Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is teaching inaccurately immoral?

Rate this topic


Kathleen

Recommended Posts

Hi Kathleen. Please define "immoral" in your own words.

Immoral behavior is choices that are wrong. This definition may seem vague. However, the limits of language exist and that is the case in this situation. For example, what exactly does yellow mean? We certainly know what is yellow.

I suppose that a more precise argument on my part is to say the actions I discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, OK. Would you call both of the following actions immoral?:

-Joe drives his car straight for a kid playing in the street, seeing him in plain sight, deliberately accelerating; the kid gets hit.

-Joe is driving up a steep hill at a typical safe speed for the hill. A kid jumps in front of his car chasing a ball and is hit. Joe has accidentally hit the kid.

Further, what do you think is the essential difference between these two acts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion teaching inaccurate information as fact is immoral, within reason.
Inaccurate teaching is immoral, and there's no issue of "within reason". However, the more important question is, what is "inaccurate teaching". To follow up on Felipe's question, please define "inaccurate teaching" in your own words. You may use more than 25 of them. As for the rest, I'll use the correct, standard definition of "immoral" to make things simpler. Felipe may, however, opt to press you on the question of morality: I just want to get clear on this bogus (oops did I say that) idea of "inaccurate teaching".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Immoral behavior is choices that are wrong.
Fair enough: choices you should not be making, as per moral code/rules you are using. So, what you're saying is that if one were to have a rational moral code that tells you what is right and what is wrong, it would tell you that teaching inaccurate information is wrong. ("Trick" contexts excepted.)

This seems pretty uncontroversial. Have you encountered people who think otherwise? Have you met people who do not believe something to be true but are teaching that to someone else for some other motive? I've met liars, but I wonder if you have a specific example in mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a difference between inaccurate teaching and teaching inaccurate information? Or what about between knowingly and unknowingly doing either of these two? Oh boy, now I'm all mixed up.
Rocket Man? Man, you dudes make up all sorts of interesting identifiers. How many posts do you need to have in order to be "Hound Dog"? Anyhow, consider this. We know that Newtonian mechanics is not ultimately correct, and yet, it is essential to all teaching of physics. Is teaching Newtonian mechanics "innacurate teaching". If you don't know that the Newtonian story is wrong, does that make a difference? Like, is it better to be ignorant? I have the answer, but I don't want to prejudice Kathleen on this matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arr-roooo!

Well, it's not that Newtonian mechanics is wrong, per se, it's just that its application is contextual. That is, it's not universally applicable. Anyway, suppose you taught that the Newtonian mechanics was universally applicable without knowing it wasn't. Would that be wrong?
On the first point, it matters what you represent his mechanics as saying. For example, if you say that it's the underlying law that gives you correct results for building buildings (I'm just making this up: I have no idea if it's true, but I assume that engineers learn basic Newtonian mechanics for a reason), then okay.

On the second point about ignorance, there are two questions to be answered, in order. First, is there a reason to know that the laws are wrong? Second, as a teacher, should you know those facts? If so, then it is wrong, because it is professionally irresponsible to embrace ignorance. Most emphatically, though, it is not universally and absolutely wrong to teach Newtonian mechanics or any other known-wrong theory at a particular stage in teaching. This leads to my shpiel about what it means to "teach" (hint: it's not only about the crud that you spew out for 10 weeks). Okay, I'll just suppose that Kathleen got sick or went for dinner or whatever, and forget my hope that she take up the topic, thus I answer my own question about inaccurate teaching.

"Inaccurate teaching" is a misnomer, a phrase that covers two things. There is intellectual dishonesty, and practical strategy for a purpose. Intellectual dishonesty is immoral. Period. End of discussion. Presenting the whole, best contemporary cutting-edge understanding of GTR in all of its glory in a 10 week intro physics class is just plain stupid (uh, I mean, of no use). The point of teaching is to cause others to grasp the abstract nature of a topic -- it is not the transferrence of information to be spewed back on an exam and applied brainlessly in life when faced with exactly the same situation (forget "analogous", since that implies thinking and something beyond the copying of information). It is above all about method: the means of grasping the nature of reality. The study of methods includes the discovery of methods. Then, the teaching of something which you know doesn't work is of immense pedagogical value, precisely because it gives you the opportunity to deal with the fundamental epistemological challenge that faces man, namely error. How in the world can you possibly learn about the nature of scientific error and how to recover from it, if you don't learn how ideas develop and especially how science responds to new discoveries?

Okay, I'm ranting. Must go do something boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's not that Newtonian mechanics is wrong, per se, it's just that its application is contextual. That is, it's not universally applicable. Anyway, suppose you taught that the Newtonian mechanics was universally applicable without knowing it wasn't. Would that be wrong?

Hmm, after some careful thought, yes. In an academic context, one should be informed as possible in his or her field. Obviously, academic fields mix. However, educators should restrain themselves from discussing information they have not investigated.

Inaccurate teaching is immoral, and there's no issue of "within reason". However, the more important question is, what is "inaccurate teaching". To follow up on Felipe's question, please define "inaccurate teaching" in your own words. You may use more than 25 of them. As for the rest, I'll use the correct, standard definition of "immoral" to make things simpler. Felipe may, however, opt to press you on the question of morality: I just want to get clear on this bogus (oops did I say that) idea of "inaccurate teaching".

Please explain how inaccurate teaching is bogus?

My definition of "inaccurate teaching" is within an academic context. For example, a professor who refuses to teach evolution in a biology class. This professor may not have ever been taught about evolution. However, as a biology professor, he or she has the responsibility to teach biology accurately. He or she has the responsibility to learn as much as possible to be an effective teacher.

Also, I'm going to assume your 25 words comment was a personal attack. Such actions show poor debating skills, no?

Rocket Man? Man, you dudes make up all sorts of interesting identifiers. How many posts do you need to have in order to be "Hound Dog"? Anyhow, consider this. We know that Newtonian mechanics is not ultimately correct, and yet, it is essential to all teaching of physics. Is teaching Newtonian mechanics "innacurate teaching". If you don't know that the Newtonian story is wrong, does that make a difference? Like, is it better to be ignorant? I have the answer, but I don't want to prejudice Kathleen on this matter.

Alas, I know very little about physics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain how inaccurate teaching is bogus?
What does "bogus mean". I explained how it's immoral, but I can't help you on this "bogus" business unless I have an idea what you're talking about.
My definition of "inaccurate teaching" is within an academic context. For example, a professor who refuses to teach evolution in a biology class. This professor may not have ever been taught about evolution. However, as a biology professor, he or she has the responsibility to teach biology accurately. He or she has the responsibility to learn as much as possible to be an effective teacher.
I did assume that you were speaking of an academic context, as opposed to dad teaching Billy how to operate a drill press. I stilll don't understand what you mean by "inaccurate teaching" in an academic context. Is it only limited to professors of biology refusing to teach evolution? I wanted a definition. How is inaccurate teaching different from accurate teaching?
Also, I'm going to assume your 25 words comment was a personal attack. Such actions show poor debating skills, no?
I'm going to take your refusal to provide a definition of inaccurate teaching to be a personal attack. I don't have any reason to take it that way, any more than you have a reason to be insulted by the fact that I want a thoughtful reply to the question, something more than a few throwaway lines. But one can always declare "Well, I am insulted!". Now how about you try to address the question. Define inaccurate teaching; distinguish it from accurate teaching. Discuss the concept in relationship to the goals of teaching; consider both short-term and long-term goals. Indicate whether the concept of "accuracy" differs depending on whether applied to "information" versus "ideas". What ethical responsibility does a teacher have for personally and rigorously validating all statements presented in class?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, you guys come across as excessively agressive when dealing with questions from new users, which can be detrimental to communication as it introduces emotional responses in the people you are trying to help. Instead of the bare "what is your definition of "blank"" posts, which can be misinterpreted as a challenge to the worth of the question or the questioner himself, perhaps some explanation of what you are trying to achieve is in order.

Other argumentation strategies can also elict the basic definitions you are trying to establish. Clearly stating what assumptions you are making about the person's question in your response will allow any misunderstanding or problematic definitions to be addressed. Should any of their definitions be different from the ones you used, they will point it out to you.

Applying to the current thread:

"In my opinion teaching inaccurate information as fact is immoral, within reason. For example, I don't expect a 15th century lecturer to know all the facts about genetics. However, choosing to teach inaccurate information based ones own bias immoral."

Apparently "teaching inaccurate information" in the context of your question means deliberately teaching information known to be false as opposed to teaching false information that you beleive true.

Using the Objectivist definition of morality, deliberately teaching information scientifically known to be false is clearly immoral, conflicting with the principle of honesty.

In one of your follow-on messages you proposed an example that admits a second interpretation of "teaching inaccurate information", being omitting information you rationally beleive false. This in principle is not immoral, for instance not teaching creationism is not immoral since the theory can be rationally dismissed. On the other hand, in the specific example you cited (evolution), there are no rational grounds to dismiss the theory. Omitting a valid theory, while not as essentially dishonest as lying, probably conflicts with the responsibility you assumed as a teacher of biology - to inform your students about existing knowlege in the field.

mrocktor

Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently "teaching inaccurate information" in the context of your question means deliberately teaching information known to be false as opposed to teaching false information that you beleive true.
If that is the definition, then I would say that inaccurate teaching is highly moral, and in a particular context it would be immoral to refrain from inaccurate teaching. Since I consider the definition itself to be wrong, that's why I had to ask what "inaccurate teaching" means.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, you guys come across as excessively agressive when dealing with questions from new users, which can be detrimental to communication as it introduces emotional responses in the people you are trying to help. Instead of the bare "what is your definition of "blank"" posts, which can be misinterpreted as a challenge to the worth of the question or the questioner himself, perhaps some explanation of what you are trying to achieve is in order.

Other argumentation strategies can also elict the basic definitions you are trying to establish. Clearly stating what assumptions you are making about the person's question in your response will allow any misunderstanding or problematic definitions to be addressed. Should any of their definitions be different from the ones you used, they will point it out to you.

I see how an ask-underlying-questions approach might be misinterpreted as a challenge to someone's intelligence. Perhaps in the future I will state my motives behind asking them.

My view is that a person seeking answers benefits more if they are asked to find them themselves through a process of thinking guided by the asking of pointed questions. I have a lot of experience with young people at the undergraduate level, and many of them suffer from a chronic case of "just give me the damn answers, don't make me think"-itis. It is a goal of mine to combat this non-thinking approach to attaining knowledge.

David: Did you notice that you, out of nowhere, became a Hound Dog?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently "teaching inaccurate information" in the context of your question means deliberately teaching information known to be false as opposed to teaching false information that you beleive true.

If that is the definition, then I would say that inaccurate teaching is highly moral, and in a particular context it would be immoral to refrain from inaccurate teaching. Since I consider the definition itself to be wrong, that's why I had to ask what "inaccurate teaching" means.

Would it sum up both of your positions to say that teaching a student information that is not true in order to deceive them or hamper their education is immoral, but teaching a student information that is not true in order to demonstrate how human knowledge has progessed, or to facilitate their eduction by presenting simple concepts, that may not be completely true, so that the student will be able to more quickly, or fully, grasp more complex concepts which are known or reasonably believed to be true, is moral?

For clarity I will say that it was reasonably believed that Newtonian physics were correct until the first bit of evidence conflicted with the theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps what David is getting at is that, as a teacher, you have the utmost responsibility to make sure the material you are teaching is accurate, if you are presenting it to your students as factually correct. So, "unknowingly teaching material that is grossly wrong as factually correct" is impossible to do morally as a teacher, because you've accepted the responsibility of being in-the-know. David can correct me if I'm wrong. Further, it is perfectly fine to present factually incorrect material, so long as it is said that it is factually incorrect, and there is some purpose to teaching it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it sum up both of your positions to say that teaching a student information that is not true in order to deceive them or hamper their education is immoral, but teaching a student information that is not true in order to demonstrate how human knowledge has progessed, or to facilitate their eduction by presenting simple concepts, that may not be completely true, so that the student will be able to more quickly, or fully, grasp more complex concepts which are known or reasonably believed to be true, is moral?

For clarity I will say that it was reasonably believed that Newtonian physics were correct until the first bit of evidence conflicted with the theory.

I agree with this, in general. When I teach simplified concepts, though, I do make sure the student knows that it is a simplification, or that there are more complex things "behind" the simple ones. It keeps the student interested in digging deeper into the truth.

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it sum up both of your positions to say that teaching a student information that is not true in order to deceive them or hamper their education is immoral, but teaching a student information that is not true in order to demonstrate how human knowledge has progessed, or to facilitate their eduction by presenting simple concepts, that may not be completely true, so that the student will be able to more quickly, or fully, grasp more complex concepts which are known or reasonably believed to be true, is moral?
That is pretty much the point. A deeper point is that teaching is not just dispensing information, but we can side-step that issue for the moment because that matter is more about Felipe's observation about loathesome "just give me the damn answers, don't make me think"-itis, which is about student ethics and not teacher ethics. I don't see that you are at all morally required to present The Point in a context-free manner so that each and every snippet presented is The Utter Truth in and of itself, especially because students do not come into class pre-wired with a proper appreciation of discovery. Unfortunately, because of "gimme the information"-itis, students frequently tune out if you say in advance "This is a theory that experts no longer accept, although it used to be the standard theory, and I am presenting this material so that you can understand how science deals with new discoveries". My goal in presenting an untrue theory is not to deceive the students, but to get them to understand the contextual nature of knowledge and how adding new observational knowledge affects theoretical knowledge. It's important to say that "this theory only handles certain facts" or "we have better ways of dealing with this, which I talk about next quarter" at some point.

David: Did you notice that you, out of nowhere, became a Hound Dog?
Ar-rrooo! Yep. Now I gotta deal with those dang fleas. Grazie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that putting the responsibility on teachers to know everything about their field is impractical.

Employers have the right to monitor their teachers, or to replace them with more knowledgeable ones. It is the employer's responsibility to ensure that all of the teachers in their institution are well informed. If they fail in this respect, the reputation of their institution will suffer and their profits will decrease, possibly putting them out of business.

A teacher's moral responsibility comes from a dedication to integrity. If they do not possess or value integrity, then they may be dismissed. A teacher that values integrity will teach their students whatever they believe to be true in the best way possible. It is not immoral for them to be wrong, if they are working with incomplete or inaccurate information. Look at the Rearden/D'Arconia confrontation in Atlas Shrugged for an illustration of this.

Teaching based on inaccurate information, however, is not the goal of a righteous teacher. Integrity and pride would drive them to desire to be the best at their profession, thus prompting them to verify their information.

To compartmentalize this:

Being incorrect is not immoral

Choosing not to pursue the state of correctness is

Employers have the right to dismiss immoral teachers

The public has the right not to support institutions that employ immoral teachers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A teacher does a far greater service to his students if he teaches them the methods by which they can discover the truth/falsehood of a given statement on their own. It is not really the purpose of education to fill one's brain with facts, but to gain a certain level of proficiency in directing one's own cognition.

I personally "learned" any number of untrue/partially true/just plain silly things in school, but because my parents placed such importance on thinking for yourself I really haven't had any problems with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kathleen, don't worry about feeling stupid here. Just by being here you're proving that you're smarter than most people. People here tend to be very direct. This is a good thing, if you think about, because making assertions instead of "in my opinion..." statements displays courage and self esteem. You'll have to get used to people flat out disagreeing with you here, it's the best way to actually carry out a debate that actually gets somewhere. However, everyone here thinks I'm a commie (I'm not), so I may not be the best person to look to for advice :alien: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...