Thanks so much. I think I started doing it after finding that my students--and I myself as well--kept running into these logical problems. At this point, I remembers having suffered through a logic course back in college (I almost failed it). Right now, I don't teach logic in regular literature classes, though I have half a mind to start doing it, but only in more explicit writing classes. For me, it's part of the craft of writing, which I think is closely aligned to the craft of thinking.
Thank you, Martin, for a sane cease fire appeal in terms of logic even if ethics no longer moves people. I'd like to join your reminder that earlier periods had useful practices for coexistence. I incorporate a few in the Pre-Texts pedagogy protocol. One ancestral practice is to sit in circles for meetings rather than rows. The difference seems too simple to be radical, but the effect is quite profound. Just to give one recent example, the president of a major international academic association was about to confront objections or rejections of accords that had been reached under his leadership. After several sessions of Pre-Texts, at the decisive meeting he insisted that the participants sit in a circle, visible and vlnerable to one another. The issues were resolved, he informed me, with surprising efficiency and relief.
So, along with your several excellent recommendations, I would add the merits of a pedagogy that makes light work of the Montessori Method and that learns from ancient Athens to identify school with leisure. Philosophers surely had fun with their desciples as they achieved logical patterns of thinking.
Intriguing point, Doris. Not to open another can of worms, but it seems possible--though I'm also skeptical of the hype--that AI will force us to rethink leisure in a new way anyway. This may be just the right historical moment to re-claim leisure.
I love this. I am so curious how and why do you teach logic in your english literature classes (i assume)? This seems counter intuitive but also very important to me!
Interesting essay. It certainly makes you think. It seems to me that many people already recognize false dilemmas and straw man arguments when they encounter them, yet continue to use them. The problem may not be ignorance. Polarization benefits politicians, media outlets, and algorithms, and emotional outrage often works better than careful reasoning.
Good point, Dimitry. I think that's where the idea of training comes in, that it's not enough to know about these fallacies in theory, but that we have to train ourselves to stop using them or falling for them. I come back to this idea of training again and again. Right now, I'm reading a lot in psychoanalysis, which is similar: theoretical insight or diagnosis is important but not enough. The work of change is still to come.
Thanks so much. I think I started doing it after finding that my students--and I myself as well--kept running into these logical problems. At this point, I remembers having suffered through a logic course back in college (I almost failed it). Right now, I don't teach logic in regular literature classes, though I have half a mind to start doing it, but only in more explicit writing classes. For me, it's part of the craft of writing, which I think is closely aligned to the craft of thinking.
Thank you, Martin, for a sane cease fire appeal in terms of logic even if ethics no longer moves people. I'd like to join your reminder that earlier periods had useful practices for coexistence. I incorporate a few in the Pre-Texts pedagogy protocol. One ancestral practice is to sit in circles for meetings rather than rows. The difference seems too simple to be radical, but the effect is quite profound. Just to give one recent example, the president of a major international academic association was about to confront objections or rejections of accords that had been reached under his leadership. After several sessions of Pre-Texts, at the decisive meeting he insisted that the participants sit in a circle, visible and vlnerable to one another. The issues were resolved, he informed me, with surprising efficiency and relief.
So, along with your several excellent recommendations, I would add the merits of a pedagogy that makes light work of the Montessori Method and that learns from ancient Athens to identify school with leisure. Philosophers surely had fun with their desciples as they achieved logical patterns of thinking.
Intriguing point, Doris. Not to open another can of worms, but it seems possible--though I'm also skeptical of the hype--that AI will force us to rethink leisure in a new way anyway. This may be just the right historical moment to re-claim leisure.
I love this. I am so curious how and why do you teach logic in your english literature classes (i assume)? This seems counter intuitive but also very important to me!
Interesting essay. It certainly makes you think. It seems to me that many people already recognize false dilemmas and straw man arguments when they encounter them, yet continue to use them. The problem may not be ignorance. Polarization benefits politicians, media outlets, and algorithms, and emotional outrage often works better than careful reasoning.
Good point, Dimitry. I think that's where the idea of training comes in, that it's not enough to know about these fallacies in theory, but that we have to train ourselves to stop using them or falling for them. I come back to this idea of training again and again. Right now, I'm reading a lot in psychoanalysis, which is similar: theoretical insight or diagnosis is important but not enough. The work of change is still to come.
Thank you. I like that distinction. Recognizing a fallacy is probably much easier than resisting the habits and incentives that keep reproducing it.