I had my son's end of year school report yesterday (he is 7 1/2). While he was rated as above average in all subjects (of course!), the teachers were critical in one particular area - something that they had previously brought up with us. They said that he always wants to take time over his work, particularly writing and drawing, and likes to make sure it is correct and accurate before he finishes it. When they first mentioned this a few months ago we took it as a compliment! They felt it that wasn't a good trait and it was far more important to get something finished, however badly, in the little time available while they rushed from one subject to another, rather than spend time doing something properly.
Even at home he will spend hours drawing very detailed pictures or building complex models out of lego. If he gets something wrong, he will scrap it and start over again.
I always thought that attention to detail and the ability to concentrate on one task for a long period were good things. It's bad enough that today's internet culture is giving a generation of children with the attention span of a goldfish - it's another thing when this is reinforced by schools.
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Thursday, 10 July 2008
Freedom to be wrong
I'm currently reading "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill and there is one section early on that jumped out at me.
It's that last sentence that I found particularly interesting. The first example that came to mind was of the debate between those who accept evolution and those who believe in a religious version of creation. Does it strengthen the position of a true viewpoint to be tested against a falsehood rather than avoiding the debate? I know Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists because it is not possible to hold a sensible debate based on evidence and reasoned argument against someone who doesn't play by the same rules of evidence and reason. After hearing 'debates' between biologists and creationists who refuse to accept the existence of transitional fossils I can see his point.
I'm wondering if the nature of public debate was really different in Mill's time or whether he was only involved in debates with other educated people. The problem these days is that you don't have to have any understanding of a subject or hold any evidence in order to put your case to a mass audience. Witness the case of the MMR scare where one dodgy study put one side of the case, but there was an overwhelming number of studies that showed the opposite. If you just looked at the mass media, the simple fact that there were two sides to the argument was treated as if both sides were of equal merit. This story just won't go away, Americans are now getting 'advice' on the safety of vaccines from those bastions of the medical profession, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, on Oprah.
Was Mills correct that debate between two opposing positions - 'true' and 'false' is a benefit to the side of the truth? Or have we got to a point in society today where the lack of critical thinking and the persuasiveness of the mass media means that 'truth' doesn't mean anything and that any point of view that is put forward on TV must automatically be valid? Also, there doesn't seem to be any real argument - everyone's position is equal, so there is never any reason to be persuaded to change your mind. Without trying to sound like a Monty Python sketch, there's more to an argument than saying 'No, it isn't'.
Was there ever a golden age of civilized debate when, to win an argument, it was enough just to be right?
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is; that is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
It's that last sentence that I found particularly interesting. The first example that came to mind was of the debate between those who accept evolution and those who believe in a religious version of creation. Does it strengthen the position of a true viewpoint to be tested against a falsehood rather than avoiding the debate? I know Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists because it is not possible to hold a sensible debate based on evidence and reasoned argument against someone who doesn't play by the same rules of evidence and reason. After hearing 'debates' between biologists and creationists who refuse to accept the existence of transitional fossils I can see his point.
I'm wondering if the nature of public debate was really different in Mill's time or whether he was only involved in debates with other educated people. The problem these days is that you don't have to have any understanding of a subject or hold any evidence in order to put your case to a mass audience. Witness the case of the MMR scare where one dodgy study put one side of the case, but there was an overwhelming number of studies that showed the opposite. If you just looked at the mass media, the simple fact that there were two sides to the argument was treated as if both sides were of equal merit. This story just won't go away, Americans are now getting 'advice' on the safety of vaccines from those bastions of the medical profession, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, on Oprah.
Was Mills correct that debate between two opposing positions - 'true' and 'false' is a benefit to the side of the truth? Or have we got to a point in society today where the lack of critical thinking and the persuasiveness of the mass media means that 'truth' doesn't mean anything and that any point of view that is put forward on TV must automatically be valid? Also, there doesn't seem to be any real argument - everyone's position is equal, so there is never any reason to be persuaded to change your mind. Without trying to sound like a Monty Python sketch, there's more to an argument than saying 'No, it isn't'.
Was there ever a golden age of civilized debate when, to win an argument, it was enough just to be right?
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
No posts, then some Blasphemy
I've been too busy at work to write any blog posts recently. I have been planning a big post inspired by the book I'm reading at the moment - On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. I wish I had read this book years ago. It's full of ideas that coincide with the way my view on the world has evolved over the years. There was a section early on in the book about why we should be open to debate controversial issues because the truth is strengthened by being compared to falsehoods. I've had some thoughts about why this often doesn't work in the real world. It needs some more work, so watch this space...
In the meantime, I was directed (via Pharyngula) to this funny site of irreverent cartoons. I only had a chance to look at a few random ones, but I liked this one...
In the meantime, I was directed (via Pharyngula) to this funny site of irreverent cartoons. I only had a chance to look at a few random ones, but I liked this one...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)