Are lies necessary to teach truth?

[DragonMaci]

I have encountered many so-called facts that turned out to be false. How much have you seen this occur. I've seen a lot of it. In fact most "facts" I've seen aren't, due to the fact they've been thought up by irrational people. As Science of Discworld points out a lot of it happens at schools.

[JMeganSnow]

I'd make the distinction between fictions and falsehoods, here. Fictions are things that are made up or invented . . . the initial proponent of them necessarily knows that they did not originate in reality. Falsehoods, on the other hand, are any statement that is simply untrue, which may or may not have been intentionally "made up" by someone at some point . . . quite probably the person that originated the idea thought it was true.

Fiction propounded as truth usually (not always) has the benefit of being easy to detect. Falsehoods may or may not be easy to detect, hence their longevity.

[Prometheus98876]

I have encountered many so-called facts that turned out to be false. How much have you seen this occur. I've seen a lot of it. In fact most "facts" I've seen aren't, due to the fact they've been thought up by irrational people. As Science of Discworld points out a lot of it happens at schools.

Do you mean how often have you seen this occur? Or how of this have you expereinced/heard/seen? Really, you should pay a little more attention to editing your posts, this is far from the last glaring error I have detected. Anyway, to the subject....

It is true that there are many lies to children in schools throughout the world. Heck, even in my programming course at Uni, we are told that such and such is the best way to do things, only to be told a little later than in fact, THIS way of doing things is way better. A lot of the time, if not in all of the cases in my programming class I am thinking "But, why didnt we learn the proper way earlier! This other way is not that much harder, it just takes a little to grasp.

For instance, we were told all all about global variables in C, and not to worry about locals, only to be told four or so weeks later that we should avoid globals wherever possible! I see no good reason for this bloody lie, I do not consider that we are in any way better off for it. Then again, what lies are good when it comes down to it.

[JMeganSnow]

For instance, we were told all all about global variables in C, and not to worry about locals, only to be told four or so weeks later that we should avoid globals wherever possible! I see no good reason for this bloody lie, I do not consider that we are in any way better off for it. Then again, what lies are good when it comes down to it.

This isn't a lie. It's part of teaching something in a structured order. Most people really aren't good at getting a thousand new things thrown at them and assembling them into some kind of order in their mind. So, when teaching, what happens is:

1. you learn all about the general subject (what are variables, what are they for, etc.)

2. You learn a simple application of them so that you can tie your abstractions back to reality. This means you actually learn what you're doing, as opposed to just memorizing it.

3. Later on, as the teaching progresses into further complexities, you learn new abstractions based on the old ones and new applications.

If your professor had thrown the project you're working on now at you six weeks ago, what do you think would have happened? Likely you would have collapsed in confusion. The knowledge you've acquired about global variables is real knowledge. They exist, they work, you know how they work. The purpose of teaching you something isn't to make you memorize the "best way" to do everything, but to enable you to figure out how to do it yourself, since there are essentially almost infinite alternate ways to accomplish the same end.

Remember that knowledge is contextual and hierarchial . . . you can't do the final project the first day even if your professor IS willing to answer all your questions about it. You don't even know the questions to ask, is the problem.

I was thinking more along the lines of the common "folk wisdom" . . . like the "fact" that you can tell how old a ladybug is by counting it's spots. You can't. But people still repeat it. Sillyness. I personally like the one about how if you wear socks when you sleep you will have weird dreams.

[Prometheus98876]

This isn't a lie. It's part of teaching something in a structured order. Most people really aren't good at getting a thousand new things thrown at them and assembling them into some kind of order in their mind. So, when teaching, what happens is:

....

If your professor had thrown the project you're working on now at you six weeks ago, what do you think would have happened? Likely you would have collapsed in confusion. The knowledge you've acquired about global variables is real knowledge. They exist, they work, you know how they work. The purpose of teaching you something isn't to make you memorize the "best way" to do everything, but to enable you to figure out how to do it yourself, since there are essentially almost infinite alternate ways to accomplish the same end.

Remember that knowledge is contextual and hierarchial . . . you can't do the final project the first day even if your professor IS willing to answer all your questions about it. You don't even know the questions to ask, is the problem.

I was thinking more along the lines of the common "folk wisdom" . . . like the "fact" that you can tell how old a ladybug is by counting it's spots. You can't. But people still repeat it. Sillyness. I personally like the one about how if you wear socks when you sleep you will have weird dreams.

Yeah, alright then, you make goods points in general, expect ...

I seriously doubt that even my slower classmates would have struggled with being introduced to local variables at the time we covered globals. Especially since we were introduced to functions really early on, ie a context for local variables. It is not something that I think would have given any problems if we had been told a little about them (I already knew about them myself, and had been using them for some time) when we covered globals. It would have made some of our other work easier and more clear.

This is the way all the good C programming textbooks I have read does things, and they are much better off for it I beleive. This includes the recommended textbook for the paper. I dont see why the lecturer should oversimplify things and end up making it so some stuff is more difficult to do and is a little out of context initially.

Edited November 3, 2005 by Prometheus98876

[DragonMaci]

I'd make the distinction between fictions and falsehoods, here.

The title was simply a play on words.

This isn't a lie. It's part of teaching something in a structured order.

Wrong. They deliberatly tell you something that isn't true with the intent to decieve. By definition that is a lie. Here's the definitiion of lie according to my dictionary: "An untrue statement intended to to decieve; falsehood." The motives don't make it any less of a lie.

Please don't quote everything--JMeganSnow

Edited November 4, 2005 by JMeganSnow

[DragonMaci]

Do you mean how often have you seen this occur? Or how of this have you expereinced/heard/seen? Really, you should pay a little more attention to editing your posts, this is far from the last glaring error I have detected. Anyway, to the subject....

No I actually. I looked back at it and it says exactly what I want it to except that it seems I accidently put a full stop in instead of a question mark. The actual text gets across the exact message I wanted it to. I meant exactly what I said.

[BurgessLau]

DragonMaci, you said in post 6: "They deliberatly [sic] tell you something that isn't true with the intent to decieve [sic]." I am confused. Could you state your evidence for knowing with certainty that your instructors were trying to deceive you? And if you have such evidence, would you also explain why you think they are trying to deceive you? What would they gain from doing so? And how do you know?

Also, is it possible that one statement can be true as a generalization in a narrow context, and then in a wider context (which a student gains later), the statement might no longer be applicable?

Then again, what lies are good when it comes down to it.

There is no question mark at the end of your statement, but just in case you intended it to be a question, here is my answer: Lies that protect good people from aggression by bad people.

For example, if I had lived in Germany in 1934 and had a Jewish roommate, I would lie if Nazi thugs pounded on the door and demanded to know if Jews lived in the house because the Jews would be dragged outside and killed.

[JMeganSnow]

The title was simply a play on words.

But the distinction is real and important. English is full of words that denote subtly different shadings of meaning. In this case I can think of a bunch: lie, fiction, falsehood, untruth, etc.

Wrong. They deliberatly tell you something that isn't true with the intent to decieve. By definition that is a lie. Here's the definitiion of lie according to my dictionary: "An untrue statement intended to to decieve; falsehood." The motives don't make it any less of a lie.

What did they tell you? That global variables were the ONLY kind of variables? That this was the ONLY way to solve a particular problem?

When we started writing our own classes instead of relying on nested functions, I started using global variables again (it's easier, IIRC), so LOCAL variables aren't the be-all end-all best way to do variables, either. In fact, they can be a pain in the posterior. It's just slightly possible that your instructor has more context than you do.

[Prometheus98876]

But the distinction is real and important. English is full of words that denote subtly different shadings of meaning. In this case I can think of a bunch: lie, fiction, falsehood, untruth, etc.

What did they tell you? That global variables were the ONLY kind of variables? That this was the ONLY way to solve a particular problem?

When we started writing our own classes instead of relying on nested functions, I started using global variables again (it's easier, IIRC), so LOCAL variables aren't the be-all end-all best way to do variables, either. In fact, they can be a pain in the posterior. It's just slightly possible that your instructor has more context than you do.

They told us that variables could only be handled in that fashion, ie as globals. Later we learnt that globals are not usually the best way to do things (but sometimes it is best to use them), and that locals are usually better (I agree with this).

[DragonMaci]

DragonMaci, you said in post 6: "They deliberatly [sic] tell you something that isn't true with the intent to decieve [sic]." I am confused. Could you state your evidence for knowing with certainty that your instructors were trying to deceive you? And if you have such evidence, would you also explain why you think they are trying to deceive you? What would they gain from doing so? And how do you know?

Also, is it possible that one statement can be true as a generalization in a narrow context, and then in a wider context (which a student gains later), the statement might no longer be applicable?

There is no question mark at the end of your statement, but just in case you intended it to be a question, here is my answer: Lies that protect good people from aggression by bad people.

For example, if I had lived in Germany in 1934 and had a Jewish roommate, I would lie if Nazi thugs pounded on the door and demanded to know if Jews lived in the house because the Jews would be dragged outside and killed.

An example? Fine. I'll quote one from tyhe Science of Discworld that evryone would have evcountered. In primary school they told us that rainbows occur when light reflects of rain drops. Then in high school we are taught that the light actually refracts of rain drops. So the first just isn't true and the primary teachers would know that since they went to high school too.

[Hakarmaskannar]

I think you might have missed the point that Ms Snow was making when she reminded you that the nature of knowledge is heirarchal. Teachers might use the phrase 'reflect' instead of 'refract' as young kids can infer part of the process from the concepts they have already formed. Then at a later date, when the concept of refraction has been grasped a referance back to the rainbow can be given a more complete identification of the process.

Did your treachers tell you that a table is a flat surface to eat off of or a large collection of atomic matter? Both are correct, but acontextually they are different.

My (high-school only) physics teacher initially explained to me about atoms and sub-atomic particals as if they where solid spheres so I could grasp the basic mechanics of their interactions before heading into more esoteric knowledge.

[NAS]

Indeed, one uses Newtonian formula (the inverse square law) even when Einstien 'proved' that it is false, never the less, in high school (and college) physics we use it because it's soooo much faster.

[jrs]

In primary school they told us that rainbows occur when light reflects off of rain drops. Then in high school we are taught that the light is actually refracted by rain drops. So the first just isn't true and the primary teachers would know that since they went to high school too.

Actually, they are both correct. The light is: (1) refracted when it enters the rain drop; (2) reflected by the other side of the rain drop (at least once); and (3) refracted again as it leaves the rain drop.

Also an elementary school student might not understand what refraction means.

Nonetheless, I remember being frustrated that it was not made clear which formulas were Newtonian approximations and which were Relativistically correct. Now I realize that all the formulas are probably merely approximations at some level or other. It would be nice though, if there were some limits given on the possible errors. But that may be impractical also.

[DragonMaci]

I think you might have missed the point that Ms Snow was making when she reminded you that the nature of knowledge is heirarchal. Teachers might use the phrase 'reflect' instead of 'refract' as young kids can infer part of the process from the concepts they have already formed. Then at a later date, when the concept of refraction has been grasped a referance back to the rainbow can be given a more complete identification of the process.

Did your treachers tell you that a table is a flat surface to eat off of or a large collection of atomic matter? Both are correct, but acontextually they are different.

My (high-school only) physics teacher initially explained to me about atoms and sub-atomic particals as if they where solid spheres so I could grasp the basic mechanics of their interactions before heading into more esoteric knowledge.

Why lie at akk? They would be better off to tell us nothing. Refracting and reflecting are quite different.

Oh and I did not miss her point. I just don't agree with the way it's done. I think they would be better off telling us nothing than lying.

Indeed, one uses Newtonian formula (the inverse square law) even when Einstien 'proved' that it is false, never the less, in high school (and college) physics we use it because it's soooo much faster.

Well I don't like that. That's a blatant lie and I don't think it's neccessary.

Actually, they are both correct. The light is: (1) refracted when it enters the rain drop; (2) reflected by the other side of the rain drop (at least once); and (3) refracted again as it leaves the rain drop.

Also an elementary school student might not understand what refraction means.

Nonetheless, I remember being frustrated that it was not made clear which formulas were Newtonian approximations and which were Relativistically correct. Now I realize that all the formulas are probably merely approximations at some level or other. It would be nice though, if there were some limits given on the possible errors. But that may be impractical also.

Actually you are wrong. they are not both correct according to the authors of Science of Discworld, and one of them is a phyisicist. According to them it only refracts. You claiming to know more than a physicist with a phd and who lectures at universities?

And so what if kids can't understand refraction? Why not just not tell them anything instead of lying?

Edited November 4, 2005 by DragonMaci

[colin]

Really, you should pay a little more attention to editing your posts, this is far from the last glaring error I have detected. Anyway, to the subject....

It is true that there are many lies to children in schools throughout the world.

Did you mean "It is true that there are many lies told to children....? Irony always amuses me.

[dondigitalia]

Actually you are wrong. they are not both correct according to the authors of Science of Discworld, and one of them is a phyisicist. According to them it only refracts. You claiming to know more than a physicist with a phd and who lectures at universities?

The context of knowledge of Physicist and the context of a child are two completely different things. To a child, there is no essential difference between refraction and reflection--his definition for both is probably the same. As a child gains more knowledge, his definitions change, and his knolwedge becomes more specific, but that does not invalidate earlier knowledge.

It is a teacher's responsibility to bring the material within range of the child's context. A lot of times, this means using concepts that aren't correct within an adult context. This does not mean that a child is taught something tht is untrue; it means that a child is taught something that is true, within a certain context. In this case, that context is set by the child's concept of reflection vs. refraction.

It's important to remember that definitions of concepts are contextual, too. In a child's context, refraction and reflection are most likely the exact same thing. In fact, I would wager that, if a teacher were to use the term refraction, and explain it so a child could understand, the child would end up switching it out for the more familiar concept of reflection (which, to him, means the same thing.)

[Prometheus98876]

Did you mean "It is true that there are many lies told to children....? Irony always amuses me.

Oh cr)p! Well, I do make the odd mistake myself, especially late at night. Thanks for pointing it out.

[DragonMaci]

The context of knowledge of Physicist and the context of a child are two completely different things. To a child, there is no essential difference between refraction and reflection--his definition for both is probably the same. As a child gains more knowledge, his definitions change, and his knolwedge becomes more specific, but that does not invalidate earlier knowledge.

It is a teacher's responsibility to bring the material within range of the child's context. A lot of times, this means using concepts that aren't correct within an adult context. This does not mean that a child is taught something tht is untrue; it means that a child is taught something that is true, within a certain context. In this case, that context is set by the child's concept of reflection vs. refraction.

It's important to remember that definitions of concepts are contextual, too. In a child's context, refraction and reflection are most likely the exact same thing. In fact, I would wager that, if a teacher were to use the term refraction, and explain it so a child could understand, the child would end up switching it out for the more familiar concept of reflection (which, to him, means the same thing.)

I understand and know all that. But how does that make it valid to lie to them? if I have kids I am going to let them know they are being lied to. Also none of that makes it less of a lie. A lie is deliberately saying something that is untrue with the intent to decieve. The understanding of the one being lied to has nothing to with it. And what they say about reflection just isn't true and they know it an yet they say it inteding to tell them what isn't true. That is decpetion, therefore a lie.

[jrs]

The light is: (1) refracted when it enters the rain drop; (2) reflected by the other side of the rain drop (at least once); and (3) refracted again as it leaves the rain drop.

I should have given a reference to support my statement. Here is a website which explains rainbows in some detail. Look at the drawings, and you will see that my description was correct:

http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows

Actually you are wrong. They are not both correct according to the authors of Science of Discworld, and one of them is a physicist. According to them it only refracts. You claiming to know more than a physicist with a PhD and who lectures at universities?

Apparently, even the physicists who wrote Science of Discworld can lie.

[DragonMaci]

I should have given a reference to support my statement. Here is a website which explains rainbows in some detail. Look at the drawings, and you will see that my description was correct:

http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows

Apparently, even the physicists who wrote Science of Discworld can lie.

I'd be more inclined to believe that they were wrong than that they lied. And how do you know the website is right and the authors are wrong? How do you know it isn't the reverse?

[softwareNerd]

Many posters have explained why a teacher will not tell a student everything about a subject. Indeed, DragonMaci has said he agrees with the principle.

So, I figure he is now questioning the implementation. He's questioning how a teacher goes about the process of hiding confusing facts from the student. Take the example of "local" vs. "global" variables. The teacher might consider it distracting to even introduce the idea that there may be different types of variables.

When I taught computer classes to high-school kids, I would often state things as facts without giving any indication that there may be exceptions. This is done in specific context: where I was going to reveal the "whole truth" later. I would be like a teacher saying "the vowel A make the <voiced sound> sound". If I thought it was not confusing, I might hint at "coming attractions", like a teacher saying "the vowel A usually makes the <voiced sound> sound". Most contexts don't require more explicit ruling out of options, as in a teacher who says "the vowel A always makes the <voiced sound> sound".

"Problem" is, that the kids in a class are not all the same. Some would be confused with too much information; others would have read the book already; they know the teacher isn't telling the whole truth. Some of these kids would understand that the teacher was slowing down the subject and would be patient. Others would be popping up -- hands shooting up like Hermoine in the Potter movies. As a teacher, I hated that. Much as I knew those were the bright and eager kids, I knew that if I ask them what they want to ask they're going to say something that will confuse the class by introducing a factor that I do not want introduced at that point. It's part of teaching, and one has to learn how to handle it.

So, going back to the example of a teacher who has decided to start by using the term "variables" to refer to "global variables" and not even mention the existence of "local variables". Before the class has fully grasped the idea of variables, a bright student asks: "but shouldn't we be using local variables rather than global variables"? I would probably not reply with: "There are no such things as local variables." Once the issue is out there, the best way to postpone it is to simply postpone it by saying that you wish to delay talking about it.

Separately, if a particular student was always doing this to my class, I would understand that I have to do something special with that student. First, I would make it very explicit that I know he is bright and eager and ahead of his class. Next, I'd see what I could do to keep him challenged. Finally, I'd explain to him about the type of situations where I want him to keep shut in class and would give him some other avenue where he could ask complicated questions.

[DragonMaci]

Actually I am not questioning the implementation, but rather criticizing the fact that they deliberately tell a lie. I believe that they should simply not explain things rather than lie. That's how i do it. So far what other posters have said do not mitigate the immorality of the lie as far as I am concerned.

What you done softwareNerd is different. I have no problem with hiding part of the truth if the learners can't handle the information. Hiding the truth is not usually morally objectionable to me. Especially in mitigating situations like that. All too often teachers lie instead of omitting part of the truth. Omitting part of the truth is acceptable to me. Lying is not.

I was one of those ones that read ahead and knew there was a more. With maths (except areas like trigonometry (is that spelt right?) and calculus, both of which I struggled with) I usually understood the new stuff too. Sometimes I would with other subjects too. I think it's because I am a good and fast learner. I was usually too shy to raise my hand and raise questions though, even if I didn't understand what I had read. I was usually too shy to ask questions after class even, when the others weren't there to be confused.

I definitely prefer your system of delay over lying. That is what I would do. I also like the way that you still found a way to challenge those brighter students.

Your comment on teaching is the most rational one here I think.

(Removed unnecessary quote of previous post and fixed some spellings.- sNerd)

Edited November 5, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Hal]

Did your treachers tell you that a table is a flat surface to eat off of or a large collection of atomic matter? Both are correct, but acontextually they are different.

My (high-school only) physics teacher initially explained to me about atoms and sub-atomic particals as if they where solid spheres so I could grasp the basic mechanics of their interactions before heading into more esoteric knowledge.

My highschool chemistry stressed very often that what we were learning about atoms was oversimplified and technically wrong. I dont think anyone in my class could have left school with the idea that electrons really did orbit atoms in the same way planets orbitted the sun. By constrast, our physics teacher never gave us any indication of the problems with Newtonian mechanics. Personally, I think that the first approach is far superior - theres nothing wrong with dumbing things down, but you should make sure people aware that what they are learning is dumbed down. If nothing else, it might make them more curious to find out the true story.

Why lie at akk? They would be better off to tell us nothing. Refracting and reflecting are quite different.

...

And so what if kids can't understand refraction? Why not just not tell them anything instead of lying?

You have to be taught a simplified/wrong version because at that stage, it just isnt possible to tell people the true story. You cant teach quantum field theory in highschool for instance. Unless you learn the (technically wrong) basics, you wont have the knowledge and experience required to understand the more difficult stuff.

Edited November 13, 2005 by Hal

[DragonMaci]

I refuse to accept that a lie is neccessary in order to teach the truth. That is logically inconsistent