The basic form of my question is: How should a teacher react if a student comes up with a theory more rational than the teacher's?
I think that, ideally, the teacher should accept the student's theory and perhaps incorporate it into their curriculum. The only case wherein this could be a problem is if the student believes that, because one of their theories was more rational than their teacher's, all of their theories will be so. In that case, the teacher may wish to incorporate the theory in after the student has left their class.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Q&A 8, First Answer
My question is: Does rational thinking ever
lead to more than one equally valid, best conclusion?
I do not think so. It may lead to a somewhat open conclusion, from which one can draw multiple possible conclusions. For example, one may decide that rationality excludes the existence of a physical god, but leaves open the possibilities of a transcendent god or no god. As such, some forms of theism, some forms of atheism, and agnosticism are all equally rational viewpoints. However, if one does not add on the element of belief, then rationality alone leads only to one (possibly open) conclusion.
I do not think so. It may lead to a somewhat open conclusion, from which one can draw multiple possible conclusions. For example, one may decide that rationality excludes the existence of a physical god, but leaves open the possibilities of a transcendent god or no god. As such, some forms of theism, some forms of atheism, and agnosticism are all equally rational viewpoints. However, if one does not add on the element of belief, then rationality alone leads only to one (possibly open) conclusion.
Response: Source of Conscience
In response to Andrew Bagley's post "Dostoevsky on Conscience" (April 28, 2012):
Relying on conscience to guide a society has more problems than simply the existence of psychopaths. Conscience is, itself, largely a product of society; if one grows up in a society which condones cannibalism, for example, one is unlikely to find cannibalism ethically problematic unless one takes some time to think critically about the practice. This may seem virtually irrelevant, as very few societies do support the idea of cannibalism (and therefore most people refrain from it due to their consciences), but subtler examples are far more widespread. Many societies see no problem with homophobia, sexism, racism, torture, or child abuse. As such, people who grow up in these cultures will not find these sorts of mindsets or practices unconscionable. It may be true that humans are all born with the same innate rules of conscience; however, society bends and warps these rules far before humans mature enough to consciously decide to abide by these rules rather than those of their societies.
Relying on conscience to guide a society has more problems than simply the existence of psychopaths. Conscience is, itself, largely a product of society; if one grows up in a society which condones cannibalism, for example, one is unlikely to find cannibalism ethically problematic unless one takes some time to think critically about the practice. This may seem virtually irrelevant, as very few societies do support the idea of cannibalism (and therefore most people refrain from it due to their consciences), but subtler examples are far more widespread. Many societies see no problem with homophobia, sexism, racism, torture, or child abuse. As such, people who grow up in these cultures will not find these sorts of mindsets or practices unconscionable. It may be true that humans are all born with the same innate rules of conscience; however, society bends and warps these rules far before humans mature enough to consciously decide to abide by these rules rather than those of their societies.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)