Comments on: The Store of Human Knowledge http://blog.commoncore.org/2009/11/25/the-store-of-human-knowledge/ Promoting a full core curriculum. Sat, 31 Dec 2011 04:01:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: The Week’s Best Blog Posts at The Core Knowledge Blog http://blog.commoncore.org/2009/11/25/the-store-of-human-knowledge/#comment-11076 The Week’s Best Blog Posts at The Core Knowledge Blog Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:21:33 +0000 http://blog.commoncore.org/?p=141#comment-11076 [...] Unintended Negative Consequences Common Core A new GAO report on Student Achievement concludes that standards-based accountability “influence[s] instructional practices in both positive and negative ways” and counts curriculum narrowing among the “unintended negative consequences.” [...] [...] Unintended Negative Consequences Common Core A new GAO report on Student Achievement concludes that standards-based accountability “influence[s] instructional practices in both positive and negative ways” and counts curriculum narrowing among the “unintended negative consequences.” [...]

]]> By: Eric http://blog.commoncore.org/2009/11/25/the-store-of-human-knowledge/#comment-11017 Eric Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:23:20 +0000 http://blog.commoncore.org/?p=141#comment-11017 The scientific method promotes progress, not change for change sake. The outlook is bleak for Peevish Scientismists for Change--unless they can stake out their niche in the 21st Century Skills movement. The scientific method promotes progress, not change for change sake.

The outlook is bleak for Peevish Scientismists for Change–unless they can stake out their niche in the 21st Century Skills movement.

]]> By: Ben F http://blog.commoncore.org/2009/11/25/the-store-of-human-knowledge/#comment-10990 Ben F Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:11:13 +0000 http://blog.commoncore.org/?p=141#comment-10990 Reginald's view sounds like peevish scientism to me. Shall we cast out the whole lot of Great Books (Western, Chinese, Indian, etc.) until each book's claims has peer-reviewed research to back them up? Does tradition deserve NO respect? Isn't it reasonable to suppose that traditions become traditions because they might harbor some genuine human value, and, dare I say it, truth? Reginald’s view sounds like peevish scientism to me. Shall we cast out the whole lot of Great Books (Western, Chinese, Indian, etc.) until each book’s claims has peer-reviewed research to back them up? Does tradition deserve NO respect? Isn’t it reasonable to suppose that traditions become traditions because they might harbor some genuine human value, and, dare I say it, truth?

]]> By: Reginald Smith http://blog.commoncore.org/2009/11/25/the-store-of-human-knowledge/#comment-10919 Reginald Smith Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:00:03 +0000 http://blog.commoncore.org/?p=141#comment-10919 "The fetishisation of change is symptomatic of a mood of intellectual malaise, where notions of truth, knowledge and meaning have acquired a provisional character." This is not intellectual malaise, it is called the scientific method and it has been the most successful intellectual and academic philosophy in the history of the world. Truths are provisional - show me the evidence, explain it with a model and think about what reason or evidence would contradict this claim. As a scientist, that is how I was trained to think, but more importantly, as a human being I have realized that many problems in society are made solvable through an application of this type of rational analysis. If your argument is that traditional knowledge is inherently valuable, you are obviously wrong. Traditional knowledge about astronomy - the earth is the center of the universe - of geology - the earth is a few thousand years old - of sociology - people native to equatorial regions are lazy and stupid - are clearly not true. They are false not because they are traditional or new ideas, but because they are claims that are falsified through a reasonable evaluation of the evidence. An ancient truth like the Pythagorean Theorem or a new discovery like a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem are equally true. The origin in time is irrelevant, all that should matter is the truth value. The only content that is relevant is content that is true, or at least that which is useful if the truth is not clear. Not all content is true, for example it is an opinion that Shakespeare was the greatest writer in the English language. There is a roll for opinion when the truth is not known, but to present history or literature as true fact when it is as much opinion as anything else, is as much of a disservice to students and society as teaching them that the earth is the center of the universe. Present opinion and discuss the reasons for and against the opinion, but if you cannot distinguish between truth and opinion you have no credibility when you attack other people for disagreeing with your beliefs - if it is all merely opinion, then you are not right and they are not wrong. Truth is provisional, as is utility, and if you wish to claim that some idea is important and worth being part of a curriculum, it is up to you to show how it is true and/or more useful than a similar idea. Where and when an idea originates, how long or fervently the idea has been held is completely irrelevant. “The fetishisation of change is symptomatic of a mood of intellectual malaise, where notions of truth, knowledge and meaning have acquired a provisional character.”

This is not intellectual malaise, it is called the scientific method and it has been the most successful intellectual and academic philosophy in the history of the world. Truths are provisional – show me the evidence, explain it with a model and think about what reason or evidence would contradict this claim.

As a scientist, that is how I was trained to think, but more importantly, as a human being I have realized that many problems in society are made solvable through an application of this type of rational analysis.

If your argument is that traditional knowledge is inherently valuable, you are obviously wrong. Traditional knowledge about astronomy – the earth is the center of the universe – of geology – the earth is a few thousand years old – of sociology – people native to equatorial regions are lazy and stupid – are clearly not true. They are false not because they are traditional or new ideas, but because they are claims that are falsified through a reasonable evaluation of the evidence.

An ancient truth like the Pythagorean Theorem or a new discovery like a solution to Fermat’s Last Theorem are equally true. The origin in time is irrelevant, all that should matter is the truth value. The only content that is relevant is content that is true, or at least that which is useful if the truth is not clear. Not all content is true, for example it is an opinion that Shakespeare was the greatest writer in the English language. There is a roll for opinion when the truth is not known, but to present history or literature as true fact when it is as much opinion as anything else, is as much of a disservice to students and society as teaching them that the earth is the center of the universe. Present opinion and discuss the reasons for and against the opinion, but if you cannot distinguish between truth and opinion you have no credibility when you attack other people for disagreeing with your beliefs – if it is all merely opinion, then you are not right and they are not wrong.

Truth is provisional, as is utility, and if you wish to claim that some idea is important and worth being part of a curriculum, it is up to you to show how it is true and/or more useful than a similar idea. Where and when an idea originates, how long or fervently the idea has been held is completely irrelevant.

]]>