.

Assuming that by basic logic you are talking about something similar to propositional calculus or boolean algebra I'm not sure I'm so fond of the idea. Those tools are quite limited and in my experience can cause a bit of damage to anyone who uses them recklessly.

Related to that there might be a case for argumentation theory, but imo it would be important that such a subject wasn't reduced to a debating practice. Debating is incredibly dull.

If i were to choose subjects I think native language, history and epistemology would be at the top of my list, with a small question mark at epistemology.

Edit: On second thought I might replace both history and epistemology with sociology. Since that is what i would hope to achieve by teaching those subjects anyway. Maybe not be as general, but the probability that something useful springs from it might be a bit higher?

Dottie wrote:Assuming that by basic logic you are talking about something similar to propositional calculus or boolean algebra I'm not sure I'm so fond of the idea. Those tools are quite limited and in my experience can cause a bit of damage to anyone who uses them recklessly.

I presume this is meant in irony--since we both know that a hammer, wrench, or screwdriver can do a great deal of harm. On the other hand, the lack of one of those tools when you need it does no one a world a good, and if someone is really looking to kill you but can't find a hammer, they'll certainly locate something else to do the job just as well.

I was thinking of basic Boolean concepts, yes, as well as at least the concepts behind a series of logical fallacies, regardless of whether a child learns the Latin for each, or not. Nothing bad can come of that. Unless of course you were serious, and care to give examples of why children should be closeted away from understanding the problems with affirming a disjunct, begging the question, or guilt by association?

Edit: On second thought I might replace both history and epistemology with sociology. Since that is what i would hope to achieve by teaching those subjects anyway. Maybe not be as general, but the probability that something useful springs from it might be a bit higher?

Sociology would be a great addition to later curricula, I agree. It might even be something to factor into earlier studies, not as a separate class but as part of something more generalized.

fable wrote:I was thinking of basic Boolean concepts, yes, as well as at least the concepts behind a series of logical fallacies, regardless of whether a child learns the Latin for each, or not. Nothing bad can come of that. Unless of course you were serious, and care to give examples of why children should be closeted away from understanding the problems with affirming a disjunct, begging the question, or guilt by association?

I was serious, but logical fallacies was not part of what I thought was limited or potentially harmful.

My point, to abuse your analogy, is that I believe boolean algebra to be more similar to a nail gun then a hammer. It's difficult for me to see what boolean algebra can be used for and the risk is that to many people are led to believe that it makes a good substitute for knowledge. It might not increase the risk that a person is wrong, but if he is wrong it might well make him a lot more convinced that he is right.

I might appear very anti intellectual above, if that is the case that is highly embarrassing, but it seem to me that accurate statements are more frequently made by those who have knowledge about a particular subject, rather than those who have a very generic and rather simple method for analyzing the world.

---

Hrm, now I also feel like an idiot for not mentioning sexual education, that should be there as well I think.

My old tutor in journalism, who was (and still is) an arrogant drunk with a terrible dialect and an abusive personality, is also a friggin genious. He was the first person to get a personal comment out of Mikhail Gorbachev about the end of the Soviet Union.

Anyway: His golden slurred words to me and my class, which he probably stole from someone else was this: "It's not important to teach people to read books - It's important to teach them the VALUE of reading books!"

So my initial response to this thread is History! That has to be the number one priority, because it encompasses so many things, and can be exciting and leave a lasting impression on everyone from 7 to 17 if taught right. How to learn by previous mistakes, and understand why we as a race keep repeating them.

@Fable: This is a pretty general topic. Do you mean world wide? Generally, as a species? I could do the hippie thing...

Dottie wrote:My point, to abuse your analogy, is that I believe boolean algebra to be more similar to a nail gun then a hammer. It's difficult for me to see what boolean algebra can be used for and the risk is that to many people are led to believe that it makes a good substitute for knowledge.

I wonder if we aren't thinking at cross purposes, here. When I think of Boolean logic as a means to disprove fallacies, consider improper transpositions:

If p then q.
Therefore, if not-p then not-q.

or--

If not-p then not-q.
Therefore, if p then q.

With proper examples, this is (in my opinion) an excellent way to teach young kids to catch onto something that doesn't make sense. A lot of politicians would not be pleased with this kind of education. All the more reason to consider it.

I'll second the Boolean logic, and maybe throw a bit on Ockham's Razor in for good measure.

I'd also like to see a lot more emphasis on the actual scientific method being taught in science classes, and suggest this would be the ideal opportunity to teach about Intelligent Design.

I second sociology and history, not becouse they were my favorite subjects even if i already knew more than my teachers or was in par with them and, only saw it for three terms. I would recommend a more diverse and interactive way of teaching them. becouse "most" of the people i know of my age(18) and lower see history as something dull and practicly useless therefor hampering a useful source of informetion that could help in future situations to avoid making mistakes done already or at least help recognice the begining of one.

other than i would have love to learn more about Quimestry but sadly it became my second most hated subject due to bad teachers and not interesting format of giving class.

please bear with my bad grammar which at least for most latin american countries it lacks I learned all that i know by my self and im still above average english speaking people in my country.

prehaps a motivation class would work for most thrid world countries

Moonbiter wrote:@Fable: This is a pretty general topic. Do you mean world wide? Generally, as a species? I could do the hippie thing...

If you had control of all schools, yes:what should be added to the curriculum at any given point, and why?

fable wrote:I wonder if we aren't thinking at cross purposes, here. When I think of Boolean logic as a means to disprove fallacies, consider improper transpositions:

If p then q.
Therefore, if not-p then not-q.

or--

If not-p then not-q.
Therefore, if p then q.

With proper examples, this is (in my opinion) an excellent way to teach young kids to catch onto something that doesn't make sense. A lot of politicians would not be pleased with this kind of education. All the more reason to consider it.

We are talking about the same thing then. While these types of errors certainly appears in politics I believe there are other types that are more frequent.

"Immigrants come here to abuse our welfare"
"Homosexuality is not natural"
"If you live in sweden you should embrace swedish values"

These are statements that are very dubious, but it's difficult to analyse them by identifying logical connectives.

In addition to this I sometimes wonder if the abilities similar to make a proof in natural deduction really does increase the chance that you will spot affirming a disjunct in the wild. I've seen so many people that are good at the former but inept at the later...

Dottie wrote:We are talking about the same thing then. While these types of errors certainly appears in politics I believe there are other types that are more frequent.

"Immigrants come here to abuse our welfare"
"Homosexuality is not natural"
"If you live in sweden you should embrace swedish values"

These are statements that are very dubious, but it's difficult to analyse them by identifying logical connectives.

I completely agree: their flaws are more difficult to analyze using Boolean logic, but that logic itself would demand clarity of statement, something none of these possess. A person trained in even the rudiments of logic would note this, and start digging deeper.

I still don't perceive your objections to Boolean logic being taught at a young age to children, however. What would they specifically stand to lose?

In addition to this I sometimes wonder if the abilities similar to make a proof in natural deduction really does increase the chance that you will spot affirming a disjunct in the wild. I've seen so many people that are good at the former but inept at the later...

All of us are guilty of ignoring logic from time to time--some of us, much of the time. I'm just not sure why this invalidates teaching Boolean logic to children as a useful aid, since from all I can tell, it's never been attempted.

History needs to be taught better. With a major focus on past actions and future consequences. Learning about past mistakes is one thing, as it is easy to point laugh and say "wow that was stupid", but it is far harder in the heat of the moment to not make the same mistake.

Britain and France thought it was a good idea to screw Germany over after WWI, but the treaty of Versailles led directly to Hitler's rise to power and all the havoc that came with WWII. I suppose the real question that could be discussed in a classroom is just what would have happened if the treaty had been more honorable. Would Germany have been happier as a second rate power (as opposed to the impoverished wasteland they were in the '20s) or would there still have been a nationalist uprising?

One thing that is certain, the current educational model does not encourage critical thought and a lack of critical thought leads directly to people reading Dan Brown books as history and believing in moon landing hoaxes.

That reminds me, another good one I'd like to see is a bit more on mass communication techniques, especially re advertising and propaganda.

Dottie wrote:We are talking about the same thing then. While these types of errors certainly appears in politics I believe there are other types that are more frequent.

"Immigrants come here to abuse our welfare"
"Homosexuality is not natural"
"If you live in sweden you should embrace swedish values"

These are statements that are very dubious, but it's difficult to analyse them by identifying logical connectives.

In addition to this I sometimes wonder if the abilities similar to make a proof in natural deduction really does increase the chance that you will spot affirming a disjunct in the wild. I've seen so many people that are good at the former but inept at the later...

But statements like these have nothing to do with logical reasoning. Logic is used to derive knowledge from statements that already have a known truth value (if we're talking boolean logic here). The determination of that truth value is a completely different matter. So yes, we can say "If you live in Sweden, then you should embrace swedish values", but that doesn't make the logic variable "swedes should embrace swedish values" true in any way. MISusing logic is what a logic class should combat in my opinion.

fable wrote:All of us are guilty of ignoring logic from time to time--some of us, much of the time. I'm just not sure why this invalidates teaching Boolean logic to children as a useful aid, since from all I can tell, it's never been attempted.

The thing that scares me is a self righteous culture that I percive very much exists in some groups that do have boolean algebra as a compulsory subjects. There is certainly a great chance that those two things are unrelated, but to me they don't seem to help much either.

I should stress that it's not that I belive it would be disastrous in any way, I just question whether it would be worth the time spent on it.

fable wrote:I completely agree: their flaws are more difficult to analyze using Boolean logic, but that logic itself would demand clarity of statement, something none of these possess. A person trained in even the rudiments of logic would note this, and start digging deeper.

Celos wrote:But statements like these have nothing to do with logical reasoning. Logic is used to derive knowledge from statements that already have a known truth value (if we're talking boolean logic here). The determination of that truth value is a completely different matter. So yes, we can say "If you live in Sweden, then you should embrace swedish values", but that doesn't make the logic variable "swedes should embrace swedish values" true in any way. MISusing logic is what a logic class should combat in my opinion.

Sorry for taking such a stupid example, maybe it did nothing to help illustrate my point. What I should have said is that there is very little structure that can be gained from analysing many texts using boolean algebra. Even if you look at a sensible text I belive in most cases you will end up with a huge amount of logical variables, a very small number of connectives and almost no strict logical proofs.

That might be true, but as fable pointed out earlier, if you understand logic then it's much easier to figure out whether someone is talking sense or trying to pull one on you. You see faulty reasoning and start asking questions, that's the hope at least (maybe then people would also be less susceptible to propaganda and politicians could actually say something resonable instead of "If we pass this bill, then old people will die!"). For example, I see absolutely no connection between compulsory subjects and self-richeousness. Maybe you could explain that train of thought a bit more?

What I do agree with is that boolean logic is a difficult subject to teach well: try making someone understand how "If the Earth is flat then I am from Mars" is logically a correct sentence.