Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Politics, religion and book-burning
Message-ID: <302@opus.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Mar-84 01:36:36 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.302
Posted: Sat Mar 31 01:36:36 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Apr-84 07:32:16 EST
References: <644@shark.UUCP> <2126@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 46

<>
Paul Dubuc gave a substantial commentary on some of the factors in the
relationships among technology, religion, education, morals, etc., mostly
focusing on education.  One of his points is that children - particularly
in the early school years - are not encouraged to think critically.  That
is, they simply learn facts and learn to parrot them, rather than analyzing
what they are taught.  (Forgive me Paul, if I've oversimplified in
paraphrasing.)  This is more or less correct, but it's hardly bad.  You
have to acquire a sufficient basis of "facts" before you can start applying
them - much as a baby has to acquire a sufficient vocabulary before it can
start making any real original sentences.  And again, Paul is right when he
says that the early years are important because they are the truly
formative years - we DO need to be careful what gets taught then.

BUT (#1) that doesn't mean that we have to teach religious values, morals
(beyond broad societal norms), etc.  School is NOT the only place where
teaching happens.  Public education addresses only a small part of a
child's total development.  Trying to add religion into a school's
curriculum is a political nightmare, an ethical morass, and there isn't
time for it anyway.

AND (#2) that doesn't mean that everything you teach will be true, or
complete.  If you've ever taught introduction-to-anything, you know that
the only way to get it across is to simplify, ignore things, and even to
tell "white lies".  (That's when you say something like, "I'll tell you
xyzzy for now, but that's not really true.")  Just because we dilute things
in the initial teaching doesn't mean we're doing a bad job, and it
certainly doesn't mean that we're not teaching people to think.  BTW, the
problems in formulating the early education are OLD - check Plato's
Republic for a good discussion.

Paul ends with a statement that's a little depressing:
> At any rate, I'm sure you must have noticed that the public schools aren't
> as great a place to learn (in general) as they used to be.  Whose 
> educational philosophy is responsible for the present crisis?
No, I haven't noticed that.  I can't buy a generalization that big.  There
are good teachers and bad ones.  Somehow the total lack of glamor and the
conflicts in teaching seem to draw competent, altruistic teachers as well
as dullards who can't/won't learn enough to be able to use their knowledge.
All in all, I think the educational system has an uphill battle against a
very rapidly expanding body of knowledge to be taught.  I guess I think
they were never that great but they're not that much worse (if at all) than
they were in the past.
-- 
Relax - don't worry - have a homebrew.
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd