DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:That gets into a chicken egg debate. Maybe they should quit teaching our children **** ideologies and theoretical science and start teaching them how to become capitalist. No, there's enough crap to the umpteenth degree being peddled it's no wonder society is degenerating.

no education worth squat ought to focus on 'becoming capitalist'. Education should be about critical thinking and we don't do that very well any more, in many schools.

So the U of P Wharton School of Business is crap?

no education worth squat ought to focus on 'becoming capitalist'. Education should be about critical thinking and we don't do that very well any more, in many schools.

Critical thinking skills are a gift from parents, schools should be focused on teaching people how to prosper within whatever system of Government and finance it happens to be. The first step to that is to define it for what it really is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaWt6Vu ... ded#at=159

Couldn't help myself, I'm a Kenny Rogers fan

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:That gets into a chicken egg debate. Maybe they should quit teaching our children **** ideologies and theoretical science and start teaching them how to become capitalist. No, there's enough crap to the umpteenth degree being peddled it's no wonder society is degenerating.

no education worth squat ought to focus on 'becoming capitalist'. Education should be about critical thinking and we don't do that very well any more, in many schools.

So the U of P Wharton School of Business is crap?

No, because there is no way Wharton focuses on teaching people to become capitalists. Further, Flip seemed to imply that such teaching ought to be with children. Graduate school in Business is not for 'children' by anyones definition.

flip wrote:

no education worth squat ought to focus on 'becoming capitalist'. Education should be about critical thinking and we don't do that very well any more, in many schools.

Critical thinking skills are a gift from parents, schools should be focused on teaching people how to prosper within whatever system of Government and finance it happens to be. The first step to that is to define it for what it really is.

utter nonsense. Critical thinking is a learned skill.

Kids need to read philosophy - not moral philosophy, mind you, but stuff about logic and truth. I'd recommend simplified versions of Wittgenstein, but I may be biased there, he is my favorite philosopher.

Flip seemed to imply that such teaching ought to be with children. Graduate school in Business is not for 'children' by anyones definition.

Taken totally out of context and lacks any substance of a real argument. First thing would be to define children? I have 4, all at different stages of their lives. When would be the best time to define to these children exactly what world they live in? You can believe and take this to the bank, in my house, I am the pre-eminent teacher of my children. I also am pretty damn good about how I go about it, because when my kids hear some ★■◆● at school that doesn't even make sense to them. I clear it up for them. Also, no one will take as much an interest in your own children as you yourself would. No I train my children myself, it's my right and responsibility. I imagine with your " hell yeah the rich have always ruled and always should" attitude, you might have a problem with people 'really' thinking for themselves. At least that what you seem to imply.

I think that's going a bit far, flip.

Also, I would like to say that just because you do a good job of teaching and raising your children (and kudos for that), it does not follow that everyone does a good job of it.

LOL, all the ★■◆● I say and thats going too far. LOL. Well at any rate, I reserve the right to determine my children's education as you do yours to mail pictures of your penis . I can't help that a majority of people have become exasperated and threw their hands up with the constant onslaught of filth. Chicken and Egg again. So, in your estimation, Slick is right. The rich and influential should have sole discretion at what gets taught to the masses or do responsible Parents reserve that inalienable right? Because I see clashes.

So at what age should we be teaching our children to be cynics?

I think we should teach our children the basics, and we start the preparation for life courses, we should start teaching children how to create jobs, and become self reliant, instead of the tired old Edison model of getting a job.

How am I being cynic? I'm pointing out obvious facts that your debates here for years have totally disregarded. Fear makes a man dangerous.

flip wrote:The rich and influential should have sole discretion at what gets taught to the masses

I never said that, and I don't think Slick did, either.

Well, I would be interested in Slicks proposal's. I was basing my guess's on facts.

EDIT: If I sound like I'm being an ass, I'm not. These conversations are a lot more fun in real life. I'm not in any way trying to single you out Slick, I was merely responding to your comment that missed the gist of what I was saying. Stuff comes across harsher than when spoken on the internet.

flip I wasn’t saying you were being a cynic, in fact I agree with you…I was just busting on Slick with the analogy between cynicism and critical thinking.

Maybe I should use the quote button more.

Heh, my bad. Now I do feel like an ass

flip wrote:Heh, my bad. Now I do feel like an ass

Who's ass ?

null0010 wrote:Kids need to read philosophy - not moral philosophy, mind you, but stuff about logic and truth. I'd recommend simplified versions of Wittgenstein, but I may be biased there, he is my favorite philosopher.

agreed, although without the Wittgenstein specifics, and I'd add that kids need to learn about the Arts, to develop creative thinking. They need to understand History, Civics(government) and a host of other subjects that build well-rounded, thinking adults. The details of any field of endeavor can be taught to anyone with these basic mental skills that has the interest to learn them.

Who's ass ?

Lol, your's if I so desired BOYEE .

flip wrote:When would be the best time to define to these children exactly what world they live in? You can believe and take this to the bank, in my house, I am the pre-eminent teacher of my children.

as it should be, and yes, it likely should be you that takes the pre-eminent role from day one in explaining the world in which they live. However, the educational system will(or ought to) give them the tools with which to analyze problems critically. Interesting spin you have on my attitude, but allow me to feed into it with the fact that the rich ALWAYS send their kids to the best schools, the ones that teach critical thinking and problem solving and provide a broad, rich educational experience. I wish such experiences were available to every child in our society and for that matter every society. No so, of course.

True enough Slick, yet that is what made our way of life here so different from any other in history. For awhile, it was exactly like that. ANY man that had ambition and a little common sense could be wealthy and successful. That was the beauty of the whole system and was that way for awhile. No I see the rich again, as you state they always have, seize opportunity to hoard and gather to themselves when they saw it. It's unjust no?

callmeslick wrote:.....agreed, although without the Wittgenstein specifics, and I'd add that kids need to learn about the Arts, to develop creative thinking. They need to understand History, Civics(government) and a host of other subjects that build well-rounded, thinking adults. The details of any field of endeavor can be taught to anyone with these basic mental skills that has the interest to learn them.

My spouse and I were discussing the teaching of history and civics the other night. The usual rote memorization of previous human history as dates, events and people, seems a little pointless, especially to bored kids and young adults. Sure, you can teach that this happened on that date and this person invented that item and so forth, boooooooooring, but it just doesn't give the nuances of what was going on back when things actually happened. And then, how do you teach history when history is so fluid and is constantly being altered and changed by those writers, people or politicians who don't like the way it was written originally? Even long after the events happened too. It's so easy to change, just write some new history. It's going on right now at this very moment in the southern states of the U.S., and it concerns their history about slavery. It appears that they don't like their historical images of slavery, so why not just change the history books to scrub it out and make it palatable?

So what I'm talking about the opinions or perceptions of what happened at any one time. That's what's missing when teaching the past. History can be altered by any author(s) writing about that history, person or event. Teaching history can be fraught with the same problem, a set of personal opinions can creep in during any history presentation. There is no solid, unbiased frame of reference to cite history for those who follow. Even today, as history is currently being made, there is still a bias or varied perception of those events by the opinions of those who witness it. It can't be avoided.

There was one master a teaching history, albeit on television, that I found I enjoyed and retained more of. It was an old show on PBS by James Burke, called 'Connections'. He approached history from a whole different perspective. It wasn't all boring rote memorization of dates and names, but how things and events influenced and connected other things and events. Absolutely fascinating. I think if history could be taught that way, more kids would pay attention and keep the information in their brains.

history definitely ought not be a rote memorization of dates and names, or else the student isn't learning to look at and learn from the past. Sure, it can always be argued that history is to some extent written by the victors,and that subjective opinions creep into the whole subject, but no truer statement was ever made than the old classic, "those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it"

I will make a rare agreement with Slick and TC If your focus on dates as a way to make students learn history, then the teacher fails. Teaching how a event happened, what the causative effects were and what was the aftermath, is something a student really needs to think about and learn.