|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 05:47 Kickstart wrote:
notesfromunderground has to be a philosophy teacher or something ^^! i keed i keed
No but really what do you teach?
There is literally no way he teaches anything. He's pretty much the opposite of an educator. How could he be an educator? That would imply he was some sort of authority or expert in something, and he explicitly said that those kinds of people are to not be trusted. What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say.
My philosophy teacher said his job wasn't teach us who's right but to teach the class what different people's beliefs are and to let us make up our own minds. He does question certain claims that he thinks may not be correct though.I think it really depends on the class though, if your teaching math it's probably a bad idea. I mean you don't want to start talking about the ontological nature of numbers when your trying to explain how to do calculus.
to summarize my opinions on scientists, great at science, but don't treat them like because they know science all their other opinions are magically better then someone who's not a scientist, especially when it's relevent to their knowledge.
|
On October 30 2015 05:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 05:51 notesfromunderground wrote:I teach my students not to trust me because they shouldn't trust anybody. If you think that makes me "not an educator," then you must also think that Socrates was "not an educator." On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:]
What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say. if you are a teacher and your class is NOT like this, then you are a bad teacher and dishonest to boot. As someone who was a teacher for a little while, you are full of shit. Of course, I though high school, so I didn't have the benefit you had of everyone doing the hard work for me. 
Whether it's primary or secondary or undergraduate, it's definitely bullshit. He should be getting students to think critically and do research, not explicitly tell everyone that experts are full of shit and that we shouldn't care about facts and data. Especially when he's hypocritically making these statements as an authority figure.
|
On October 30 2015 05:59 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2015 05:47 Kickstart wrote:
notesfromunderground has to be a philosophy teacher or something ^^! i keed i keed
No but really what do you teach?
There is literally no way he teaches anything. He's pretty much the opposite of an educator. How could he be an educator? That would imply he was some sort of authority or expert in something, and he explicitly said that those kinds of people are to not be trusted. What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say. My philosophy teacher said his job wasn't teach us who's right but to teach the class what different people's beliefs are and to let us make up our own minds.
But if you were really learning, you wouldn't have trusted him at all and checked to make sure that making up your own mind was the right decision.
|
That is why I wanted to know what he taught. It would make perfect sense if he was a philosopher or something, but no sense if he taught maths or science or something lol.
|
On October 30 2015 05:59 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2015 05:47 Kickstart wrote:
notesfromunderground has to be a philosophy teacher or something ^^! i keed i keed
No but really what do you teach?
There is literally no way he teaches anything. He's pretty much the opposite of an educator. How could he be an educator? That would imply he was some sort of authority or expert in something, and he explicitly said that those kinds of people are to not be trusted. What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say. My philosophy teacher said his job wasn't teach us who's right but to teach the class what different people's beliefs are and to let us make up our own minds.
I agree with that perspective, of course, for philosophy. Assessing those things are important. I'm not sure why notesfromunderground isn't a fan of actually assessing such things, and instead insisting they're immediately wrong.
|
notesfromunderground what do you teach? And at what level/ grade?
|
On October 30 2015 05:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:
Tyson does the Carl Sagan thing of making science mystical. Moreover, he's a fan of scientism and completly dimisses, for instance, the use and purpose of philosophy. He's cringeworthy because he's more of a celebrity than a scientist, and consistently speaks on things he is wholly ignorant about. Such as?
Well I have to agree on that one with Introvert.
The moment you start bringing your personal belief system into governance, then that’s the end of pluralistic democracy. We have words for governance like that and they’re called dictatorships. You have a belief system, you have a philosophy, and that philosophy has some adherence and others have their own philosophies.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/20/neil_degrasse_tyson_lets_the_science_deniers_have_it_the_beginning_of_the_end_of_an_informed_democracy/
He pretty regularly elevates science to a worldview and neglects that it's just a methodology. He also seems unaware of the fact that we had in fact very scientific dictatorships on this planet not too long ago and he apparently believes you can have political beliefs without having personal beliefs.
|
On October 30 2015 06:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 05:58 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 05:51 notesfromunderground wrote:I teach my students not to trust me because they shouldn't trust anybody. If you think that makes me "not an educator," then you must also think that Socrates was "not an educator." On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:]
What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say. if you are a teacher and your class is NOT like this, then you are a bad teacher and dishonest to boot. As someone who was a teacher for a little while, you are full of shit. Of course, I though high school, so I didn't have the benefit you had of everyone doing the hard work for me. Whether it's primary or secondary or undergraduate, it's definitely bullshit. He should be getting students to think critically and do research, not explicitly tell everyone that experts are full of shit and that we shouldn't care about facts and data. Especially when he's hypocritically making these statements as an authority figure.
Got bad news for you, middlschoolers can't think critically, they brains are not developed enough. Need to wait till like 14-16 to even start. And its an acquired skills, so it takes them to teach them to even use it. So your plan is pretty bad. You should have believed the teacher in the child development class you took, or learned it on your own.
|
I'm going to quote Derrida here because I like how he put questioning assumptions, regardless of what you think of his works.
taken from learning to live finally
"one had the right to ask all questions. But when one responds to questions with falsifications or counter-truths, gestures that have nothing to do with honest research or critical thought, then that's something else. It's either incompetence or unjustified instrumentalism, and has to be reprimanded just like a bad student has to be reprimanded."
|
On October 30 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 06:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2015 05:58 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 05:51 notesfromunderground wrote:I teach my students not to trust me because they shouldn't trust anybody. If you think that makes me "not an educator," then you must also think that Socrates was "not an educator." On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:]
What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say. if you are a teacher and your class is NOT like this, then you are a bad teacher and dishonest to boot. As someone who was a teacher for a little while, you are full of shit. Of course, I though high school, so I didn't have the benefit you had of everyone doing the hard work for me. Whether it's primary or secondary or undergraduate, it's definitely bullshit. He should be getting students to think critically and do research, not explicitly tell everyone that experts are full of shit and that we shouldn't care about facts and data. Especially when he's hypocritically making these statements as an authority figure. Got bad news for you, middlschoolers can't think critically, they brains are not developed enough. Need to wait till like 14-16 to even start. And its an acquired skills, so it takes them to teach them to even use it. So your plan is pretty bad.
I disagree. Their brains aren't fully developed, but they're definitely capable of investigative tasks and problem solving and critical thinking, at least from a math perspective.
|
is notesfromunderground = sami? feel like I've heard this lecture before about technology worship and the cult around science.
|
On October 30 2015 06:02 Kickstart wrote:
That is why I wanted to know what he taught. It would make perfect sense if he was a philosopher or something, but no sense if he taught maths or science or something lol.
Independently verifying and assuring yourself of complex math/science concepts is a really good way to learn. Encouraging students to use instruction as a starting point for education is a very good thing. Is this the first time you guys have heard of this kinda thing? It's pretty common around here in the pacific northwest, for whatever that's worth.
|
On October 30 2015 06:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 06:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2015 05:58 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 05:51 notesfromunderground wrote:I teach my students not to trust me because they shouldn't trust anybody. If you think that makes me "not an educator," then you must also think that Socrates was "not an educator." On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:]
What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say. if you are a teacher and your class is NOT like this, then you are a bad teacher and dishonest to boot. As someone who was a teacher for a little while, you are full of shit. Of course, I though high school, so I didn't have the benefit you had of everyone doing the hard work for me. Whether it's primary or secondary or undergraduate, it's definitely bullshit. He should be getting students to think critically and do research, not explicitly tell everyone that experts are full of shit and that we shouldn't care about facts and data. Especially when he's hypocritically making these statements as an authority figure. Got bad news for you, middlschoolers can't think critically, they brains are not developed enough. Need to wait till like 14-16 to even start. And its an acquired skills, so it takes them to teach them to even use it. So your plan is pretty bad. I disagree. Their brains aren't fully developed, but they're definitely capable of investigative tasks and problem solving and critical thinking, at least from a math perspective.
You and I both know that its not something you can teach all the time to students. Its a skill and there are points in their development where they are more receptive to learning it. Just like long term planning and complex numbers. Each child is different, but there are subjects they need to be a specific age to be taught them.
|
On October 30 2015 06:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 05:59 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2015 05:47 Kickstart wrote:
notesfromunderground has to be a philosophy teacher or something ^^! i keed i keed
No but really what do you teach?
There is literally no way he teaches anything. He's pretty much the opposite of an educator. How could he be an educator? That would imply he was some sort of authority or expert in something, and he explicitly said that those kinds of people are to not be trusted. What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say. My philosophy teacher said his job wasn't teach us who's right but to teach the class what different people's beliefs are and to let us make up our own minds. But if you were really learning, you wouldn't have trusted him at all and checked to make sure that making up your own mind was the right decision.
So if in organic chemistry I drew a penis in response to a question about a reaction should I tell my professor to check his privilege cuz I could actually be right based on things and my worldview?
Philosophy is frameworks and a lot of really cool reasoning. Science (except for rather esoteric, cutting edge stuff) is very data driven. In God we trust, all others must bring data (my edit to that would be "god" data).
|
On October 30 2015 06:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 06:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2015 05:58 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 05:51 notesfromunderground wrote:I teach my students not to trust me because they shouldn't trust anybody. If you think that makes me "not an educator," then you must also think that Socrates was "not an educator." On October 30 2015 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:]
What a weird class that would be, to be the teacher but insist that the class not listen to anything you had to say. if you are a teacher and your class is NOT like this, then you are a bad teacher and dishonest to boot. As someone who was a teacher for a little while, you are full of shit. Of course, I though high school, so I didn't have the benefit you had of everyone doing the hard work for me. Whether it's primary or secondary or undergraduate, it's definitely bullshit. He should be getting students to think critically and do research, not explicitly tell everyone that experts are full of shit and that we shouldn't care about facts and data. Especially when he's hypocritically making these statements as an authority figure. Got bad news for you, middlschoolers can't think critically, they brains are not developed enough. Need to wait till like 14-16 to even start. And its an acquired skills, so it takes them to teach them to even use it. So your plan is pretty bad. I disagree. Their brains aren't fully developed, but they're definitely capable of investigative tasks and problem solving and critical thinking, at least from a math perspective.
there's actually a lot of debate about when and if to start teaching philosophy and types of critical thinking to people in both the academic and philisophical communities.
|
On October 30 2015 06:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 06:02 Kickstart wrote:
That is why I wanted to know what he taught. It would make perfect sense if he was a philosopher or something, but no sense if he taught maths or science or something lol. Independently verifying and assuring yourself of complex math/science concepts is a really good way to learn. Encouraging students to use instruction as a starting point for education is a very good thing. Is this the first time you guys have heard of this kinda thing? It's pretty common around here in the pacific northwest, for whatever that's worth.
I agreed with that point already. Our point of contention is whether or not there are 'authority figures' in these areas. To me there clearly are.
I think we fundamentally agree I just think others are conflating 'authority figure/expert' with 'whatever this person says is automatically correct and the truth and shouldn't be questions because they are the authority on everything that has to do with this topic'.
|
On October 30 2015 06:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 06:02 Kickstart wrote:
That is why I wanted to know what he taught. It would make perfect sense if he was a philosopher or something, but no sense if he taught maths or science or something lol. Independently verifying and assuring yourself of complex math/science concepts is a really good way to learn. Encouraging students to use instruction as a starting point for education is a very good thing. Is this the first time you guys have heard of this kinda thing? It's pretty common around here in the pacific northwest, for whatever that's worth.
That isn't the same thing as "never trust what I have to say". That's more like "All of what I'm teaching is falsifiable, if you don't believe me- you can check yourself"
|
Some trust is required in education, simply because we have long since reached the point where it is impossible for one person to be a universal scientist. You simply can not know how everything works in detail, because there is way too much everything to accumulate all of that knowledge in one lifetime. And that is with using the works of others before you.
A good example here would be high school chemistry. You can teach people about bindings between atoms depending on where in the period table they are, ionisation energies and all that stuff. But you can not explain at a high school level why atoms specifically like to have "full shells", why a full shell has the amount of electrons in it that it does, and so on. Because to answer that question, you need either major amounts of Quantum Mechanics, or just test it all on your own. Both of which have no point in a high school chemistry class. Thus students have to simply accept some basic ideas without testing them or understanding them based on authority.
On the other hand, a lack of acceptance of authority is rarely a problem in school. Students are usually all too happy to simply accept "because the teacher said so" as an answer to any question, so teaching them scepticism and how the scientific method actually works, how knowledge comes to be is an incredibly important part of teaching students. It just shouldn't be the only thing you teach them, because then they end up with a lot of scepticism and no actual knowledge at the end of school.
A good class isn't "this is how stuff is because i tell you so", or "Just figure shit out on your own" it is based on "This is how stuff is, and let me show/explain to you why it is like that, answering all arising questions satisfactory and genuinely"
|
On October 30 2015 06:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 05:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:
Tyson does the Carl Sagan thing of making science mystical. Moreover, he's a fan of scientism and completly dimisses, for instance, the use and purpose of philosophy. He's cringeworthy because he's more of a celebrity than a scientist, and consistently speaks on things he is wholly ignorant about. Such as? Well I have to agree on that one with Introvert. Show nested quote +The moment you start bringing your personal belief system into governance, then that’s the end of pluralistic democracy. We have words for governance like that and they’re called dictatorships. You have a belief system, you have a philosophy, and that philosophy has some adherence and others have their own philosophies. http://www.salon.com/2015/10/20/neil_degrasse_tyson_lets_the_science_deniers_have_it_the_beginning_of_the_end_of_an_informed_democracy/He pretty regularly elevates science to a worldview and neglects that it's just a methodology. He also seems unaware of the fact that we had in fact very scientific dictatorships on this planet not too long ago and he apparently believes you can have political beliefs without having personal beliefs.
In context, wasn't he just explaining the importance of basing politics off facts instead of personal beliefs? That promotion of science literacy seems to be in his wheelhouse, no? Later in that paragraph I think he ties it together well with "Now, getting back to your point, we have people in Congress whose job is to pass laws. If they pass laws based on things that are not objectively true, that’s the beginning of the end of an informed democracy." Perhaps a bit hyperbolic, I guess? But he's pushing the point about how important it is to be educated.
But either way, obviously you shouldn't accept everything he says (or anyone says) about every topic, especially if they're not an expert in that specific field. That doesn't mean we should dismiss him (or any other researcher or expert) entirely, especially regarding their actual expertise. We can always fact-check without calling people like him an idiot or a clown.
|
On October 30 2015 06:13 Simberto wrote:
Some trust is required in education, simply because we have long since reached the point where it is impossible for one person to be a universal scientist. You simply can not know how everything works in detail, because there is way too much everything to accumulate all of that knowledge in one lifetime. And that is with using the works of others before you.
A good example here would be high school chemistry. You can teach people about bindings between atoms depending on where in the period table they are, ionisation energies and all that stuff. But you can not explain at a high school level why atoms specifically like to have "full shells", why a full shell has the amount of electrons in it that it does, and so on. Because to answer that question, you need either major amounts of Quantum Mechanics, or just test it all on your own. Both of which have no point in a high school chemistry class. Thus students have to simply accept some basic ideas without testing them or understanding them based on authority.
On the other hand, a lack of acceptance of authority is rarely a problem in school. Students are usually all too happy to simply accept "because the teacher said so" as an answer to any question, so teaching them scepticism and how the scientific method actually works, how knowledge comes to be is an incredibly important part of teaching students. It just shouldn't be the only thing you teach them, because then they end up with a lot of scepticism and no actual knowledge at the end of school.
A good class isn't "this is how stuff is because i tell you so", or "Just figure shit out on your own" it is based on "This is how stuff is, and let me show/explain to you why it is like that, answering all arising questions satisfactory and genuinely"
Well put
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
