Poor Reasoning in the New York Times

Below is a link to an interesting article from the New York Times.  The title claims that it is about how the principle "small is better" in education is false.  However, it seems like there is scant evidence that this is true, and that the article is really about this.  

Instead, the article is about a school's unilateral focus on language arts and the way that this helped changed test scores.  But, (1) it doesn't say anything about classroom size, and (2) it doesn't follow, simply because a few large schools managed, as a result of curriculum change, to become successful in areas where they previously were not, that the principle "smaller is better" is wrong.

I thought you might find this interesting because of its logical form and shortcomings, although it seems like the emphasis on "language arts" might also be of interest, given how difficult philosophical texts are simply to read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/education/28school.html?_r=1&hp

Spinoza Introduction

Benedict De Spinoza's introduction is a commentary in which the author discusses the ideas of superstition, credulity, and misguided religious beliefs.

Superstition stems from fear. When people are afraid, all rational thinking and reasoning blurs into the background and they are overpowered by fear. For many people, with an overwhelming feeling of fear, comes the tendency to let their emotional impulses take over and to start pleading with God or the ultimate power to help them overcome this fear. In order for clear thinking to be prevalent, one needs to have a logical, rational, reasoning mind. Fear disturbs the mind. With a disturbed mind, one cannot have access to clarity or wisdom.

The author also focuses on credulity, the willingness to trust too readily. People who are in positions of power, like the clergy, politicians, and rulers, recognize the power of fear and are able to control people (who are willing to trust to readily) by imposing fear on them. Curtius says (lib. iv. chap. 10): "The mob has no ruler more potent than superstition." What he's saying is that the most powerful thing that motivates men is superstition, which comes from fear. Rulers have recognized this, and have used fear to keep control of their people. They have often used religion in context with controlling people through fear. For instance, in certain religions it is believed that if somebody does a wrong, they will burn in the fires of hell for eternity. Of course, there is no evidence of the truth of this. The fear of this eventuality, however, keeps people in line because they are afraid of the consequential sufferings of burning in hell. Out of this fear of consequence, they will obey their rulers and priests. Fear and superstition have been used very effectively to control the masses.

Another point made is that in many religions, the clergy or leaders of the church have made rituals more predominant than the real essence of the religion, which is to preach and practice love, joy, peace, temperance, and charity. But because over time leaders found that they have the ability to control the masses more effectively through superstition and fear of punishment, they have lost the essence of their religion and instead focus on rituals and practices so that they can remain in power and in control. Many religious leaders expect their followers to fall back on scriptures as a blind interpretation of what the faith is about and to take every word literally. In doing this, people get caught up in the literal translation of every word and lose the essence of the message. In order to truly understand the meaning of the scriptures, one must go beyond the words and experience the message by using a Divine mind.

He makes the point throughout the treatise that the masses are told to blindly accept what is given to them by their rulers and leaders without using their own powers of reasoning to determine and to understand whether or not they agree with what they are told. Towards the end of the introduction, the author touches on the rights of the individual. The author feels, as do I, that when people express their points of view there should not be restrictions preventing them from thinking how they want to think.

Al Farabi's "Book"

In The Book of Letters, Al-Farabi does a more in depth examination of communication and language. He goes all the way from the first signals used to communicate to the formation of language as an art (rhetoric, memorization and recitation, poetry, linguistics, and writing), meticulously cataloguing every advancement in our linguistic ability as human beings. He does this to aid in explaining the point he makes in the first several paragraphs of the book: that philosophy precedes theology and religion and ll thought, as well as how philosophers are the only truly “select” people, and all other special or select people are simply “kings of the masses.”

What does he mean by “select” and in what way does philosophy “precede” religion, theology and jurisprudence? How are practitioners of philosophy more select among academics than those of other disciplines? All these questions are answered by this hardly simple explanation of the beginning of language.

He argued that all other leaders (the select of the masses) achieve their specialness through an eloquent and skillful use of words to express meaning in a more perfect way, whereas philosophy is the meaning they gain prestige by eloquently expressing. Philosophy is the “tool” that is used in all other verbal pursuits. Just as the “perceptibles” mentioned on page 4 are the meaning which all other language perpetually seeks to more perfectly describe. The description of language also shows how far removed Al-Farabi believes philosophy to be from religion and theology. He is not discounting religion as contradictory of philosophy. However, he is saying that religion is a frivolous extrapolation of philosophy for the consumption of the masses.

He also touches several times on the idea of habituation “both moral and artificial.” This is an interesting perspective that explores the same idea of good and bad that is examined in Plato’s Gorgias. However,he addresses it through a very different perspective. He is saying that the natural development of humans is moral. Only the influence of outside forces, which are unnatural to us are a contamination of our naturally developed morality, creating artificial habits. Our moral habits are what we would develop were we simply to follow the course of what is “easiest” or natural physically. However it is difficult to determine if he means to say man is naturally moral, or if he is defining morality as what we are naturally predisposed towards, or what we are without “artificial” influences.

Gorgias

The dialogue in Plato’s, Gorgias, seemed very confusing and repetitive at first. However, once I slowed my pace and really absorbed Plato’s words, I became extremely interested in the thoughts and ideas that were presented. The topics that really made me think were the discussions on rhetoric, morality, and what is “good”.

When the argument narrows down to the topic of morality, or the “good”, Socrates believes that if you are truly a moral person then you must know what morality is and behave that way. You must be able to connect the universal claims and individual claims about any situation to really know the “good”. I definitely agree with Socrates here. If you really understand and know that committing a crime is the wrong thing to do, you wouldn’t do it. Why would you ever want to do something that you could get fined, thrown in jail, or even be sentenced to death for? I think that if you really know the “bad” then you must understand its consequences, and avoid them. So if you are capable of executing these things then you are a moral person.

Socrates main argument in the dialogue is on the definition of rhetoric, which he believes is a branch of “flattery”. And he uses this to say that politicians, or those in power, are “the least powerful of the community,” (467 c) because they use this type of flattery. This shocks Polus and Gorgias. Socrates thinks that to have power means that you have to do what is good for you, not what is good for everyone else. I disagree with Socrates here because, in my opinion, if you are able to persuade a community to believe a certain thing, then you have a lot power. And this is how our leaders and politicians gain their power, by telling people what they want to hear.

Al Farabi, The Book of Letters

Al Farabi's The book of Letters first begins with the order between philosophy, religion, theology, and jurisprudence. I think it is obvious how religion, theology, and jurisprudence are outcomes of philosophy and rely on it. Similarly, they all require the use and skill of persuasion. It describes a theologian as a servant of religion, but isn’t he an overall servant of philosophy? On page 3 it states that in some sense a theologian uses philosophical skills to persuade a crowd based on religion. I believe that even though the whole main idea is to spread religion for a theologian, he still carries on all real traits of a philosopher. I also ask from this what qualifies or makes a philosopher? It states that many practitioners just resemble philosophers, but if they are using the same skills as the philosophers doesn’t it make them one? It uses examples such as a doctor or a political leader as those that resemble philosophers only because of their background knowledge on the art, but again these professions still obtain the skills to persuade a crowd. It seems as though they are defining a philosopher as more of a rhetorician being someone who persuades using their own opinion of belief rather without prior knowledge on the topic.

By page 5, I thought it was interesting how Al Farabi describes how a person moves and acts and how it is all based upon the environment they reside in. Perhaps the vocal sounds that come from people sound different, but doesn’t the human body and mind act the same way regardless of what it is? Although the environment plays a major role on how people conduct themselves, the outcomes of our sounds and expressions are different. We are all still using the same organs and signals in the mind to allow us to act and speak and think no matter where we live or come from.

Al Farabi states, “If expressions are to be made similar to meanings, the articulation of one meaning that generalizes over numerous things would be through one single expression that generalizes over those numerous things”, meaning that through expression comes a meaning. I found this most interesting, however, would the author try to explain how something means to a person is brought from their expression? I believe that how a person acts and brings about their expression, is based upon how something is shown to them and also what it means to them.

Gorgias Interpretation

The two topics that grasped my attention in Gorgias by Plato was the discussion of rhetoric and the discussion of happiness.

Socrates began to inquire to Gorgias about what rhetoric really is. Gorgias believes that rhetoric is a profession in speech which covers important aspects of life, and has the ability to persuade people. However, Socrates states that all professions involve speech. Eventually Socrates states that there is no expertise in rhetoric. It is more of a "knack" to gain pleasure. I agree with Socrates' statements. Rhetoric seems to be a skill one has and develops on their own, but I wonder if Socrates means if everyone has the skill, and that some people develop this skill very well. I believe that is why Socrates is describing being a rhetorician as being Examples that Socrates uses as true professions requiring education and are not about flattery are doctors and businessmen. Is it possible for a person who has a "knack" for cutting to be able to become a surgeon without going to medical school? He also compares rhetoric to "cookery". They are just skills that people have to please others. I do believe that the art of rhetoric and conversations are skills that one can possess, and that there is no education or learning involved. Is this possibly why you would not find anyone today who is a "rhetorician"?

The text then transitions to Socrates and Polus discussing happiness using a criminal as an example. Socrates says that the criminal is already in a wretched state, and not being caught makes him feel even worse and continue to do bad. (472e) I disagree with this statement somewhat. Does Socrates feel that being arrested will free the criminal of his pain and wrong doings? I believe that a criminal is indeed unhappy, and this is what causes him to do crimes. However, the criminal acts he commits brings him pleasure, and this is why he commits those acts. I agree with Polus that the criminal will not be happy if he is caught. If he is caught, his problems are still not solved, and he can't do anything to make himself feel better. Would any criminal be happy that they were Polus states that being caught and tortured is not as pleasant than avoiding being arrested.

Thoughts on the Gorgias

Socrates and Gorgias exchange thoughts on what rhetoric is in relation to life and expertise. When Gorgias says that there is no manual element of manual work in rhetoric (page 8, near line C) I would have to disagree. Rhetoric is being able to speak and that is manual. The simple task of moving your mouth is manual.

Why exactly does Gorgias pride himself on being concise? The more words and details you are able to describe something with, the better picture one has of what one is trying to say.

In our world, every man has a place, be it moral or immoral. Every factory worker and salesman are as vital as doctors and policemen. Gorgias's claim that rhetoric is more beneficial than anything else makes me question the true benefit of it.

How can a person understand words? On page 25 Socrates and Gorgias argue about different people understanding their expertise. I raise the question again, how can a person understand words? They are constantly changing, and begin to mean different things to different people.

Course Rules (in lieu of the BB posting)

1) Bring the assigned course texts with you to each meeting. Do not come to class without the assigned text. If it is a PDF file, bring a hard copy; if it is a book, have the book.

a) This course is not about your opinion. In fact, philosophy has nothing to do with opinions. Primarily philosophy concerns ideas and the arguments made justifying those ideas. We will be wholly concerned with observing these ideas and their arguments in the course texts. In other words, the course text will be the touchstone for all course activities. Imagine yourself as a zealous Christian evangelist: the course text is your Bible.

2) Be prepared to discuss the assigned material, by having completed the reading before you come to class and having questions or comments to offer during class. Be prepared to talk in class.

a) Without having read the text before class you have no context from which to understand the ideas. Struggling to understand the reading is what you are supposed to do in this class. If you are not struggling, “you’re doing it wrong.”

b) One way to be prepared to talk in class is to formulate questions while doing the reading, or while discussing the material with others outside the class.

3) Read the blog posts and comments before every class.

4) Please treat fellow students with kindness and courtesy in your interactions. However, you must also be able to constructively criticize their contributions to the course (class discussions or blog comments).

a) You are learning together and therefore you are responsible for assisting other students in struggling with the material. This is another reason why you must do the reading before class: if you are not prepared, you are letting your fellow students down.

5) Take notes during class, of both what is and especially what is not written on the blackboard. Record the comments of other students. These notes will make writing your essay and preparing for your exams much easier.

6) You are not permitted to use laptops or any other electronic devices during class. Do not bring them to class or turn them off before you enter the classroom.

7) Attendance will be recorded at the beginning of every class. If you will frequently be late to class, inform the professor. Use the restroom before you come to class and do not leave the classroom during class meetings, unless you must.

a) More than 7 absences is grounds for failure for the course. Your attendance and participation grade will be proportionally affected by more than 3 absences. For example, if you miss four classes, you cannot receive an attendance and participation grade higher than a B; five, a C; six, a D.

8) Turn in all work on time. All late work will be penalized accordingly. If you are having trouble meeting a deadline, contact the professor before the deadline passes. The professor will consider extensions only before the assignment is due (i.e., not the morning of), not afterward. Generally, extensions will be granted only in unusual and documented circumstances.

9) Students are welcome to appeal any grade they received on an exam or paper and the professor will review it again. However, if the subject of “changing a grade” is opened, students should be aware that they grade can go UP or D

Does a language change reality?

Here's a link to a Gizmodo blog post about the effects of different languages on the way individuals conceive reality. You may find it interesting .... obviously it is apposite to matters under discussion among us.

http://gizmodo.com/5623707/do-different-languages-equal-different-realities