I will again begin with professor of philosophy Justin P. McBrayer's New York Times article on the topic.
What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?
I was. As a philosopher, I already knew that many college-aged students don’t believe in moral facts. While there are no national surveys quantifying this phenomenon, philosophy professors with whom I have spoken suggest that the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture.
What I didn’t know was where this attitude came from.
He goes on to describe his discovery that his 2nd grade son was being taught the following definitions for 'fact' and 'opinion' and that part of learning critical thinking for his son's class meant sorting claims into the categories of either fact or opinion.
Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.
Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes.
He did some research and found that this was standard across the Common Core curriculum, including in higher grades.
What does he claim is wrong about this? First, these definitions conflate truth with proof: truth is "a feature of the world" and proof is "a feature of our mental lives." Something can be true but unprovable, and sometimes we "prove" something that turns out to be false. Second, students are directed to sort claims into a list of either facts or opinions, but many claims are both: If you believe something that is true, then it is both a fact and an opinion.
How does this connect to the amorality or moral relativism of today's freshmen? According to McBrayer, schools that use Common Core spend 12 years indoctrinating students with the idea that claims are either fact or opinion but not both, and that all value statements fall into the opinion category. In doing so, they are thoroughly convincing students that there can be no moral truths. Thus, the idea that cheating or murder are wrong is just someone's opinion, and if someone has a different opinion, that's OK.
Additionally, this way of teaching critical thinking produces a powerful doublethink in students' minds. Schools do teach morality in their codes of conduct, such things as academic integrity, student rights, student responsibilities, etc. But according to their own critical thinking instruction, these are mere opinions, and many students see that. Many others, I believe, are taught not to see the difference at all and doublethink becomes normal for them.
What is the answer? As McBrayer points out, the actual Common Core standard is to sort things into facts, opinions, and reasoned judgments. However, apparently teaching 'reasoned judgment' is being left out, but that is exactly what we should be focusing on. He states:
We can do better. Our children deserve a consistent intellectual foundation. Facts are things that are true. Opinions are things we believe. Some of our beliefs are true. Others are not. Some of our beliefs are backed by evidence. Others are not. Value claims are like any other claims: either true or false, evidenced or not. The hard work lies not in recognizing that at least some moral claims are true but in carefully thinking through our evidence for which of the many competing moral claims is correct. That’s a hard thing to do. But we can’t sidestep the responsibilities that come with being human just because it’s hard.
While there are other factors at work in the recent glut of cheating scandals, I agree with McBrayer that this is one factor, and I think it's important that we be aware of this failure in our education system. To the extent that we can, we need to advocate for changing the way this is taught in our local schools. And, to the extent that we have the opportunity, we need to correct this idea in students, whether we are teachers or not.
###
PS I'll make another run at whether there are moral truths or not, and if so whether we can ever prove them, in another post.
20 comments:
I'll say again everything I said before. I think this guy is barking up the wrong tree entirely. 'Factness' and 'proof' are properly conflated. If truth comes apart from proof, it's only because some things may be true that can't be proven. We can deal with that in several ways, but calling unprovable things "facts" is not a great way of doing it.
Maybe he should work on developing better proofs of the moral truths he wants to claim are "moral facts." The post you suggest at the end -- a proof of moral truths -- would be a good way to start thinking about that. If you dig down into the recent post called "Inequality," there's a link in my reply to Elise that goes to an article I wrote about moral realism, which is the belief that there are moral truths, as it applies to non-human animals. It might be a helpful place to start.
Even if we disagree with his definitions, his larger point that our schools are teaching this wrong and that this mistake is harming students and society is still good, I think.
On his definition of fact, an argument he makes in the article is that if we require proof, then something can be a fact for one person but not another. His example is that E = MC^2 would be a fact for a physicist (who could prove it) but not for someone who could not prove it (like me).
Also, in that next post on moral truths, would you mind if I copied & attributed your arguments about courage from that old post?
No, go ahead. I think courage (and classical virtues generally) are good examples for moral realist discussions. It seems like there's a clear truthmaker we can point to in the world.
I don't think the physicist argument is very strong. If you and the physicist disagree, he can prove you wrong and not vice-versa. The fact that you may not understand the proof does not mean that there isn't an independent standard in the world, which will sustain his claims but not yours.
So let me make sure I understand. You're complaining that they're not properly teaching third graders advanced philosophical points that not even everyone in the Hall can agree on? Because I surely do not agree that they're wrong. Morals are opinions. They may be based upon faith, but like faith, they are not things that can be proven. Nor do I think you individually need to be able to prove something for it to be a fact. I don't need expertise in advanced mathematics to accept that the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem has been proven. I can accept that those who do hold the proper knowledge have successfully done so. Or more properly, it is my opinion that they have proven it true. My opinion can be changed, IF I am given competing facts. But as of now, I have none. You may call this an appeal to authority, but it is not. My opinion is based upon the facts that I have been presented, and without sufficient competing facts, that is what I will base my opinion upon.
And also, I 100% challenge the thesis that the cheating scandal in Atlanta comes because of Common Core teachings. And as evidence, I submit the fact that the teachers and administrators involved in the cheating scandal were not ever taught using Common Core. I find it much more likely that they engaged in widespread cheating for the reasons that people since the dawn of time have done so. They thought they could get away with it and believed that they were justified. Rare is the thief who thinks that he is morally reprehensible. Most of them tend to consider themselves good people trapped in circumstances that forced them to break the law.
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/01/09-prisoners-believe-they-are-law-abiding-as-non-prisoners.page
http://www.psych2go.net/prisoners-experience-the-better-than-average-effect/
These teachers and administrators thought it unfair that they be judged upon student performance, and thought that it was justified that they help the student's scores in order to make themselves look better. No need for "teaching there's no such thing as moral facts" to enter the picture, nor any fancy explanations as to why it happened. It happened for the same reason people throughout time always break the law. The major difference is, now you actually will hear about it.
So let me make sure I understand. You're complaining that they're not properly teaching third graders advanced philosophical points that not even everyone in the Hall can agree on?
McBrayer says grades 2-12, at least, and the complaint is that they're not teaching 'reasoned judgment,' i.e., they're not teaching students to see whether there is good evidence for an opinion or not. So, no, I don't think you understood my point. That is probably my fault, but either way, there it is.
And as evidence, I submit the fact that the teachers and administrators involved in the cheating scandal were not ever taught using Common Core.
You internalize what you teach. A teacher doesn't spend years giving and grading this kind of homework and not internalize it.
Again, I'm not trying to claim this is the one and only reason. The reasons you offer are almost certainly part of it as well.
But let's turn this around. Do you really oppose teaching students to analyze arguments, determine what facts are presented, and check to see whether the opinions given have good support or not? Do you really believe that a well-supported, well-reasoned opinion is no better than one with no evidence or reasoning behind it at all? Because that's what we're talking about.
We may not be able to prove a moral fact, but surely we can make well-supported, well-reasoned arguments that some behaviors are wrong. If McBrayer is right, then students are being taught that evidence and reasoning doesn't matter. Only whether something is a fact or an opinion matters, and that regardless of how well evidenced and reasoned, one opinion is no better than another.
Do you really oppose teaching students to analyze arguments, determine what facts are presented, and check to see whether the opinions given have good support or not? Do you really believe that a well-supported, well-reasoned opinion is no better than one with no evidence or reasoning behind it at all? Because that's what we're talking about.
Is that what we're talking about? I thought we were talking about the exact relationship between the members of the following set: [facts, proof, truth]
Well, that's what I was talking about, anyway.
But maybe you two are right. I've spent some time reading the "Editor's picks" of the 2000+ comments at the NYT and clicking on McBrayer's links. The commenters mostly seem to agree with you two, and while his links do seem to have a high number of 'fact vs. opinion' worksheets, there are also some reasonable 'fact, opinion, or reasoned judgment' worksheets as well.
That said, McBrayer claims that for moral statements students are repeatedly faced with only the fact or opinion options, and I didn't see anything that contradicted him. The worksheets that I saw with the 'reasoned judgment' option were about history or current events. Maybe reasoned judgments about morality are too difficult or controversial.
Okay, so let's forget the 'moral facts' business and talk about facts, truth, proof, and opinions.
'Factness' and 'proof' are properly conflated. If truth comes apart from proof, it's only because some things may be true that can't be proven.
If we think about the past, I think there's pretty much an infinite number of true things (i.e., things that really were or really happened) that we will never be able to prove, or even know anything about. So, I believe we must separate truth from proof.
We can deal with that in several ways, but calling unprovable things "facts" is not a great way of doing it.
So what about these historical things that are true but can't be proven? Can we ever say, "There is a historical fact here, but it's impossible to know it"?
So, one thing we often do say in philosophy of science -- when considering relativity theory -- is that "there is no fact of the matter." And that's interesting because the cases where we say it are cases in which different truths are in fact provable from different points of view.
An example is the train-and-platform experiment. Are the two flashes of light simultaneous or not? There is a frame of reference in which it is provable that the answer is "Yes," and a frame (or rather, many frames) in which the answer is "No."
So, is it true that the flashes were simultaneous? Yes, and no. Is it true they were not simultaneous? Yes, and no. So what we say is, "There is no fact of the matter" about whether or not they were simultaneous -- and that is because we can prove both that it was, and that it was not.
That last fact -- that we can prove both that it was and that it was not -- points to an important truth. But it isn't a truth about whether the lights were or were not simultaneous. It's a higher truth, which we learn from conflicting facts and proofs.
In mathematics, there are certainly things that are true but cannot be proven. This was demonstrated by Kurt Goedel about 80 years ago. He also showed that no matter how many additional postulates you add to the system (in a system complicated enough to encompass basic arithmetic), there will *still* be things that are true that are not provable.
Specifically concerning moral truths--do such things exist or are they merely matters of opinion?--the subject has been discussed and debated by people a lot smarter than I suspect the Common Core writers are---Immanuel Kant, for example--for a long time. To just make an assertion that no such moral truths exist, without caveating the history of the debate, doesn't seem very professional on the part of the CC writers.
Grim, I'm not sure how that relates to my question about the past. I'm not asking about relativity or quantum theory, but about things that have already been or already happened, but which are impossible to know or prove because the information or methods to do so no longer exist.
For example, it is a fact that I ate breakfast this morning. However, in 20 years, I probably will have no idea what I ate for breakfast on April 20th, 2015, or even whether I ate breakfast. There will be a fact (or at least a truth) of the matter, but I will have no way to know or prove it.
I think there is something true there, something that actually happened (I ate eggs? I ate cereal? I didn't eat?), but can we call that true but unprovable thing a fact? Or do we call it something else? Either way, there seems to be a virtually infinite number of true things we cannot prove.
David, I agree, although I suspect it is more a problem of execution than planning.
Tom, say you wrote something down about your breakfast that was wrong. Perhaps you habitually ate ham and eggs, but that morning you'd eaten grits. Out of habit, without thought, you wrote down: "Had ham and eggs for breakfast" in your diary.
In 20 years, or in 200 years, the truth won't presumably have changed. But that you had ham & eggs that morning will be a fact, because historians can prove it by reference to your journal.
So I think these things -- facts and truth, at least -- come apart, and they come apart over the issue of proof. In the relativity case, since both things are true (and can be proven), we say 'there is no fact of the matter.' In this case, we have a fact that isn't true. And there are doubtless truths that can't be proven as well. These aren't facts.
Okay, thanks. That's an answer I can work with.
McBrayer says grades 2-12, at least, and the complaint is that they're not teaching 'reasoned judgment,' i.e., they're not teaching students to see whether there is good evidence for an opinion or not. So, no, I don't think you understood my point. That is probably my fault, but either way, there it is.
Ok, nevermind that the relevant quote from the NYT opinion article says:
A few weeks ago, I learned that students are exposed to this sort of thinking well before crossing the threshold of higher education. When I went to visit my son’s second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read:
Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.
Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes.
But even granted that there is absolutely no change at all in the lesson plans from grades 2 all the way through the Senior year of High School (and that's a heck of a lot to just assume, but let's go with it). Even if that is true, then your complain remains that students up to the age of 18 are not being taught advanced philosophical points that not even actual philosophers (much less we of the Hall) can agree upon?
Because that's actually kind of appropriate. High School and below is exactly the point where sub-collegiate levels of philosophy are appropriate. And perhaps your educational experience varied greatly from mine, but actual philosophy was not part of my high school curricula. I never was even assigned Plato's Allegory of the Cave as reading until I went to University, and that's about as basic philosophy as you can really get.
Specifically concerning moral truths--do such things exist or are they merely matters of opinion?--the subject has been discussed and debated by people a lot smarter than I suspect the Common Core writers are---Immanuel Kant, for example--for a long time. To just make an assertion that no such moral truths exist, without caveating the history of the debate, doesn't seem very professional on the part of the CC writers.
Frankly, I don't know Kant's intelligence level. I assume he was likely quite clever, but to assume intelligence makes him right is a bridge too far. Einstein was a freakish genius. The man thought on levels you or I will never achieve. And yet, it looks like he was dead wrong on quantum theory. His famous quote is "God does not play dice". But apparently, not only does He play with dice, He may even cheat at it (as the results change when we actually watch Him roll). And while I think it's a common mistake to quote Einstein on matters well outside his expertise (such as people who are fond of quoting him on political matters), quantum mechanics fell directly within his wheelhouse, and yet he was still wrong.
And not even other brilliant philosophers (operating within their specialty) agree with Kant. And again, is advanced philosophical debate really something we expect grade school (and I did grant even High School) students to grasp? At the second grade level (as quoted in the NYT article), I think it's enough to try to get children to be able to sort that things are provable or not, and that's pretty good if they get the distinction. I don't expect them to become Kantians in order to advance to the third grade. So no... I don't find it intellectually dishonest at all.
You don't have to assume Kant's intelligence. You can test yourself against it, if you like. He was still wrong about a question of physics -- he argued that it was necessarily true that space was Euclidean. (It's a strange mistake for him to have made, given his noumena/phenomena distinction of which he makes so much elsewhere).
Ok, nevermind that the relevant quote from the NYT opinion article says ...
Or the sentence that says "He did some research and found that this was standard across the Common Core curriculum, including in higher grades."
... then your complain remains that students up to the age of 18 are not being taught advanced philosophical points that not even actual philosophers (much less we of the Hall) can agree upon?
Let me repeat : "... the complaint is that they're not teaching 'reasoned judgment,' i.e., they're not teaching students to see whether there is good evidence for an opinion or not."
I had no idea that checking to see whether there was good evidence for a claim was such a high-level philosophical exercise.
I also don't recall being taught in class how to decide if there is good evidence for opinions, either. Mostly because evidence is used to determine facts, not opinions.
"I like the color blue" is an opinion. What evidence can you provide demonstrating that my opinion is "reasoned"? Grim mentions the Trolley Problem above. What is the "reasoned judgement" making one answer a moral truth versus the other answer? I posit that there is no "correct" answer to the Trolley Problem. And what's truly sad is that there are some who would attempt to make either decision illegal (by failing to act to save the four, you could be legally culpable in their deaths but by acting and condemning the one to death, you could be legally culpable in causing the death... a true no-win situation).
Opinions are just claims, right? So, "We should elect Walker" is an opinion. I hope you would take the available facts into account when you consider that opinion.
You'll probably find this odd, but if you told me you liked the color blue, I would consider it a fact. Unless you are lying, it is true, and we can prove it by asking you.
... what's truly sad is that there are some who would attempt to make either decision illegal ...
True.
Post a Comment