Philosophy proved useful, definitely!!!

[Speakpigeon]

Apparently, some dude over in the UK just conducted some kind of survey showing that teaching philosophy to kids was a good investment of money and time, producing better results in maths and what not (BBC, yesterday). One hour a week seems enough to produce an effect, including in so-called "underpriviledged" areas.

Probably tested in some academy-style schools.

Unfortunately, subject matter is not enough by itself, what matters most are good teachers but bad districts won't find it easy to draw good teachers to them. Solution anyone?

Anyway, philosophy proved useful at last! Thank you Little England!
EB

 

[beero1000]

Apparently, some dude over in the UK just conducted some kind of survey showing that teaching philosophy to kids was a good investment of money and time, producing better results in maths and what not (BBC, yesterday). One hour a week seems enough to produce an effect, including in so-called "underpriviledged" areas.

Probably tested in some academy-style schools.

Unfortunately, subject matter is not enough by itself, what matters most are good teachers but bad districts won't find it easy to draw good teachers to them. Solution anyone?

Anyway, philosophy proved useful at last! Thank you Little England!
EB

https://educationendowmentfoundatio...boost-their-reading-writing-and-maths-result/

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-33464258

Wait, so having interesting, thoughtful discussions with children can make them more intellectually inclined? Wow!

 

[Togo]

I've found it really useful. Although it hasn't done as much for my career as English Comprehension has.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Apparently, some dude over in the UK just conducted some kind of survey showing that teaching philosophy to kids was a good investment of money and time, producing better results in maths and what not (BBC, yesterday). One hour a week seems enough to produce an effect, including in so-called "underpriviledged" areas.

Probably tested in some academy-style schools.

Unfortunately, subject matter is not enough by itself, what matters most are good teachers but bad districts won't find it easy to draw good teachers to them. Solution anyone?

Anyway, philosophy proved useful at last! Thank you Little England!
EB

https://educationendowmentfoundatio...boost-their-reading-writing-and-maths-result/

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-33464258

Wait, so having interesting, thoughtful discussions with children can make them more intellectually inclined? Wow!

Yeah, you would think so, certainly, but why years of thoughtful philosophical conversations with the grown-up children on this website have not produced the same effect do you think?

“Philosophy for Children has made a huge difference to the way our children interact with each other. In the playground, they can talk about their disagreements. They now respect other children’s points of view. In the classroom, their ideas are far more developed as they are better equipped to understand how others think and accept that these opinions are all valid. Philosophy for Children is extremely valuable both academically and socially.”

Or is there an age limit do you think?
EB

 

[Juma]

Yeah, you would think so, certainly, but why years of thoughtful philosophical conversations with the grown-up children on this website have not produced the same effect do you think?

Because there is no way of punish blatant gooblywookers and no-thinkers.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I've found it really useful. Although it hasn't done as much for my career as English Comprehension has.

Are you suggesting that scientists would benefit greatly from improving their score at comprehension? Given that time is in short supply, what subject should they give up in favour of English lessons?
EB

 

[Togo]

I've found it really useful. Although it hasn't done as much for my career as English Comprehension has.

Are you suggesting that scientists would benefit greatly from improving their score at comprehension? Given that time is in short supply, what subject should they give up in favour of English lessons?
EB

No, I'm no longer pursuing science as a career. Which is a shame on the one hand, but on the other hand I'm now earning a lot more. My present job essentially boils down to English Comprehension, which I find ironic since people always told me it would useless for my later earnings. Philosophy ditto - not to the same extent as English Comprehension, but definitely beneficial.

Scientists would benefit from additional English comprehension, but it probably isn't worth forgoing studying additional science to get it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It makes sense. If kids are able to say to themselves "Wow, philosophy is a bunch of useless horseshit. I'd better hunker down and study hard at some real subjects so my life doesn't end up being wasted doing things like going around to schools trying to convince students that it has some value. This terrifying vision of my potential future has scared some sense into me" then they get some incentive to make something of their life.

It's like having kids visit prison in order to show them the consequences of a criminal lifestyle.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The suggestion, I think, is not that philosophical ideas and views as such can somehow improve the kids' IQ. Rather, it's the process of engaging with philosophical ideas which is seen as a positive factor.

Me, I would even suggest that philosophical ideas are used here because it's real convenient. I think one could use in fact any intellectual field if it was as convenient as philosophy. So, as I see it, philosophy doesn't necessarily feature as such in the explanation of the effect observed. Now, what else could kids be engaged with? Philosophy is just really convenient. And of course doing basic philosophy requires very little in terms of installations and equipment and physical work so again very convenient. Even doing physics experimentations probably wouldn't have the same impact on kids (and most already do). I guess you get distracted from the pure ideas by all the parapharnelia and the practical manipulation required.

It's a bit like kids are made to travel the same road as humanity did starting with the first philosophers some more than 2500 years ago. Conversely, the effect that philosophy had on humanity, including scientists, in the course of history is probably the same as its effect today on disadvantaged kids. Not too bad, I think.
EB

 

[Cerberus]

Apparently, some dude over in the UK just conducted some kind of survey showing that teaching philosophy to kids was a good investment of money and time, producing better results in maths and what not (BBC, yesterday). One hour a week seems enough to produce an effect, including in so-called "underpriviledged" areas.

Probably tested in some academy-style schools.

Unfortunately, subject matter is not enough by itself, what matters most are good teachers but bad districts won't find it easy to draw good teachers to them. Solution anyone?

Anyway, philosophy proved useful at last! Thank you Little England!
EB

If someone tells the BBC they're an expert at something it will believe everything they say without the least demand for proof or evidence. At the moment they're believing the Pluto crap.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If someone tells the BBC they're an expert at something it will believe everything they say without the least demand for proof or evidence.

Can you present whatever proof and evidence you have for this remarkable claim?
EB

 

[Cerberus]

If someone tells the BBC they're an expert at something it will believe everything they say without the least demand for proof or evidence.

Can you present whatever proof and evidence you have for this remarkable claim?
EB

Well like I said, the latest is the ridiculous Pluto waffle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/20945051

 

[Speakpigeon]

Can you present whatever proof and evidence you have for this remarkable claim?
EB

Well like I said, the latest is the ridiculous Pluto waffle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/20945051

Pluto waffle? Sorry, can you be specific and explicit in your claim? You said "If someone tells the BBC they're an expert at something it will believe everything they say without the least demand for proof or evidence". That's quite something to say. What is your specific claim and what is the evidence to back it up?
EB

 

[Cerberus]

Well like I said, the latest is the ridiculous Pluto waffle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/20945051

Pluto waffle? Sorry, can you be specific and explicit in your claim? You said "If someone tells the BBC they're an expert at something it will believe everything they say without the least demand for proof or evidence". That's quite something to say. What is your specific claim and what is the evidence to back it up?
EB

Because the 'evidence' promulgated by the so-called cosmologists is essentially populist speculation couched in a most condescending fashion (as if to gullible children?), and the 'photographs' are merely CGI. In short, I'd need more than that to convince me that there's more to it than a 'jobs for life' subterfuge for those who work in the space industry.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I didn't understand that sentence or how it related to Pluto.

 

[fromderinside]

I didn't understand that sentence or how it related to Pluto.

...has something to do with BBC accepting experts who claim Pluto is a Planet, er, no, its a micro planet, er, maybe its a planet ad infinitum?

 

[fast]

Because the 'evidence' promulgated by the so-called cosmologists is essentially populist speculation couched in a most condescending fashion (as if to gullible children?), and the 'photographs' are merely CGI. In short, I'd need more than that to convince me that there's more to it than a 'jobs for life' subterfuge for those who work in the space industry.

That was a lot to digest. Although the purported subterfuge might be well worth exploring, what captures my attention is your articulation of thought. How is the evidence speculation, and why do you think the photos are evidence for the real underlying issue--which isn't whether or not Pluto is a planet.

What's unfortunate is the impact presentation can have on an issue. The Pluto controversy could have been overted had it not been center of attention. Whether Pluto is a planet question has been a distraction to the underlying issue--which is how to classify planets. It's not how to classify Pluto (per se) that matters. It's the underlying classification system itself, to which Pluto need not even be thrown into the limelight.

Of course, the ramifications can't go without notice, but just as the classification of insects or rocks cannot be created without human thought, the connection between the systems themselves and the objects classified have a scientific basis despite our involvement. For instance, some solar objects "suck up all the other material around it", and that is a natural fact independent of our recognition that it's true.

The evidence to which you regard as speculative doesn't appear to me as speculative.

 

[Kharakov]

THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED!@!$

That's what she (Cerberus) means.

 

[ryan]

Well like I said, the latest is the ridiculous Pluto waffle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/20945051

Pluto waffle? Sorry, can you be specific and explicit in your claim? You said "If someone tells the BBC they're an expert at something it will believe everything they say without the least demand for proof or evidence". That's quite something to say. What is your specific claim and what is the evidence to back it up?
EB

Any news organization that isn't actually doing the research themselves is going to have to take the word of the people proving the evidence. When the Higgs boson was supposedly found, they pretty much have no choice than to trust the claims of the scientists.

 

[Cerberus]

Pluto waffle? Sorry, can you be specific and explicit in your claim? You said "If someone tells the BBC they're an expert at something it will believe everything they say without the least demand for proof or evidence". That's quite something to say. What is your specific claim and what is the evidence to back it up?
EB

Any news organization that isn't actually doing the research themselves is going to have to take the word of the people proving the evidence. When the Higgs boson was supposedly found, they pretty much have no choice than to trust the claims of the scientists.

Actually they do have a choice, the alternate one to what you asserted being to not trust the claims of the scientists, which is what I'm doing - or not doing?

Good for you in saying 'supposedly found' though. I detect a little scepticism ensconced in those two words - welcome to the club!!