The August 9, 2008 issue of New Scientist contains an important commentary by A.C. Graying on The importance of knowing how.The key point is in the third paragraph ...
So although everyone coming out of an educational system should at least know the periodic table, the salient dates of world history, the fundamentals of geography, and other kinds of basic information, they are much more in need of knowing how to find things out, how to evaluate the information they discover, and how to apply it fruitfully. These are skills; they consist in knowledge of how to become knowledgeable.I agree with this statement. The most important goal of a university education is, in my opinion, to teach students how to think. An important part of that goal is teaching students how to acquire reliable information.
Knowing how to evaluate information, therefore, is arguably the most important kind of knowledge that education has to teach. Some schools offer courses in it, and there are a number of books about it on the market. But only the International Baccalaureate makes critical thinking ("theory of knowledge") a standard requirement, and in this as in so many ways it leads the field, because critical thinking and evaluation of claims to knowledge should always be right at the centre of the educational enterprise.I'm not so sure that the IB program is the only one that teaches critical thinking but I agree with the general idea here. I think every university should require that students take certain courses on logic and knowledge. These courses should be taught by philosophers.
I wonder whether the need for critical thinking lessons is more urgent in the humanities than the sciences because the latter, by their nature, already have it built in. The science lab at school with its whiffs, sparks and bangs is a theatre of evaluation; the idea of testing and proving is the natural order there, and the habits of mind thus acquired can be generalised to all enquiry.Hmm ... I don't think I would have had the gumption to claim that science students may be better at critical thinking than humanities students. I may think it, but writing it is a different story.
When we talk of scientific literacy, one thing we should mean is acquisition of just this mindset; without it, too much rubbish gets through.
If true, the problem may be related to what passes for "postmodernism" in the humanities. Believe it or not, there are humanities Professors whose ideas about critical thinking are quite bizarre. I've met some of them. They think it's wrong to pick a side in an intellectual dispute because all sides are equally valid. They think that we can't really "know" anything. For them, I guess "knowing how to learn" is an oxymoron.
[Photo Credit: Professor A.C. Grayling, Professor of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London UK.]
3 comments :
This thing about IB actually achieving much in teaching "how to know" is just a load of amazing bullcrap. At most they can deliver a shoddy primer, that most students will not continue to pursue.
I honestly think no education policy can ever mass-produce something like that. It is up to each one to pursue it; you cannot juts grind that into someone's head in one course. If you believe that, you're an idiot (sorry if you are)
What's more, if you manage to convince someone that you've taught him, that he now "knows how to know", this person will have no reason to make any further efforts!!! They've already "got it", no? No need to ever crack open a philosophy book ever again!!! (Sounds like the story of your life by any chance, Larry?)
I never cease to be amazed by my own prejudices, yet, honestly, I consider guys like Larry are ten times worse than me. Notice specially that he seems to believe he "knows how to know". All I can do is giggle. It's just funny, when you consider all the goofy stuff he comes up with....
Grayling is, of course, a British philosopher. In the English system, it's true that the IB is the only programme that includes critical thinking as standard - in the more common GCSE/AS/A2 system no subjects are strictly compulsory, although most schools require you to sit maths, english language and set combinations of other options. Philosophy and the like are rarely offered at GCSE, and people only study 2-5 subjects after that, so they tend to focus on the area they want to study at university, languages and 'soft options' like media studies. Philosophy is perceived to be pretty tough - I can't comment myself, I didn't take it - so is only taken by the tiny minority who are really motivated to study it. I've heard nothing but good things about the IB, at least for the most intellectually able, but very few schools offer it.
Sanders: to me 'knowing how to know' as described by Grayling is about recognising the limits of your knowledge, challenging your preconceptions, and learning how to inform yourself better. As opposed to smug satisfaction in your intellectual superiority. Most 18 year olds are pretty arrogant anyway, in my experience, and I doubt that will change regardless of what they study.
So, you are led to believe that you've recognized the limits of your knowledge, that you know how to challenge your preconceptions, and have learned how to inform yourself better.
I insist this is not so, but a personal and long-term process that I personally don't think I'll be through with anytime soon
Post a Comment