[lit-ideas] Re: Sounds right to me
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:10:34 -0600
JMc:
>>The sneaky agenda, here, is to have more people habitually turning to the the
>>rigorous and critical thinking that mathematics and scientific method
>>require.<<
All well and good, but the world, unfortunately, is peopled by lazy fools like
me who much prefer the ease of unrigorous prejudice and the comfort of
community mores. You're going to have to come up with something more comfy
than mathematics and scientific method to get me to give up my McDonalds. I've
long practiced something similar to Phil's description of the Indonesian
approach to 'thought and truth' -- it's a long and winding road that most often
just circles back. But then, I am very lazy. I amble where others dare to
walk.
Mike Geary
laid back on a lazy Saturday in Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: John McCreery
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:57 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Sounds right to me
This isn't about providing dreams, which always, if they are good ones,
exceed the common ground. It is instead about selecting the most useful
curriculum to create a common ground in the present historical moment. The
recommendation here is to replace a priori reasoning with empirical research
aimed at ranking possible subjects from less to more controversial and to build
the core curriculum around concepts that are least controversial and most
widely shared, not just in one country or sect, but worldwide. Individuals
would then be free to go off in all sorts of directions but also reasonably
confident of having some common ground on which to base discussion with any
other educated person they met. I said "utopian" didn't I?
John
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John McCreery wrote:
"How, then, might we select the tools, a.k.a., useful ideas that might
form the core of a 21st education for people who must cope with
information overload and all sorts of different people?"
I appreciate John's quote from Geertz and his comments. The only
hesitation I have is over the above sentence. I don't think we are in
a position to anticipate what will happen in the future nor should we
be selecting tools for people.* Borrowing from Oakschott, we are at
sea and there are no stars to guide us, so the best we can do is
prepare ourselves for whatever may come. At this point I would return
to John's comments. From experience, we know that math, physical
sciences, accounting and human rights are very useful in many
different ways, and so we should make training in these disciplines
available.
I suppose if I were to summarize my hesitation with John's comments,
it would be that I would not want to posit an outcome for education
beyond providing opportunities for students to receive training in
subjects that may be useful in the future. On the other hand, I would
want to encourage students to dream and have a vision for a future
they can work towards using the tools we provide. I just don't think
that we teachers are in the business of providing visions for people.
*There is a de facto selection that happens when schools decide what
programs to fund and what courses to offer. In a liberal society, the
hope is that a wide variety of educational institutions will exist
allowing for people to choose.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
