Reply
Sat 25 Nov, 2006 06:42 am
Let's talk about 101
Most colleges have a numbering system identifying the courses being taught. In the college catalogue you are apt to find that your freshman courses are Physics 101, Chemistry 101, Literature 101, Geography 101, etc. The introductory course to a particular domain of knowledge is likely to be numbered 101. This has led to the common usage of 101 as meaning an introductory course.
If elementary schools followed this format, which they do not, you would see first graders taking Reading 101, Writing 101, and Arithmetic 101.
Only recently have our (US) educational institutions come to the realization that teaching youngsters what to think is necessary but not sufficient. The educational community has decided that our schools and colleges must begin to teach young people HOW to think. Our schools and colleges must begin teaching Reasoning 101.
Twelve years after graduating with an engineering degree I took a night course, Logic 101 (i.e. Reasoning 101), from the physics department of a local college. I was amazed to discover that I had no knowledge about this fundamental human capacity of reasoning before I took this course. I pondered the unbelievable fact that after 16 years of education I had no comprehension of the science of reasoning. I recognized at that moment that my educational system had seriously short-changed me.
That this serious omission is still universal was once again brought to my attention recently when I posted this response to a fellow forum member: "Reading is fundamental. Writing is fundamental. CT (Critical Thinking) is fundamental. These fundamental elements of human knowledge appear constantly and in all matters because of their fundamental nature." With the following reply: "
sleeping is even more fundamental than all of those... I don't think everyone needs to study sleeping - practice seems good enough."
Quote:That this serious omission is still universal was once again brought to my attention recently when I posted this response to a fellow forum member...
Do you really think that a comment from an A2K posting is an accurate indicator of "universal" omissions in American education? Might it not be more consistent with sound reasoning to base your assessment of American education on, say, observations of actual school curricula? Just a suggestion.
Coberst, do you suppose it significant that the physics department's version of Logic 101 seemed useful. It occurs to me that a course with a similar title might have been offered through the humanities department.
roger wrote:Coberst, do you suppose it significant that the physics department's version of Logic 101 seemed useful. It occurs to me that a course with a similar title might have been offered through the humanities department.
Logic 101 seems to be more properly taught by the philosophy dept. These other domains of knowledge depend on logical thinking but they place this logic in the algorythms that are memorized by the students to allow them to think logically when operating in their particular field. The students of all fields learn to think logicall in their particular field because they are taught specific formulas for functioning in thier field. Only the philosophy dept teaches the science of reason as a topic.
coberst wrote:Only the philosophy dept teaches the science of reason as a topic.
I have seen such classes offered by both English and Rhetoric departments. Some schools even have explicitly designated Logic programs.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace