Mister A Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/17/why-arguing-improves-students-reasoning-skills/ Lovely. Show Junior learns early on that he can validate his beliefs by overpowering his classmates in petty arguments rather than testing them in reality. Edited March 18, 2011 by Mister A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 That's how my ex wife did it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 I really don't see the complaint here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister A Posted March 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) There's a significant difference in mental context between applying reason to integrate concepts (extremely important at young age) and applying reason to win arguments. These children are being taught implicitly that reality is little more than a gladiator arena where you desperately defend your subjectivity from outsiders. Edited March 18, 2011 by Mister A dream_weaver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 There's a significant difference in mental context between applying reason to integrate concepts (extremely important at young age) and applying reason to win arguments. All the article talked about is how some educators think argumentative reasoning should be taught. Not that *only* argumentative reasoning should be taught. Likely this involves teaching basic logic and deductive reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claire Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 I also don't see the problem here. I read the article as saying that the emphasis is being put on oral argument as opposed to written. I don't see that it means that the oral arguments are superficial/wrong/weird, etc. Quite the contrary, having to verbalize ones opinion helps with integration. Am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 There's a significant difference in mental context between applying reason to integrate concepts (extremely important at young age) and applying reason to win arguments. These children are being taught implicitly that reality is little more than a gladiator arena where you desperately defend your subjectivity from outsiders. They are being taught to defend their positions on issues through logical debate; that is, they are being taught to justify why they believe what they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Element Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 My personal experience matches this theory. Although it is important to realize that winning an argument doesn't mean anything about your ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wolf Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 They're being taught to articulate their beleifs, what's wrong with that? You can be a very intelligent person, study regularly, and still be unprepared to respond to challenges to your knowledge. This may be why William Lane Craig wins so many debates, despite rehashing ancient arguments and never changing his formats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.