This talk gives me flashbacks to when i left the religion i'd grown up in. You start with the assumption that although you don't understand something - other people around you surely do. But over the years, it became apparent that there was absolutely no-one who really understood the things they all claimed to. Everyone was assuming other people got it, but it was just a big circle, there was no source of authority in there at all. The way it was sustaining itself, was by ejecting from the group anyone who started to question it, so their suspicion wouldn't catch on & spread through the group.
I always thought that directing high school physics and trigonometry students to tackle classic laws of nature from scratch would make a phenomenal curriculum.
You'd need to start from a base in psychology, teach what we know of cognitive biases & logical fallacies. Kids have to understand how difficult it is to really _know_ truth from fiction, to really appreciate how difficult (and important) it is. You'd probably dip into psychology a lot there, you'd be referencing a lot of famous thought experiments. But then... before all that you might need to teach the kids how evolution works, so they can understand WHY our brains are so susceptible to these mental shortcuts in the first place. But frankly, before kids would even be motivated to learn these sorts of things, they'd first need to live their lives to develop an appreciation for what they want to strive after in life. A kid won't want to become an engineer until she's lived life enough to be inspired to strive after it. What i'm saying is that it might not be a good idea to teach ANY of the above stuff to kids, if they don't feel it's relevant to their experience then it'll all just bore them. If someone tried to teach me epistemology as a young kid, it would have been torture, but by the time i was a young adult my life experiences had made me incredibly interested in the subject - i learned really fast coz i was thirsty for it. Ironically, the stuff that was more relevant and appreciable to me as a kid, was probably closer to the sortof stuff that i was actually being taught at the time. As a kid i would have likely NEVER appreciated the importance of starting from first principles and extrapolating out from there, all i wanted was someone to tell me what clouds were.
This was one of my favorite experiences in elementary school: the class of 4th graders was divided into six groups. The one I was in was given a bag of clear plastic discs with the only explanation - in effect- "work together to finish the task." There was discussion and frustration about what this might mean we should do. Our group got mad about kids from other groups spying on our "project." Then we decided to cheat and spy on other groups. Slowly we figured out that we were allowed to talk to each other. Eventually a few of us started to trade parts until each group had a working flashlight.
I thought about what you said. I am wondering Do you think ways-of-knowing should be taught? Do you think ways-of-knowing can be taught systematically and productively? I cannot tell whether you are questioning this particular project I purposed, or the idea of teaching epistemology in general. I will fully acknowledge there are specific challenges in teaching adolescents, and and institutional factors in the U.S. Education system that would hamper systemic change...I think it is important to assume that epistemology is being taught, it is always being taught by any particular manner of schooling. How flawed the model can be and still benefit the individual and society is maybe the question. And, I think this is what the speaker is talking about - it's not about "education," it's about an evolutionary-solution that shapes our primate-group knowledge with mixed results.
It'd work. My main underlying point is that i think it's dangerous to try to force kids to learn things they aren't interested in, as it can give them a distaste for the subject, & even a distaste for all learning. But how do you get a kid interested in epistemiology? I worry it might be an interest that has to be experienced, and can't be taught. Sortof like how only someone who has been a soldier, knows the true value of peace. Do you think an interest in epistemology can be fostered in kids?
I would agree that I think the Venn diagram of the general student population and students who would take an elective called Epistemology is probably pretty narrow. But the same could be said for AP Linguistics. It's a narrow set that wants to formally learn the principles of the study, but the practice and principles of linguistics are informally and formally part of curriculum at every level of instruction. Even without saying it, it's there - and I think there are ways to tease the interest of students typically with puzzles, games, projects, and challenges.
Dunning Kruger effect. We don't know what we don't know. We are so ignorant we can't comprehend how vast our ignorance is. From online communities to real world politics, the age of information has not brought about a new renaissance. It's merely given voices to the uneducated communities that were voiceless in pre-digital media.
What we need is a a Coherentist theory of knowledge which is adaptable to new scientific findings because nothing is ever immune to error.... only analytic truths are certain which are only cogs within the coherent system...similar to Quinean Holism. We need Philosophy taught as a foundation in schools so that all our children have the ability to use critical thinking ....then we will grow a community that can admit that they do not have knowledge until they ask themselves ...'how do I know that?'' before they ever assert a 'false belief'.....that is the only way to stop Justified false beliefs!
This talk gives me flashbacks to when i left the religion i'd grown up in. You start with the assumption that although you don't understand something - other people around you surely do. But over the years, it became apparent that there was absolutely no-one who really understood the things they all claimed to. Everyone was assuming other people got it, but it was just a big circle, there was no source of authority in there at all.
The way it was sustaining itself, was by ejecting from the group anyone who started to question it, so their suspicion wouldn't catch on & spread through the group.
Yuval Noah harrari made me acknowledged about sloman.
Me too! Reading right now.
I always thought that directing high school physics and trigonometry students to tackle classic laws of nature from scratch would make a phenomenal curriculum.
You'd need to start from a base in psychology, teach what we know of cognitive biases & logical fallacies.
Kids have to understand how difficult it is to really _know_ truth from fiction, to really appreciate how difficult (and important) it is. You'd probably dip into psychology a lot there, you'd be referencing a lot of famous thought experiments.
But then... before all that you might need to teach the kids how evolution works, so they can understand WHY our brains are so susceptible to these mental shortcuts in the first place.
But frankly, before kids would even be motivated to learn these sorts of things, they'd first need to live their lives to develop an appreciation for what they want to strive after in life. A kid won't want to become an engineer until she's lived life enough to be inspired to strive after it. What i'm saying is that it might not be a good idea to teach ANY of the above stuff to kids, if they don't feel it's relevant to their experience then it'll all just bore them. If someone tried to teach me epistemology as a young kid, it would have been torture, but by the time i was a young adult my life experiences had made me incredibly interested in the subject - i learned really fast coz i was thirsty for it.
Ironically, the stuff that was more relevant and appreciable to me as a kid, was probably closer to the sortof stuff that i was actually being taught at the time. As a kid i would have likely NEVER appreciated the importance of starting from first principles and extrapolating out from there, all i wanted was someone to tell me what clouds were.
This was one of my favorite experiences in elementary school: the class of 4th graders was divided into six groups. The one I was in was given a bag of clear plastic discs with the only explanation - in effect- "work together to finish the task." There was discussion and frustration about what this might mean we should do. Our group got mad about kids from other groups spying on our "project." Then we decided to cheat and spy on other groups. Slowly we figured out that we were allowed to talk to each other. Eventually a few of us started to trade parts until each group had a working flashlight.
I thought about what you said. I am wondering Do you think ways-of-knowing should be taught? Do you think ways-of-knowing can be taught systematically and productively? I cannot tell whether you are questioning this particular project I purposed, or the idea of teaching epistemology in general. I will fully acknowledge there are specific challenges in teaching adolescents, and and institutional factors in the U.S. Education system that would hamper systemic change...I think it is important to assume that epistemology is being taught, it is always being taught by any particular manner of schooling. How flawed the model can be and still benefit the individual and society is maybe the question. And, I think this is what the speaker is talking about - it's not about "education," it's about an evolutionary-solution that shapes our primate-group knowledge with mixed results.
It'd work.
My main underlying point is that i think it's dangerous to try to force kids to learn things they aren't interested in, as it can give them a distaste for the subject, & even a distaste for all learning.
But how do you get a kid interested in epistemiology?
I worry it might be an interest that has to be experienced, and can't be taught. Sortof like how only someone who has been a soldier, knows the true value of peace.
Do you think an interest in epistemology can be fostered in kids?
I would agree that I think the Venn diagram of the general student population and students who would take an elective called Epistemology is probably pretty narrow. But the same could be said for AP Linguistics. It's a narrow set that wants to formally learn the principles of the study, but the practice and principles of linguistics are informally and formally part of curriculum at every level of instruction. Even without saying it, it's there - and I think there are ways to tease the interest of students typically with puzzles, games, projects, and challenges.
There is a fine line between "group thinking" and "common knowledge". I feel they have been used interchangeably in this lecture.
"knowledge" is an illusion
Dunning Kruger effect. We don't know what we don't know. We are so ignorant we can't comprehend how vast our ignorance is.
From online communities to real world politics, the age of information has not brought about a new renaissance. It's merely given voices to the uneducated communities that were voiceless in pre-digital media.
economcs has a lot to force people to assume things are what others say they are "business" is good always withoiut any further definition
What we need is a a Coherentist theory of knowledge which is adaptable to new scientific findings because nothing is ever immune to error.... only analytic truths are certain which are only cogs within the coherent system...similar to Quinean Holism. We need Philosophy taught as a foundation in schools so that all our children have the ability to use critical thinking ....then we will grow a community that can admit that they do not have knowledge until they ask themselves ...'how do I know that?'' before they ever assert a 'false belief'.....that is the only way to stop Justified false beliefs!
You should read The Will To Believe by James. He would disagree with you.
We're ignorant of our flaws -- a recipe for disaster!
dunning-kruger
honestly scientists need to get away from the madness and protect the human brain from de evolving
people who claim to have "common sense" seem to be the worst at this