Marc Pembroke (maplawqb@clic.net)
Sun, 19 Sep 1999 21:09:34 -0400
From: "Marc Pembroke" <maplawqb@clic.net> Subject: Re: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 18 Sep 1999 to 19 Sep 1999 Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 21:09:34 -0400
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Jan Spears wrote:
Comment 1:
determining what should be taught in the schools: 1. Teach what the
subject matter experts in each field deem most important. 2. Teach
> > what the students need to know to survive/thrive in our society. 3.
> > Teach what the students want to learn.
I would suggest a fourth: Teach students those materials which ground them
well in the history and culture of their country, state, and local
community, so they can understand who they are as adults, and how to
evaluate choices for the first three.
That might sound lofty and idealistic, but I believe it was the intention of
the American liberal arts colleges for several centuries. When we insisted
that people read Homer, Aristotle, Pliny and Plutarch, no one thought it
would lead to better farming, faster printing, or navigational skills. But
it was considered important, edifying, stimulating, and, generally valuable
for each generation to be exposed to the great minds of the past.
Trade schools developed around the idea of teaching a particular profession
or skill. They have always had their place, and I suppose always will.
Is there any reason why one should exclude the other?
As to basic "survival skills," I think schools should do part of that, but
parents can, and should do most of it. Unfortunately, many high school
graduates can't balance a checkbook, even though one or both parents can.
Whose fault is it that the kids don't know some of the basics.
I heard one lady call into a radio talk show asking for materials on how to
set up a basic household budget. She said she had never done so before, but
knew it was important. That's fine, so far as it goes. In this case, the
young lady was a practicing attorney!
So Ania Lian is probably right in saying that there may be a lot less
critical thinking going on than we would like to admit.
On the other hand, we need to be careful about over-generalization. There
are always a few people around who believe that everything has been
discovered. I don't recall the exact year, but one 19th-century U.S. patent
officer resigned from his position, believing that everything had already
been invented, and that his job would become obsolete.
Fortunately, such people have never been a deterrent to a large community of
creative thinkers. Is one, or the other, a Western phenomenon? How would we
know?
Interestingly enough, I find that plenty of research facilities have
extremely diverse working environments. The fact is that one finds Syrians,
Italians, Japanese, Indians, and Americans all working together on very
advanced, sophisticated projects. I gather that this means that human
creativity can be expressed from many different cultural perspectives.
At the same time, few of us, if any, actually absorb an entire world view
and philosophy in a consistent manner. Many scientists will say that they
like to "watch the sun set" even if they do not believe in a geocentric
universe. We talk of "up" and "down" even though we know that on a sphere
in a gravitational field, it would be more accurate to talk of "in" and
"out." On the other hand, I recall reading a number of mathematical proofs
described as "elegant." I have no problem with that, but I mean that even
the most objective of mathematicians has human emotions and responds
esthetically as well as intellectually.
So, when we attempt to talk about "truth" whether universal, local,
relative, or absolute, most of us are not nearly so rigorous as the topic
might demand to avoid misunderstanding.
Most of us accept without question that 2+2= 4 in every country. We also
think it is true on every planet in every solar system and every galaxy.None
of us has tested this theory outside of the earth and its moon.
On a more philosophical scale, I may personally believe that it is wrong to
pickpocket a stranger in a bus station. I know it is illegal in the United
States, Canada, and France. I have not looked at the statutes of every
country. However, I don't think I can find a city where stealing from the
pocket of a stranger would be considered legal, or "good" or "positive."
That is not to say that the police may be more or less efficient in one city
or another. The courts may be more or less severe. However, if I am correct
in thinking that theft is considered wrong in every bus station on earth,
would that make theft "universally wrong?"
For those who don't believe that pick-pocketing in bus stations is, or
should be, prohibited in all bus stations, kindly provide a list of those
places where it is permitted and encouraged. I,and, I suppose others, would
like to avoid going there.
Suppose that we agree that theft is wrong everywhere. Is it possible to draw
a clear distinction between the ethical, judicial, religious, and social
aspects of that conclusion? In other words, is the "universal" aspect of the
"wrongness" of theft a phenomenon of anthropology? of revelation? of
philosophy? of political power? Is it several or all of the above?
Marc A. Pembroke
Directeur, Institut Auguste Lecerf
University of Phoenix practitioner faculty
6401, rue des Camomilles Apt 2
Charny, QC G6X3E8
Canada
(418) 832-7168
maplawqb@clic.net
http://www.clic.net/~maplawqb
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon 20 Sep 1999 - 05:43:38 MEST