Exactly, the author of the article is retarded. >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. >Hoping that this set of definitions was a one-off mistake, I went home and Googled “fact vs. opinion.” The definitions I found online were substantially the same as the one in my son’s classroom. As it turns out, the Common Core standards used by a majority of K-12 programs in the country require that students be able to “distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a text.” I'm glad they teach that, it opens the mind to critical thinking skills. Plus those are the actual definitions. Sure it's simplified, but that's because it's target audience is seven year olds. If I went into Algebra 1, and the teacher was writing calculus equations all over the board, I'd be pissed. > The inconsistency in this curriculum is obvious. For example, at the outset of the school year, my son brought home a list of student rights and responsibilities. Had he already read the lesson on fact vs. opinion, he might have noted that the supposed rights of other students were based on no more than opinions. According to the school’s curriculum, it certainly wasn’t true that his classmates deserved to be treated a particular way — that would make it a fact. Alright, let's say that the rights the author is talking about is a right to not be bullied, for the sake of argument. The school, at some point, received complaints about students being bullied. The school looked into the complaints, and began to notice that, compared to non-bullied kids, the bullied kids had worse grades, lower self-esteem, and XYZ. After discussions with other authority figures, teachers who have seen the effects first hand, and bullied students, they came to the conclusion that bullying was very closely followed by upset and harmed students. They then decided to make bullying against the rules so other students wouldn't be harmed. True, this was based off of opinions, such as the the opinion of the teacher the the student was doing poorly after being bullied, and the authority figure's opinion that kids shouldn't be bullied in a place of learning. However, bullying is far too closely correlated with those negative effects, to risk placing the student's ability to learn and grow in jeopardy. The classmates deserve to not get bullied, not because it's a moral fact, but because the risks of potential side effects towards bullied students could have very far reaching consequences. > Similarly, it wasn’t really true that he had any responsibilities — that would be to make a value claim a truth. It should not be a surprise that there is rampant cheating on college campuses: If we’ve taught our students for 12 years that there is no fact of the matter as to whether cheating is wrong, we can’t very well blame them for doing so later on. Cheating is against the rules because if everyone cheated, then students would lose the motivation to learn material, and school would be pointless. How is this dude writing for the Times?
Sigh, I had posted this to Hubski hoping for a debate a cut above what was going on at Reddit. There is nothing "retarded" about the view that educators should not simply define away the whole question of moral realism versus antirealism. How ethical discourse and debate works is very much a live and open question, just as much as the ethical questions themselves. Whatever our ultimate stance on ethical realism versus antirealism (or all of the more subtle position that this crude dichotomy of options obscures) it is by no means obvious which is right. It is not dispiriting to see people taking a the view that "there are no moral facts". But it is dispiriting to see people treating this as obvious and anyone who disagrees as "retarded". This has been a live philosophical debate for as long as we have records of such things (excepting those times and places where people were too afraid to speak the questions aloud). I'm not aware of any great recent discovery that suddenly makes the answer obvious beyond debate. And yet quite a few people seem to think moral realism is just obviously wrong. To plenty of intelligent people it's not obvious. To me that just confirms that something has gone awry in our culture - people are not merely siding with moral antirealism and relativism (which could be fine), but they're not even aware that there's a debate to be had about this and if anyone proposes a debate they get written off as an idiot. And I don't know what you mean by "Plus those are the actual definitions" of fact and opinion. Whose definitions? Who's the authority on this? Maybe they're accepted definitions in US educational institutions, but the point of the article is to question them.Exactly, the author of the article is retarded.
The ad hominem attack is not helpful. However the reasoning that may have led to it may still be valid. The author fails to meet the prima facie burden of his argument. He presents some evidence, but does not connect it up to a solid argument. For example: Instead of explaining why the "I believe" is not an assertion of an opinion but a hedging of a bet on a fact, he just leaves the kid confused. I don't see the connection from "these are facts while these are opinions" to "cheat on your tests! Pave the Earth! Vote for evil!" If I'm missing it, please help me see it. Otherwise it's just some slippery slope stuff.
Thanks for reading past sentence one before writing me off. I don't have any remote problem with anyone who holds the moral facts stance. I personally don't agree with it, but I won't insult someone simply for having different thoughts than me. However, it does irritate me when writers for high profile publications post awful arguments, and everyone hails them as a genius without stopping to think 'Maybe this person isn't infallible.' It's frustrating to watch people lose their critical thinking abilities when they read something that looks official.
People have, and are shifting to a worldview that doesn't rely on moral truths existing anymore, it instead relies on facts and evidence. All things that don't have it, get disregarded and thrown away. A great time to live. Truly, a great time to live. Moral truths, something that has zero evidence or reason to be considered true in the first place, finally ends up back in it's proper place. Funnily enough, I got into a very long and drawn out debate with a bunch of vegans on the topic recently. The only real "debate" is the same as the same debate that comes up when you debate anything spiritual "well, nothing says this is true, and we have zero evidence of it, you can't really disprove it with any amount of evidence, but guys, it's possible!" It isn't good enough for me, and it shouldn't have ever been good enough for anyone. Yeah, there is a debate, but it's long gone and long settled. Pointless as debating if the world is flat.To me that just confirms that something has gone awry in our culture - people are not merely siding with moral antirealism and relativism (which could be fine), but they're not even aware that there's a debate to be had about this and if anyone proposes a debate they get written off as an idiot.
On the opinion vs. fact debate I totally disagree with the school's definitions. I've always held that a statement of fact is one that necessitates a judgement about its truth. That is, the statement is true or untrue in an objective sense. Whereas opinions are statements of the kind that could not be judged to be true or false in an objective sense. Statements of morality could be judged to be true or false (and thus statements of fact) if they meet a very high standard. That is, if everyone agrees that a particular act is immoral, then we can say that that it is a matter of fact (functionally) that the act in question is immoral. I suppose the problem is that there is a lot of grey area, and that grey are seems counter intuitive when discussing 'facts'. I understand that simplifying is necessary when talking to elementary school kids, but simplifying implies incomplete information, not incorrect information. Saying that things you believe are matters of opinion is very much incorrect.
It seems like the original author is ill-equipped to teach philosophy if he isn't familiar with the a posteriori state of morals. He wants moral facts -- a priori moral guidelines that would exist regardless of the nation or classroom. There aren't any. Instead we have moral assertions that are inherent in the social contract. While these have to exist for any civilization to exist, they are still only inherent to that state. Having a paved town and not murdering each other are super important for us to make progress. Nevertheless, that's not inherent in being alive -- it's inherent in not fleeing to the woods and never having a day job with other humans. Don't steal, don't cheat, don't poison the well. It all makes sense when we each want to have stuff, each want to know the abilities of each other, each want to drink from the same well. It's obvious but not mandatory -- and the punishment for flouting such rules is some from of exclusion from society. This is basic Rousseau, straight outta Hobbes as well -- Ethics 101. Nature is nasty, brutish, and full of disease-riddled insects. You want out? You agree to some stuff. That doesn't make those rules into facts -- just deep-down, well-tested opinions. The laws that come from these rules are facts, but they are also instantiations of opinions. It's much like turning pseudocode into code. It's like how gravity is still a theory. We will never get to shake gravity's hand, but we'll also never get to escape it. Even in outer space, it will pull us around.
A guess: The author wants to go from "associate professor" to "full professor" and that involves publication and profile. A few articles under your belt also help with non-fiction book proposals. The NYT saw it as print-worthy; controversy certainly helps circulation. I've also found that people who know their shit about philosophy aren't always the greatest about communicating philosophy to people who don't. Finally, we have no idea how long the article was before it was cut down for publication. The NYT may well have edited out any number of cogent points we're all arguing the lack of. That is a spectacular turn of phrase.We will never get to shake gravity's hand, but we'll also never get to escape it.
I think the phrasings of "moral facts" is very hard to pin down when you are just saying "do you think there are moral facts". Almost everyone in the world will agree that there are good things and bad things, but more importantly, everyone will agree that that depends on the person, the culture, and the situation. Consider the core parts of human societies. We all work together, we all operate on similar rules, and we all have our base desires and needs. These base things come together to create a framework that is nearly always there, that can be called "moral fact" in that it is a core part of all human society, and is what is best for everyone if you act that way. However, that doesn't mean they are objective facts. Consider for the average person in the US. A moral fact is that you should stand up against your government, your peers, and everything/everyone else. Compete, argue, fight, stand up for yourself, speak your mind. Those are moral goods. Consider the average person in China. The opposite is true. Simplifying to a large degree there, but that's an example of culture chaning things. In the US, it is far better to not listen to superiors if you think you are right. We praise and value it. In China, the same doesn't apply (or so I've heard). Consider the eating of cows. Most in the US consider that moral and fine. In India, however, it is a moral wrong. Some things. Murder, rape, stealing, and so on, have and will be universally immoral through all modern societies. (Stealing the last strong of those, as there may be cultures that have no concept of possession). Does that mean they are objectively wrong? No. They aren't objectively wrong. However, you aren't going to find an instant, in any place, that any human being interested in being part of a strong, healthy, and decent society, will tell you that such things are good. It's in our interests, in societies interest, to keep those things from happening. Hence. Moral "truth" is born.
> Sigh, I had posted this to Hubski hoping for a debate a cut above what was going on at Reddit. Christ, I had commented this to Hubski hoping for fellow posters who aren't PC hypersensitive and actually pay attention to the argument I present. If you would have read my post in full, and not just the first sentence that you love so much, you would see that I don't think he's retarded because of the opinion itself, I think he's retarded because the points he make are awful. The author was correct in that the subject isn't that simple, and that educators should make an effort to get their students to critically think about the world around them. I believe that philosophical debate should be integrated into high school curriculum. However, sitting down a group of seven year olds, lecturing them about morality and relativism, then telling them to engage in ethical discourse and debate over the concepts of moral realism versus antirealism would come to a grinding halt very quickly. Ok, I admit that my scenario was a bit extreme, but I stand by the fact that these things come in steps. These kids can barely write their entire name, and their brains' are just now becoming physically capable of complex thoughts. Have you talked to a 2nd grader recently? It's not very stimulating. The human mind is very malleable until the early 20's, so this process neither should be nor needs to be rushed. Let the kid live a little before he contemplates the abstract thoughts and questions about life. > And I don't know what you mean by "Plus those are the actual definitions" of fact and opinion. Whose definitions? Who's the authority on this? Maybe they're accepted definitions in US educational institutions, but the point of the article is to question them. I stated in my reply that they were simplified. Most definitions for kids that age are pretty simple as well, they don't have full their full cognitive processing abilities yet. The definition was written for a premature mind, it was written so that the children would be able to relate to it and then understand the meaning. Like nearly all subjects, the concept was planted so that they would be able to later build on that concept. I'll elaborate on my math analogy. First you learn addition: 3+2=4. Then you learn multiplication: 3x2=6. Then you learn algebraic substitution: 3xA=6, therefore A=2. If before he was taught any of the steps, the kid was thrown 3xA=6, A=_?, it would confuse the hell out of him. Just because I point out awful supporting points, don't assume that I'll write off an entire debate, and don't assume I'll write anyone with an opposing mindset off as an idiot. You present any position that I agree with, but if it's poorly thought out and full of holes, expect it to be written off.
MrDr, rrrrr: Could you both sit down for a moment and think about how both of your messages affect the value of the conversation? There is no benefit to anger or making your partner into an adversary. What is the point of these both comments?Sigh, I had posted this to Hubski hoping for a debate a cut above what was going on at Reddit.
Christ, I had commented this to Hubski hoping for fellow posters who aren't PC hypersensitive and actually pay attention to the argument I present.
Because of the nature of rrrrr's rebuttal, it's safe to assume he started reading the comment, didn't care to finish, and jumped to the conclusion that I'm some asshole who hates anyone that doesn't have the same opinion as me. So I decided to put something that might make him take a second look at my comment. But there's no point in doing that if he's just going to ignore that too, so I formatted the first line identical to his in an attempt to catch his attention. Granted, calling the author of the link retarded isn't the best way to open an honest critique of his argument, but high profile bloggers who post flawed arguments with long words and sensationalized phrases irk me.
Whatever you call it, it is overly harsh. It puts any person on the other side at unease.
I do not have the ability to speak for rrrrr, but I assume that an apology would be good enough. Frankly I am very happy with a cessation of the argument.
Fair enough, I was a little hasty to jump on that. I had been primed by coming from a discussion on reddit where they were calling the writer similar things because he is a moral realist. I was expecting another "moral realism is obviously stupid" response and that coloured my reading of your post. Yes, you have a fair point that these definitions have to be simplified as a teaching tool for young kids, so perhaps we shouldn't be taking them quite as an expression of the educators' deeply held philosophy. But it is so easy to tilt people's thinking by the way we frame the debate through terminology that I'm still a little wary of these definitions and of the exercise that requires children to decide whether something is an opinion or a fact. Such an exercise could be valuable as a way of starting a discussion but if it suggests to kids that this is a judgement we should be able to make just by looking at the statement, before engaging in debate about the statement's content, then that's an insidious pernicious effect.
3 things: 1) I moderate a default on Reddit. It has a long and contentious queue of reported comments. One of the words we auto-report is "retarded." Most comments involving the word "retarded" add nothing to the general discourse. Not true for all comments, but most. I say this not to scold, but to give the perspective of one who reads "never go full retard" and "you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded" 7-10 times a day. Suffice it to say - starting an argument with the word "retarded" is kind of like stepping to the podium and picking your nose. Doesn't mean you're an idiot, but it mostly scores points with nose-pickers. I too am often guilty but if you're wondering where the tenor went sideways, there it is. 2) Until Hubski rolls out the new version of the site, we use a semi-peculiar implementation of markup. The upper-right corner of the comment window will tell you just how semi-peculiar. I actually didn't read your comment until now because I didn't recognize your name and you were using Reddit markup. And because it's been a busy day and I likes me some whitespace. 3) But holy shit you managed to get a plus sign in there without breaking things which I'm incapable of doing so I guess I shouldn't say boo about markup. That said, 3 plus 2 only equals 4 in Indiana. I really have no substantive arguments with your point. However, it's apparently my job to "give you the business." Consider the business given. Welcome.quotes, for example, are surrounded by pipes.
Oh, yeah! Getting Kleinbl00ed isn't inherently a negative thing. It's like hunting a Tigrex in MHFU2 - everything's been smooth sailing up to this point, you have to change your thought process to understand the game, and even if it's eye-opening/embarrassing, finally understanding the "rules" is what makes the experience (Hubski/the topic at hand) enjoyable.