Mandatory Logic

[Shadow Wolf]

Standardized testing has its merits, it's the standards that have to change. (I.e. testing for factual knowledge is widely overrated, the test should check for procedural knowledge. But they are harder to formulate and to judge.)

They do, but for a general education they should be used sparingly. This rote memory thing is a nasty issue that plagues the curriculum where I was home schooled, and while kids may appear impressively advanced from it the facts are deep learning is not feasible and the students don't do as well with procedural knowledge. And that's because they really aren't taught how to obtain, evaluate, and use information. It's just taking what is spoon fed to you and memorizing that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How much do you want to cram into the minds of kids? We could just keep adding subjects if we wanted to.

Eh... I suppose. Everything can be a simulation, though. It's not a very useful or practical to have for a belief, or a theory.

Some could say the same for belief in gods, but even then, some atheists agree that placebos from prayer can positively impact the lives of folks. How would one capitalize on placebos from belief in the Matrix?

Now let me show you how these 2 threads connect. If you had had enough philosophy, you would know that the Matrix is an useful negative, because it marks the limit of knowledge and is used to explain this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
And that connects to science and philosophy both.

Further since you want the young ones to learn logic, then connects to this:
First part - —Ayn Rand Lexicon

Now logic is connected to rationalism and thus we are in philosophy again. How? Well, it connects to this:
Abstract Thinking - GoodTherapy.org Therapy Blog

To teach children abstract thinking and that is what logic is, is also to teach them critical thinking and that is in the end skepticism.
Not that you believe in a positive sense in the Matrix, but that you know that the Matrix is a negative example in regards to how to understand the limits of knowledge and science.

 

[Yazata]

Should logic be made into a required subject of studies in public schools?

I don't think so, no.

Why, or why not?

Is there any evidence that studying logic makes one a better thinker?

One would have to define what "logic" means for one thing. Deduction? Induction? Abduction?

Most of the interesting work in logic these days consists of trying to better model thinking in ordinary language. That suggests that everyday reasoning is a stronger and more capable instrument than the symbolic systems that have been invented in hopes of modeling it. 20th century developments intended to expand the symbolic apparatus involve things like treatments of fuzzy logics, nonmonotonic logics, temporal logics, alethic modal logics, and many more.

The point being that either

1) young students are going to be taught something so simplistic that it can't really capture real-life everyday reasoning. That seems kind of pointless. Or else

2) those students are going to have to be taught something so complex, arcane and technical that even professional logicians aren't familiar with all of it. That's probably impossible.

I'm reminded of the famous quip attributed to the logician Morris Cohen:

"All logic texts are divided into two parts. In the first half, on deductive logic, the fallacies are explained. In the second half, on inductive logic, they are committed."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1) young students are going to be taught something so simplistic that it can't really capture real life everyday reasoning. That seems kind of pointless. Or else

2+2=4 is about as basic as it gets and the fundamental building blocks of nearly everything in our society. I wouldn't say that is pointless.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I don't think so, no.



Is there any evidence that studying logic makes one a better thinker?

One would have to define what "logic" means for one thing. Mathematical logic? Symbolic logic? Deductive logic? Inductive "logic"? Abduction?

Most of the interesting work in logic these days consists of trying to better model thinking in ordinary language. That involves things like treatments of fuzzy logics, probabilistic logics, nonmonotonic logics, temporal logics, modal logics, and many more.

The point being that either

1) young students are going to be taught something so simplistic that it can't really capture real life everyday reasoning. That seems kind of pointless. Or else

2) those students are going to have to be taught something so complex, arcane and technical that even professional logicians aren't familiar with all of it. That's probably impossible.

I think @Meow Mix summed my thoughts up perfectly is post #2. This is the concept I am suggesting.

What makes this subject anymore arcane than social studies, math, or science? Kids learn those subjects their entire time they are in school. As a subject that kids take year after year, logic would seem light and easy in comparison.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

2+2=4 is about as basic as it gets and the fundamental building blocks of nearly everything in our society. I wouldn't say that is pointless.

Well, not this, that science can't do and you can't do with logic:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[infrabenji]

I definitely agree!

Why do you think these aren't taught in public schools now? It seems like a valuable thing for kids to know.

I vehemently disagree! Logic should stay in the home! It’s a parents decision to teach their children logic. Having a stranger teach my kids about logic, never! The very idea goes against values of irrational thought and sophistry. Public school logic attacks and undermines the groundless assertions necessary for many students to lead safe, healthy, and illogical lives. Public school logic classes ignore individual differences among children and break down the natural gullibility of boys and girls. When children are taught academics, such as reading and mathematics, they are given material suitable to their level of readiness for this material. Yet, when it comes to the extremely sensitive area of logic, all children in the same grade level are given the same material, even if some are not yet physically or psychologically ready for intellection. This is insensitive and harmful. Furthermore, Public school syllogistic logic has never been shown to reduce teen credulity or naivety. As a matter of fact, a study in the March 2002 issue of the Journal of Fallacious Reasoning, entitled The Economics of Family Planning on Underage Irrationality, debunks the typical logic education model that providing intellectual tenableness to teens will reduce underage illogical thought. Indeed, the study found some evidence that greater access to logic is associated with an increase in underage misconceptions about reality.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Should logic be made into a required subject of studies in public schools? Why, or why not?

That is all.

Logically it would be more fun.

I would start the studies with retro programming.

MS-DOS.

That would blow a few logic circuits.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, though I think it should be a broader subject: logic, argument, identifying fallacy (not important to know fancy latin names, just identifying fallacy), identifying cognitive biases

I'm not sure where I stand on part of this.

Certainly logic and argumentation are useful, with fallacies and cognitive biases, while they are, in theory, useful, it can be a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

Knowledge of cognitive biases, and especially fallacies, can easily act as an impediment to thought rather than an aid. They function a bit like cliches by giving people pre-formed thoughts to use in lieu of actual thought, especially on emotive issues.

You see it here that the vast majority of times someone cries fallacy without an actual explanation, it is them who have made the error, and this wouldn't be possible without the pre-packaged thought than a basic knowledge of fallacies provides.

There are some studies that have shown that people with superior reasoning abilities are less likely to change their minds on strongly held opinions when presented with information which contradicts these.

The 'better' our toolbox, the easier it becomes to find reasons to reject that which challenges what we want to believe. They don't become tools to help us to think critically, but weapons to be used against others.

For school age students, I'm not really sure where the right balance lies though

 

[exchemist]

"Governments don't want a population capable of critical thinking, they want obedient workers, people just smart enough to run the machines and just dumb enough to passively accept their situation."

-George Carlin

Eh? Are you seriously suggesting that government suppresses the teaching of critical thinking in schools? Come off it, that's tinfoil hat territory.

 

[Heyo]

Eh? Are you seriously suggesting that government suppresses the teaching of critical thinking in schools? Come off it, that's tinfoil hat territory.

Texas GOP Declares: "No More Teaching of 'Critical Thinking Skills' in Texas Public Schools"

It's not always expressed so blatantly, but, yes, it happens.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Should logic be made into a required subject of studies in public schools? Why, or why not?

That is all.

Isn't it?

I mean, I didn't have one specific course called "logic," (though there was a heavy dose of boolean logic in my digital electronics classes in high school), but we had plenty of critical thinking sprinkled all through. Some examples:

- in grade 4, we did an exercise where the teacher dumped a bunch of newspapers on the table and we each had to find stories from 3 different papers about the same event or subject, then do a writing assignment about the differences between the stories.

- in high school physics, we had a unit on debunked theories: phlogiston, aether, geocentrism. We learned about how they were consistent with the evidence available at the time and what evidence refuted them.

- in grade 9, we had parallel material in English and History: while we were reading Richard III in English, in History, we were reading The Daughter of Time and examining how we could know whether Richard did what he was accused of and what reasons Shakespeare would have had to portray Richard the way he did.

Is this kind of thing not common practice?

 

[SigurdReginson]

Isn't it?

I mean, I didn't have one specific course called "logic," (though there was a heavy dose of boolean logic in my digital electronics classes in high school), but we had plenty of critical thinking sprinkled all through. Some examples:

- in grade 4, we did an exercise where the teacher dumped a bunch of newspapers on the table and we each had to find stories from 3 different papers about the same event or subject, then do a writing assignment about the differences between the stories.

- in high school physics, we had a unit on debunked theories: phlogiston, aether, geocentrism. We learned about how they were consistent with the evidence available at the time and what evidence refuted them.

- in grade 9, we had parallel material in English and History: while we were reading Richard III in English, in History, we were reading The Daughter of Time and examining how we could know whether Richard did what he was accused of and what reasons Shakespeare would have had to portray Richard the way he did.

Is this kind of thing not common practice?

Critical thinking was definitely not something I was taught in my education, though mine was a unique homeschool setting and didn't involve public education, so I'm kind of ignorant ad to what people are taught in schools, honestly.

No, my idea is more in line with Meow Mix's post in #2. A dedicated, mandatory subject for logic, argument, identifying logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Deeper critical thinking skills.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Eh? Are you seriously suggesting that government suppresses the teaching of critical thinking in schools? Come off it, that's tinfoil hat territory.

Maybe you could read down just a few more posts.

No, I don't think that. Where did you draw the conclusion that I think governments are suppressing the teaching of critical thinking skills? Anyone can take critical thinking courses like debate as an extracurricular activity - that's the point, though.

 

[exchemist]

Maybe you could read down just a few more posts.

No, I don't think that. Where did you draw the conclusion that I think governments are suppressing the teaching of critical thinking skills? Anyone can take critical thinking courses like debate as an extracurricular activity - that's the point, though.

OK fair enough. But I find Carlin's comment a bit glibly cynical and unjustified. As @9-10ths_Penguin says, any decent school teaches critical thinking throughout the curriculum anyway. There's not a lot of point is trying to hive it off as a separate subject. Any study of literature or history - or even the sciences - involves critical thinking implicitly.

It's one of the chief practical things that most people take away from education, I suspect: the demand to understand something and check the sources and the basis for it, before fully accepting it.

 

[SigurdReginson]

OK fair enough. But I find Carlin's comment a bit glibly cynical and unjustified. As @9-10ths_Penguin says, any decent school teaches critical thinking throughout the curriculum anyway. There's not a lot of point is trying to hive it off as a separate subject. Any study of literature or history - or even the sciences - involves critical thinking implicitly.

It's one of the chief practical things that most people take away from education, I suspect: the demand to understand something and check the sources and the basis for it, before fully accepting it.

And yet no one knows what logical fallacies or other logical pitfalls are unless they go out of their way to take extra classes or try to educate themselves on these things specifically. Whether or not "critical thinking" is taught in schools via a tertiary approach as part of certain subjects as it's done in it's current form, it seems people aren't getting the message. We can do better, IMO.

 

[exchemist]

And yet no one knows what logical fallacies or other logical pitfalls are unless they go out of their way to take extra classes or try to educate themselves on these things specifically. Whether or not "critical thinking" is taught in schools via a tertiary approach as part of certain subjects as it's done in it's current form, it seems people aren't getting the message. We can do better, IMO.

I'm not convinced that teaching people the formal labels for logical fallacies is particularly productive. You don't need to know all these labels to tell when an argument is flawed - though it's sometimes nice to pin down what kind of flaw it is, admittedly.

But I would agree very strongly that emphasising critical thinking is more and more important as we move into this new era of raw, democratised information, which has not been curated for us as it used to be in the era of the printed word. Perhaps we do need changes to the school curriculum, to introduce the ideas of checking sources, and checking for internal consistency, at an earlier stage in schools.