Sorry I haven't even read this article yet, but I must comment on the comment spam that is appearing on comments over two years old. And the spam doesn't even have links. Is some undergrad simply fooling around?
Your guess is as good as mine. I will enter into a meditative trance in order to contact Ogged in the astral plane. Thus the mysteries of comment spam will be revealed to me.
Teaching law is similar when one gets away from strict doctrine.
It sounds (from the perspective of one entirely ignorant of academic philosophy) like teaching literature rather than science. A survey class is going to have to touch on philosophers and schools of philosophy as historical events rather than simply teaching the philosophy they produced as uncontroversial information. Interrelationships between different schools of philosophy would be treated like, say, the historical relationship between the Augustan poets and the Romantic poets that followed them, not taking a position on which was superior. Does putting it that way make sense?
Tripp, the link is in the spammer's name.
I tend to agree with LB. The curriculum she suggests, though, does risk giving the impression that correctness or philosophical progress increases linearly with time. "So much for Hume—Kant showed him what's what!" Etc.
I don't think that philosophy has progressed from Diogenes's act of public masturbation.
That would be an attention-getting introductory lecture.
Apropos of nothing, it's Florida in a shocker. I guess YahooNews has yet to learn the term.
What about the possibility that philosophical progress increases non-linearly with time? Possibly even proceeds non-montonically with time?
If you're asking only about the mechanical problem of introducing controversial topics in an introductory course, I tend to solve it thusly: I ask myself, Self, what is the point of introducing this controversial topic at this stage of a survey course? Self replies, you want to get across point x, because that allows you to connect back to point w of last week and gets you toward point y for next week. (Self has clearly read To the Lighthouse.)
But Self, I say, point x barely scratches the surface of this topic, and is perhaps not even the most intresting thing you could say about this topic.
Self says: look, you only have thirty-some lectures to get to point z. Whattaya (Self is also a fan of The Sopranos) gonna do?
I say right, and march into the lecture hall with this ten second caveat: "What I'm about to say is subject to some controversy among scholars of the topic, but for our purposes what we really need to know about this topic is...."
Sometimes, if things are going smoothly, I'll stick in a five minute excursus: "Now, if this were not so, but rather otherwise, what would we find?" And if things are going really smoothly, the end of the excursus sounds like this: "... but that would lead us on to point y, also, so we still get where we were going." Take that, Self!, I say.
Which last tends to alarm the students.
History is like that, or it should be. Historians can fight about anything. Unfortunately intro classes do wind up being names and dates for the same reasons you describe. Biology can be like that, simply because we're learning so much so quickly right now.
I would personally as a student be grateful for the instructor making it clear that much of the subject is open to debate rather than to get closed into a box of thought only to find out in the end that ha ha! it wasn't really like that at all, even if the lectures in the meantime did tend to treat the subject as if things were settled that aren't really settled at all. That sentence is hideous, but I hope it makes sense.
Just tell the students what Self said. It shouldn't alarm them unduly, if they have a sense of humor.
my intuitionist-relevance friends who may or may not
Pthbtbt!
I second what what winna said about history.
And Re 9: Apropos of even less, I imagine that the guy in Time Magazine's art department who created this cover had a hard time containing his amusement as the cover worked its way through the approval process.
12, 14: my 11 was, fwiw, a description of teaching a class in history. And winna, sometimes I tell 'em about Self's feelings, and sometimes I don't. Sometimes they have an obvious sense of humor (or, I should say, a sense of humor with obvious connections to my own) and sometimes they don't.
Would it be fair to generalize and say that all the "liberal arts" fields have this problem to varying degrees?
My guess is that philosophy would differ from the study of literature in that an English or Comp Lit person could indulge her tastes or present a particularly fashionable theory without feeling such an obligation to discuss how controversial it is, how undecided.
Tell them what Self said?
"As soon as I called him I said, ‘Coach, I've been here a couple hours and this seat is already hot,'"
As to the link in 14, at least there was no giving of birth taking place. Otherwise America's husband mayhave found its sex drive impaired.
My guess is that in literature different theories are not in conflict quite so much as in philosophy; if you want to present a New Historicist analysis of Hard Times, someone who wants to deconstruct it isn't so much disagreeing with you. So the New Historicist analysis isn't incomplete if presented without the deconstruction. But if you're going to present a compatibilist view of free will, you've got to address the incompatibilist's arguments.
I may be full of shit, though, since I don't really know too much about what goes on in literature classes; probably my choice of analyses is embarrassing. Also, that kind of analysis may not be so appropriate for intro literature classes.
I may be full of shit
Eating from the pastry case, huh?
Eating from the pastry case
A euphemism is born.
OK, I was going to play nice, but check this out:
People can also get toxoplasmosis from eating infected meat that is undercooked (usually lamb or pork).
And why is that? Because there's kitty poo in the meat. Don't be too smug about avoiding the pastry case. Ask not for whom the poo tolls, it tolls for thee.
To elaborate on 16, 19: the problem FL identifies is probably felt more as a problem in the social sciences than in the liberal arts. The liberal artist is allowed a degree of subjective latitude that is -- at least, ostensibly -- denied the social scientist. So the social scientist should feel a twinge at not doing controversies justice, whereas a liberal artist, perhaps not so much.
I recognize that this observations qualifies as pastry-case material inasmuch as philosophy and history are not always classed as social sciences.
Nuh uh. The sheep or pigs are carriers of the disease itself, not made up of kitty poo. See the paragraph immediately above the one you quote.
22, 24: This goes back to the elegant formulation of Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, on p. 197:
The medical literature on the causes of food poisoning is full of euphemisms and dry scientific terms: coliform levels, aerobic plate counts, sorbitol, MacConkey agar, and so on. Behind them lies a simple explanation for why eating a hamburger can now make you seriously ill: There is shit in the meat.
Listen, if kitty poo is what makes bacon so great, then god help me, I like kitty poo.
The problem of controversy appears in the hard sciences, too, to some extent, but not till much later on; there are more basics that are settled. Newton's gravitational theory doesn't really fit all of the data, but it fits most of the data, and more importantly pedagogically, the student is just going to be required to manipulate the theory and write the answers on the test. One can learn the ideal gas law and then years later learn all the minute adjustments.
Not nearly as much in philosophy is settled, except maybe baby logic.
One professor I have had has, in upper-level seminars, divided views on (say) essentialism by saying "the split on this view is about 60%/40%. Here's what ideological commitments usually keep people from joining the other side." In the lower-level courses, I find that instead of focusing on the state of the discipline, it helps to frame the lecture as 'why should we care about this question? why is it relevant?', and treat it historically.
(But yeah, trying to explain 'knowledge' as 'justified true belief, kinda sorta, close enough for most people' can be humbling.)
If Ogged were here he'd no doubt point out that you can tell from the taste of the meat whether the animal was fed cat poo or dog poo.
If cats shat sausage links, I'd start an animal shelter.
Is Fast Food Nation a worthwhile read?
(I'm taking today off. The philosophy will be there tomorrow.)
It made me stop eating fast food. And it's no more than a day's read. Does that count as worthwhile?
Hmm. I don't eat fast food due to Don't Eat This Book and the fact that fast food tastes nasty.
How pathetic is it that I'm trying to blow off today and I don't remember how to relax?
Are you blowing off while at work, or blowing off from home?
Stay at home and masturbate all day.
Won't that get boring?
(I'm at home. I think I want to go to the park. And look at pretty leaves.)
Go to the park and look at pretty leaves (in Fairbanks?) but maybe take a book, too. I sometimes remember things I've read in books because I can remember the unique setting in which I read them. I can remember things even about dull academic books for that reason.
Re: 35
If that gets boring, here's what you do: Get one of those "Hello, my name is" name tags, write "Diogenes" on it, find an introductory philosophy class, and get to work!
I read about two-thirds of FFN, and then got bored because it's repetitive. I'd say read the intro, the chapter on JR Simplot (the french fry guy) and the taste-factories along the NJ Turnpike. The rest doesn't really tell you anything you don't already know (or suspect).
Although the parts about worker conditions are interesting, especially from an imigration perspective (lots of workers being undocumented, so they have worse ocnditions, less rights, etc)
re: 36, I distinctly remember the chapeter from FFN on artificial flavoring because it opened about how these places were off the NJT, and I was on a car trip (from DC to PA) at the time...
"One reason this is frustrating: either I qualify things endlessly ("of course, this view presupposes x, y, and z, all of which are controversial"), which is tiresome, or I pretend that certain points are decisive when this is not so."
I sort of do a bit of both. I tend to wave my hands a bit and point out that some of the things I'll talk about are disputed. And then I come back to the disputes later.
I don't think the point of teaching philosophy is get it right first time. It's sort of cyclical. I must have been taught the major 20th century stuff -- Quine, etc. -- 3 or 4 times with increasing levels of sophistication over the 5 or 6 years between starting my undergrad degree and finishing my masters. At each stage learning more and understanding more, especially the connections to other material, as I went along.
Cala--go to a park, and take a camera. That's what I did last Friday--got some good pics and I managed to destress quite a bit.
Or better yet, go to a park and masturbate all day.
Reppohc, did you just out yourself, or were you out already?
re 42-- then when you get arrested, say: "it's all right-- I'm Diogenes."
I'm outish. Just trying to avoid tying things too directly back to my name for future HR departments to find.
then when you get arrested, say: "it's all right-- I'm Diogenes."
Hey, I'm going to have to try that. The "I pay your salary" strategy I've been using up 'til now really hasn't worked out well for me. Public servant, my ass - I'm in public and not only won't they service me, they stop me from servicing myself.
On the other hand, masturbating all day is no problem in county jail.
Hmm. Not only did I kill the thread, I seem to have killed them all.
I win!
19: A lot of texts are taught within the context of a theory ("competing canons"). I gather that literary/artistic pointy-heads know the competition since to some extent a canon is defined in contradistinction to all the other possible canons, even though, as you note, this doesn't come up in practice every day.
A while back I came across a quotation - I can't remember it well enough to be able to google it and find out who said it - from a scientist (physics? chemistry?) that went something like this:
"It is sobering to think of how many students we've failed for not knowing things that later turned out to be false."
Which implies progress, even in despair.
A similar quote about a planetary science final -- again, I don't remember the name or the context, but the gist was: "I can use the same final every year without worrying about the students cheating. The questions are always the same, but the answers change every year."
I have no answer, and when I am glum, I wonder what the point of it all is anyway, and I retreat into my great-grandmother's definition that the purpose of art was to make the world more beautiful. It is so old-fashioned and bourgeouis, but I suppose that's what I am.
Other times, I am passionately engaged in one particular theory and am sure that everyone else is wrong.
Speaking of logic, though, I very much regret that I am ignorant of logic. Is there a logic for dummies sort of text that I could work through slowly on my own?
Is there a logic for dummies
You bet there is, sister. It's called the Holy Bible.
Interestingly enough - there is a 'logic for dummies' book called "Logic for Dummies," of all things.
But it is not out yet.
So I'll start you out:
Is "good enough" good enough?
Yes or No.
It isn't for dummies, but Harvard Professor (and all around mensch) Warren Goldfarb just published the lecture notes from his wonderful intro logic class. They are superb.
apostropher, I'm actually a Christian, a liberal one to be sure who believes in historic criticism, but I don't think I'm dumb. I know you live in the bible belt though.
Warren Goldfarb is also responsible for a magnificent paper title: "I want you to bring me a slab."
Linguistics, being a social science, has the same problem. Just about everything is controversial to some degree. Most professors just teach the theory they personally support, perhaps mentioning in passing that there are others. Of course, intro classes always include some history of how the theory was developed, so it's not like these are entirely unmotivated assertions being given.
Please restart this thread when I'm not distracted by a family crisis. I will then rant on and on about one of my favorite topics.
Or not, if you don't.
I've previously mentioned my support for this logic book. I could swear w-lfs-n then mentioned that his class had used it as well, but since I can't find that comment, I assume I was hallucinating.
w-lfs-n had just mentioned that his class used it.
bg, I apologized, but the blacklist seems to be eating it. "There's only one [insert advertising phrase here, eg, the other white meat] and it's called the Holy Bible" is a common punchline in my circle. No offense intended.
Perhaps the spirit of 52 was snarky, but, strictly speaking, I don't think the actual suggestion was.
I wasn't terribly offended. I am now having a shitty day though, as I misplaced my wallet--either in the library or at church. It came out of my jacket.
Actually, I didn't use that book, but classes before and after mine have used it.
When I say "hard" science I mean "quantitative," but until you get into matters of interpretation and really thus back into philisophy, we don't seem to have nearly as many problems as you all.
I've taught some undergrad physics classes (not courses, as such, but a few handfuls of classes- [thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics of statistical mechanics]), and matters really weren't all that murky.
And then I go ahead and suffer an attck of premature proviso-lation.
My vague memory of the Quine book is that it's maybe not for the casual learner interested in dipping into some logic. However, I may be wrong.
At Oxford they use Wilfred Hodges "Logic", and at Glasgow, where I was taught logic, they used E.J. Lemmon's "Begining Logic" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0915144506/002-3205161-6409654?v=glance).
I'm not sure if the Lemmon is really aimed at the casual reader either, although it is good.
Speaking as a chemist (and chemistry is one of the "hard sciences" that's partly quantitative/axiomatic and partly analogical/descriptive), I can say that arguments over basic issues are pretty rare. There's a famous, long-standing dispute over the existence of the so-called "non-classical carbonium ion" that was largely resolved by (on the one hand) the deaths of the principal exponents of the two extreme positions and by (on the other) a sort of Hegelian synthesis of the positions themselves. And I was involved in what was basically a philosophical argument over the question of what we mean when we say how many isomers a molecule has (I took an instrumentalist position against what seemed to be the Platonist majority view). But generally, there's pretty good agreement on the terms of the discussion, and people wrangle only over the validity of the observations and their interpretation.
