If you want a concrete answer: I want the version of critical thinking taught in introductory logic. The kind that gives teenagers the vocabulary to look at your responses and immediately identify:
A strawman: turning civic education into “indoctrination.”
An impossible standard: demanding absolute, universal neutrality before any high school curriculum can exist.
Smuggled premises: assuming I represent some “you folks” and some “modern liberal/leftist” bogeyman.
Bad-faith questioning: endlessly demanding an answer while ignoring the answer already given.
You’re right that there are many schools of thought. But the baseline ability to distinguish an argument from a rhetorical trap is not some exotic ideological doctrine. It is exactly the kind of thing public education should teach.
Sure. Some Plato is fine. Also Aristotle, basic propositional logic, informal fallacies, media literacy, source evaluation, the scientific method, how statistics can mislead, how historical claims are argued, and how to distinguish evidence from assertion. Boring stuff that you somehow will now paint as a leftist atheist indoctrination.
OK, at what age are you going to teach them all that? Each of those topics could be a year long course, in and of itself. Do you expect to cram all of this into a single semester of high school or something? How are you going to test this?
Further, what will you do when the ID pols protest this course about how sexist, racist, and colonialist all these things are and how they are just pushing white male supremacy? ignore them?
Excellent questions, with an absolutely ridiculous expectation to be substantially answered in this thread. Maybe you can go study Education and figure them out then come back and let me know, here’s a great Canadian university https://www.mcgill.ca/education/programs Have a great life.
EDIT: Lol, before you bring out the “you didn’t answer” routine:
Those are implementation questions, not objections to the principle. You scaffold this stuff across years, and you can stagger the depth at which different topics are taught. Not everything needs to be a deep dive. Intro courses exist. For testing, just normal education stuff (essays, source analysis, argument reconstruction, debate, projects, exams). And about the politics: curricula should be criticizable from many perspectives, and then ministries, school boards, teachers, and curriculum committees can make decisions. Not every objection gets a veto.
If you want a concrete answer: I want the version of critical thinking taught in introductory logic. The kind that gives teenagers the vocabulary to look at your responses and immediately identify:
You’re right that there are many schools of thought. But the baseline ability to distinguish an argument from a rhetorical trap is not some exotic ideological doctrine. It is exactly the kind of thing public education should teach.
Have a good one.
you are doing everything to avoid my question dude. what are you going to teach these kids? plato?
Sure. Some Plato is fine. Also Aristotle, basic propositional logic, informal fallacies, media literacy, source evaluation, the scientific method, how statistics can mislead, how historical claims are argued, and how to distinguish evidence from assertion. Boring stuff that you somehow will now paint as a leftist atheist indoctrination.
OK, at what age are you going to teach them all that? Each of those topics could be a year long course, in and of itself. Do you expect to cram all of this into a single semester of high school or something? How are you going to test this?
Further, what will you do when the ID pols protest this course about how sexist, racist, and colonialist all these things are and how they are just pushing white male supremacy? ignore them?
Excellent questions, with an absolutely ridiculous expectation to be substantially answered in this thread. Maybe you can go study Education and figure them out then come back and let me know, here’s a great Canadian university https://www.mcgill.ca/education/programs Have a great life.
EDIT: Lol, before you bring out the “you didn’t answer” routine:
Those are implementation questions, not objections to the principle. You scaffold this stuff across years, and you can stagger the depth at which different topics are taught. Not everything needs to be a deep dive. Intro courses exist. For testing, just normal education stuff (essays, source analysis, argument reconstruction, debate, projects, exams). And about the politics: curricula should be criticizable from many perspectives, and then ministries, school boards, teachers, and curriculum committees can make decisions. Not every objection gets a veto.