Comments for Philosophy In School at http://randi.org/site , comment 1 to 24 out of 20 comments http://randi.org/site Tue, 21 May 2013 22:31:34 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21536 Thanks for a good article. Refreshing. - Caller X Sun, 13 Mar 2011 11:01:48 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21525 [u]Sailor[/u]: Providing a hypothetical consequence is not "reasoning". The teacher drew no conclusions. The point of the example is that there are often hidden consequences, not whether those consequences are good or bad. This particular example involves something that, at its surface, seems harmless. The teacher could also have used an example which seemed harmful on the surface along with a hypothetical consequence that is positive. [u]Matt D[/u]: Again, this is not a conversation for blog comments, but your interpretation of what I wrote is incorrect, making your argument (if unintentional) a straw man. - badrescher Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:24:24 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21524 "I must disagree, but that is clearly not a discussion for blog comments. Regarding whether or not Kant wrote those exact words, I would probably have a problem if I thought that his ideas were misrepresented, but I don't. More importantly, the lesson is grade-appropriate." It is a misrepresentation of his words and a patently absurd statement. Kant never said you couldn't treat people as means, or that ends couldn't justify means, he said that you should never treat people *merely* as means. It would be impossible to function in the world if you didn't treat people as means (if you ride a bus, you treat a bus driver as the means to your end. If you order food, you treat the waiter as a means to your end. The important thing from a Kantian view is that you are always aware and respect that these people have their own ends and are not merely there to be used as your means). Any end you can imagine requires that you use a means to achieve it. To say that those means can never be justified is to say that you *can not act*. Two simple examples: It is wrong for me to touch you without your consent. It violates your autonomy and can cause you injury, real or perceived. But it is not wrong (and Kant certainly would not have said it was, nor would any other moral philosopher with any sense) to say that it is wrong for me to push you to the ground if my aim is knock you out of the way of an oncoming train which would surely have killed you. The end (saving you from an oncoming train) absolutely justifies the means (pushing you). In a less-controversial example (though I can hardly see that example being controversial), I purchase a loaf of bread at the grocery store, give the cashier my money, go home, and eat the bread. My end is to satiate my hunger and ensure that I continue to live. The means to that end were walking to the grocery store, buying the bread, and walking home. Obviously my end goal of eating food so that I don't starve to death justifies these means. As I said, it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest otherwise and means that you are incapable of taking any action in the world. - Matt_D Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:32:49 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21523 "This boy has not only dreamed of going to this school, but he sees the opportunity at his only means of leaving the reservation for a better life. He is so devastated by the rejection that he kills himself." You can obviously create a hundred scenarios, at least half of which have a good outcome to lying in this situation, so any outcome based on what might happen, unless it was something pretty obvious and very likely, seems spurious. - sailor Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:03:22 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21522 There was something that happened to me in my senior year at college that I still have mixed feelings about. I went to a tough competitive school, and late in my senior year, my Grandfather (my Mom's dad) had died, but my parents never told me. I knew he wasn't well, but my parents withheld the information about his death until after graduation. What they did say was that they would be unable to come out to see me graduate (my mom was in mourning, but they made some other excuse about it). I was angry that they couldn't make it -- all my friends parents were there, and I was asked to bring my parents to several different post-graduation parties, so I spent a lot of time explaining that my parents were too busy to make it. I was angry and embarassed. I never found out that my grandfather was dead until I got off the plane, and my dad told me in the airport. The reasoning that they had was sound, that had they told me, It may have disturbed me enough that I'd screw up my exams. I was very close to my grandfather -- in many ways, he was a huge inspiration in my life -- he dropped out of high school to support his family when the depression came, but was self-educated, read voraciously, everything from engineering and science to literature and so on. He was as close to being a renaissance man as I've ever known (in fact, that was the CB handle he chose for himself). But I also was incredibly angry that my parents didn't tell me. To this day, I don't know if the lie was a 'good' one, like they thought it was. I've since forgiven my parents, but deep down, I think I would have preferred knowing the truth. - GrahamZ Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:51:56 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21521 [quote]“Experimental" does not mean "We know it works, but we're still testing it just to be sure". Insurance companies usually reject such requests for a reason: they are unlikely to work.[/quote] My only anecdata on the subject contradicts this. My son once suffered from chronic pneumonia, and as he was growing large (and his cerebral palsy made positioning an issue) his pulmonologist prescribed "The Vest", which is an air-driven device that performs chest percussive therapy. It was denied by my insurance company as "experimental". They would only pay for it to treat cystic fibrosis, and not for any other condition where CPT is indicated. This was absurd on its face, and they lost on appeal. However, the appeal took time. If the manufacturer hadn't been willing to provide the device well in advance of payment (even knowing it had been denied and was under appeal) he'd have been without this therapy for the better part of a year. - lytrigian Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:20:25 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21520 Learning how to think is an extremely complex thing. Far too complex for a short article such as this one. For example you need to define all the terms used in any issue. Define a lie. Does that include volunteering information or is it OK to keep quiet if you think that your best friend is dressed poorly? Such things have no black and white answer. Teaching a child that there can be several valid answers some of which contradict each other would be useful. The "ends do not justify the means." Correct, however the ends must be able to justify the means. If they do not do then the means are not right. - rjh02 Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:53:01 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21517 [quote]written by starskeptic, March 09, 2011 "Professional ethics and liability both kind of require honesty on the part of health care professionals." That's a gross over-simplification, and one reason why medical ethics is an entire field of its own. [/quote] Which is why I qualified my statement by inserting the works "kind of" instead of making an absolute statement. I could have just as easily used the word "generally". I am comfortable with my statement as phrased and qualified. I don't consider it gross over-simplification by any means. I consider the label of gross over-simplification to be gross-overstatement. Yes, truthfulness, honesty, and the concept of informed consent are together one of the major cornerstones of medical ethics, in addition to numerous others. I would think (though I am not a medical professional or medical ethicist) that that more of the focus in regards to truthfulness and honesty in medical ethics deals with understanding of what constitutes truthfulness, honesty and informed consent, than it does with when it is appropriate to be dishonest with patients. To put it simply, It's probably rarely, if ever, OK to be dishonest with a patient (both for ethical and liability reasons), but determining what constitutes dishonesty is not always simple. - Karl_Withakay Thu, 10 Mar 2011 06:59:47 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21503 [u]Felicity[/u]: In hindsight, I should have written that experimental treatments currently lack evidence to support their effectiveness rather than that they are "unlikely" to work. I am not an insurance expert, but it is my understanding that insurance companies differ in their definitions of "experimental" and/or "investigative" and any defensible definition must involve lack of evidence. Although this also includes treatments which are undergoing clinical trials, many states have laws requiring insurance companies to cover care in those cases. [u]Sharon[/u]: This teacher has an advantage because her class includes "gifted" kids and the school is a "School for Advanced Studies". As such, they can justify small additions to the curriculum. Each of the SAS teachers at the school include some additional instruction, usually in areas in which they have specific expertise. IMHO, there should be fewer mandates, more academic freedom at the primary level, and a focus on evidenced-based instruction. This leaves me with cross purposes in regard to my desire to see philosophy as the foundation for elementary education. I think that the only way to introduce it is by promoting it to individual schools or educators. The resources are out there, but convincing educators with no background in philosophy themselves is a different problem. Philosophy is about as misunderstood as psychology. [u]Matt_D[/u]: [quote]Of course the ends can justify the means, they just can't *always* justify the means.[/quote] I must disagree, but that is clearly not a discussion for blog comments. Regarding whether or not Kant wrote [i]those exact words[/i], I would probably have a problem if I thought that his ideas were misrepresented, but I don't. More importantly, the lesson is grade-appropriate. [u]Karl[/u]: I'm sure that when she was already in pain and exhausted, asking if the shot would hurt was more of a reflex than a well-considered question and I don't think that her reason for asking is particularly relevant. That said, your points about the ethical implications of lying in that situation are very interesting and exactly the kind of discussion I would encourage in a college classroom (I can't judge if it would be best for 5th grade). [u]rjh02[/u]: Those questions are loaded and irrelevant. You don't need to lie to your children in any of those cases, nor do you need to deny them the fantasy of Santa. We should not be telling our kids what to think. We should be teaching them [b]how[/b] to think. [u]popsaw[/u]: I see that Zoroaster did a much better job of discussing the role of critical thinking in moral reasoning, but I wanted to address something else that I noticed about your comment. Given what you've said (e.g., "Who is right? Can they both be right?") I think you are confusing methods with conclusions. Critical thinking and moral reasoning are methods. They are processes by which we decide what is true and what is "right", but anyone who thinks that they know with absolute certainty what is true is as misguided as one who says they know with absolute certainty what is right. Points of reference are no more tangible in the pursuit of truth than they are in the pursuit of morality. [i]Everything[/i] is relative and we share knowledge only because we agree on points of reference, just as we share morals by establishing laws. - badrescher Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:13:34 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21501 I get your point but I contend that critical thinking is very useful in regards to ethics and morality. The reason that two clear thinking people can differ on a moral issue is that they simply have different values. On the abortion issue, perhaps person A values quantity of human lives while person B values the quality of those lives. A person who values personal freedom might think drug use is okay while someone who values societal stability may come to the conclusion that it is destructive. Critical thinking can be employed at the level of determining if one's actions really support one's values. For example many people who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to distributing condoms in high schools. If they can be shown that statistically, there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies and hence fewer abortions if condoms are distributed they might change their minds. (Then again they probably won't but you get the idea.) - Zoroaster Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:43:17 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21500 "Professional ethics and liability both kind of require honesty on the part of health care professionals." That's a gross over-simplification, and one reason why medical ethics is an entire field of its own. - starskeptic Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:07:06 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21499 too bad . . . there is much to debate since James Randi confuses true psychic ability with what skeptic call cold readings. You cannot do what a true psychic does in a controlled environment. It like catching the wind with your hand. - Bea Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:21:31 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21498 The $1,000,000 Challenge article is a purely informational post. There is no reason for debate or comment. If you have questions or comments about the $1,000,000 Challenge, please contact one of the staff members under "Contact Us" in the pull-down menu above. They're easy to find. In the future please use that option rather than taking a post off-topic. Thank you. - mariamyrback Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:28:27 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21497 I would like to know why the comments have been disabled for the [b]JREF’s $1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge Now Easier Than Ever. [/b] - Bea Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:20:23 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21494 It is my opinion that critical thinking has no place in moral issues since critical thinking seeks the truth whilst morals are subjective/relative and changeable, and not a question of truth but rather a question of personal conscience which varies between persons. Person 'A' may feel abortion is always immoral whilst person 'B' may believe it is sometimes or even acceptable. Who is right? Can they both be right? Since the law varies from country to country on this issue, we cannot turn to the law for moral guidance so what is the point of reference? Another example is recreational drug use. Some feel that such practice is immoral yet others contend that if nobody is harmed and it is done in private, where is the problem? Who is right? Is recreational drug use immoral? Regarding lying, I believe that sometimes it is justified, particularly where the truth is not deserved, for instance, if a robber asked me where the keys to my safe were and I lied to her saying that they were upstairs whilst I made my escape, my conscience would be clear! - popsaw Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:48:32 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21492 Here are a few. Is it ok to tell a child that Santa Clause or the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny is real? Discussion here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=174908 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=183202 How about telling a dying child there is no afterlife or heaven?. Discussion here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=167326 You either lie to your children or you do something that not many parents do. If you lie to your children then they have a right to follow your example. - rjh02 Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:20:08 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21491 [quote]When I suggested that if the nurse had lied, she might be angry about that lie, she responded with, "Yes, but I would still have preferred to not know."[/quote] In addition to my comment above, I wonder if the teacher had really thought about in what situations it would be appropriate for health care professionals to lie to patients and in which situation truth and honesty would be required. What's the objective criteria the nurse or doctor is supposed to use to determine when lying is appropriate? Sure, SHE would have preferred not to have known if it was going to be painful (even though she asked), but others would prefer honesty. Professional ethics and liability both kind of require honesty on the part of health care professionals. - Karl_Withakay Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:11:16 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21488 Can't wrote? Sorry, stroked out there for a moment. Kant wrote. - Matt_D Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:18:42 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21487 Great article but I have one bone to pick: "The teacher then explained that Immanuel Kant wrote that the ends never justify the means" Kant absolutely did not write this. Can't wrote that one should never use other people merely as a means to your own ends, but that one must always respect that others are an end in and of themselves. Of course the ends can justify the means, they just can't *always* justify the means. Kant didn't say that ends can never justify means, just that there are often more important moral and rational considerations than mere ends. - Matt_D Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:13:27 +0100 http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1238-philosophy-in-school.html#comment-21486 This really struck a nerve with me - my interest in science was sparked by philosophical discussions with my father on drives through the Arabian desert! My brother is a science / math teacher and finds that kids who discuss such issues & get introduced to critical thinking early tend to do better. Of course this could indicate better educated parents, wealthier background etc but it is fascinating. I'd love to see more investigation of this, but it wouldn't surprise me if exposure to this kind of thought exercise was incredibly beneficial for our critical faculties! Well written article, thank you! - drg85 Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:35:14 +0100