Wouldn't forcing every college student to take at least a few classes in philosophy solve part of the issue?
Isn't college a bit too late?
I think forcing this on college kids is already hard enough, since you can't just tell them about philosophy but have to actually get them to think about it. Mandatory Philosophy classes in high school would be great but I believe that'd be even more hard to pull off.
I think forcing this on college kids is already hard enough, since you can't just tell them about philosophy but have to actually get them to think about it. Mandatory Philosophy classes in high school would be great but I believe that'd be even more hard to pull off.
I'm not quite sure I get the connection between Philosophy classes and the integration of standard subjects...
I was referring more to the problem of what is wrong with "science" nowadays. I believe Pete mentioned that often PhDs focus on one idea, or at best a few, and hang on to those for their whole career, because those ideas are their careers. I would also consider many scientists arrogant for believing what they find out to be the truth, not realizing how non-sensical that belief is. Philosophy would help scientists to think more critically about their theories and give them the ability to see the "broder picture". Philosophy would also help them a lot when trying to solve complex problems, trying to get a point across or trying to explain their ideas in general.
It's been a long time since you were in kindergarten, I can tell. Have you forgotten? That was were we learned to trace our hands to make turkeys, cried when the teacher read Jack in the Beanstalk, and worked on writing the letters one by one. I was a smart little kid, but I was not quite at the level to discuss Socrates or Kant.
I was a smart little kid, but I was not quite at the level to discuss Socrates or Kant.
Obviously not, but I think that you could have philosophical discussions with very young children if they are framed properly.
As it is right now, we just tell kids things such as "sharing is caring." Instead, you can take a more Aesop's Fable approach to philosophy. You tell a story and then discuss the morals in an accessible way. Was it wrong for Joey to take Mike's crayons? Why? What should Joey have done, what should Mike have done? It might not be Plato, but it gets the job done.
More important is segregating kids based on ability so that you can teach to their level. Some kids need more help, some are more self-motivated. I took algebra in fourth grade, but I accept that many people couldn't.
This episode has spurred me on to reading my old college essays. Most of which were cringe worthy however there is one I can can still hold my head high on (for the most part) on which I created my own Cryptography method using images. I am tempted to post it somewhere but not sure if anyone would steal it or anything.
Obviously not, but I think that you could have philosophical discussions with very young children if they are framed properly.
As it is right now, we just tell kids things such as "sharing is caring." Instead, you can take a more Aesop's Fable approach to philosophy. You tell a story and then discuss the morals in an accessible way. Was it wrong for Joey to take Mike's crayons? Why? What should Joey have done, what should Mike have done? It might not be Plato, but it gets the job done.
That is what approximately 90% of children's stories ARE.
Obviously not, but I think that you could have philosophical discussions with very young children if they are framed properly.
As it is right now, we just tell kids things such as "sharing is caring." Instead, you can take a more Aesop's Fable approach to philosophy. You tell a story and then discuss the morals in an accessible way. Was it wrong for Joey to take Mike's crayons? Why? What should Joey have done, what should Mike have done? It might not be Plato, but it gets the job done.
That is what approximately 90% of children's stories ARE.
Yeah, watch PBS sometime (during the day). Most of those kids' shows are just like this.
Obviously not, but I think that you could have philosophical discussions with very young children if they are framed properly.
As it is right now, we just tell kids things such as "sharing is caring." Instead, you can take a more Aesop's Fable approach to philosophy. You tell a story and then discuss the morals in an accessible way. Was it wrong for Joey to take Mike's crayons? Why? What should Joey have done, what should Mike have done? It might not be Plato, but it gets the job done.
That is what approximately 90% of children's stories ARE.
Yeah, watch PBS sometime (during the day). Most of those kids' shows are just like this.
The difference here is that...
a) There's a difference between just telling them the story, and getting them to explain their thoughts on the story. b) You actually tell them that it's time to learn philosophy, so they now have a different perspective on what philosophy is for the rest of their lives.
I'm not quite sure I get the connection between Philosophy classes and the integration of standard subjects...
I was referring more to the problem of what is wrong with "science" nowadays. I believe Pete mentioned that often PhDs focus on one idea, or at best a few, and hang on to those for their whole career, because those ideas are their careers. I would also consider many scientists arrogant for believing what they find out to be the truth, not realizing how non-sensical that belief is. Philosophy would help scientists to think more critically about their theories and give them the ability to see the "broder picture". Philosophy would also help them a lot when trying to solve complex problems, trying to get a point across or trying to explain their ideas in general.
Well, science DOES reveal the truth. The problem is that truth is not complete, because we have a limited perspective.
Stories are useful for teaching a concept inasmuch as they ground the lesson in something that more approximates reality. When I give lectures to visiting students, I teach them about regulatory science by telling then the story of a sample. I even pass the sample around. I find it helps to show them a food item that they encounter in their everyday life.
Well, science DOES reveal the truth. The problem is that truth is not complete, because we have a limited perspective.
This may be nit-picking, but when one says he has revealed truth or he knows the truth that is an absolute thing. I don't think you can have just a bit of truth.
On the subject of raw milk since I'm listening to the Locke Lamorra episode: Yeah, raw milk probably does taste better. Know why? There's a couple of methods for pasteurizing milk. One is holding the milk at 145 degrees Fahrenheit for half an hour, another is heating it to 161 degrees for 15 seconds. The latter method destroys flavor compounds, but since it is faster guess which one milk companies use.
Fat content and freshness play a large role as well.
The latter method destroys flavor compounds,
Well, yes and no. It changes protein conformation. It's like searing a steak; it doesn't destroy proteins, it changes their conformation and thus flavor profile.
Also, and I can't remember the source for this off the top of my head, HTST pasteurization (161 F for 15 seconds) actually has less of an effect on flavor than LTLT (145 for 30 mintues). The extreme difference in cook time is what makes the difference.
Well, yes and no. It changes protein conformation. It's like searing a steak; it doesn'tdestroyproteins, it changes their conformation and thus flavor profile.
Well, yes and no. It changes protein conformation. It's like searing a steak; it doesn'tdestroyproteins, it changes their conformation and thus flavor profile.
Mmmmm. Maillard reaction.
The Maillard reaction makes steak delicious, not s much with milk. Isn't there also pasteurization by UV light? That too messes with the flavor of the milk, judging by Dean's choice to have opaque milk jugs.
Edit: Also, yes, UHT, where the milk is cooked to 216 degrees for a fraction of a second kills the bad shit and preserves the full body and flavor of the milk.
Edit: Also, yes, UHT, where the milk is cooked to 216 degrees for a fraction of a second kills the bad shit and preserves the full body and flavor of the milk.
Uh, UHT milk has a noticeably different flavor than HTST milk. But it does have a wicked shelf life.
Isn't there also pasteurization by UV light?
Yeah, but both UV-treated and irradiated milk taste like ass.
There is interest in high pressure pasteurization (pascalization), but the technology is still being developed.
Edit: Also, yes, UHT, where the milk is cooked to 216 degrees for a fraction of a second kills the bad shit and preserves the full body and flavor of the milk.
Uh, UHT milk has a noticeably different flavor than HTST milk. But it does have a wicked shelf life.
I stand by my previous statement: it taste way different, but it tastes delicious. Maillard, what's up.
Comments
Philosophy would help scientists to think more critically about their theories and give them the ability to see the "broder picture". Philosophy would also help them a lot when trying to solve complex problems, trying to get a point across or trying to explain their ideas in general.
As it is right now, we just tell kids things such as "sharing is caring." Instead, you can take a more Aesop's Fable approach to philosophy. You tell a story and then discuss the morals in an accessible way. Was it wrong for Joey to take Mike's crayons? Why? What should Joey have done, what should Mike have done? It might not be Plato, but it gets the job done.
a) There's a difference between just telling them the story, and getting them to explain their thoughts on the story.
b) You actually tell them that it's time to learn philosophy, so they now have a different perspective on what philosophy is for the rest of their lives.
Stories are useful for teaching a concept inasmuch as they ground the lesson in something that more approximates reality. When I give lectures to visiting students, I teach them about regulatory science by telling then the story of a sample. I even pass the sample around. I find it helps to show them a food item that they encounter in their everyday life.
à ² _à ² UHT milk is delicious.
Also, and I can't remember the source for this off the top of my head, HTST pasteurization (161 F for 15 seconds) actually has less of an effect on flavor than LTLT (145 for 30 mintues). The extreme difference in cook time is what makes the difference.
Edit: Also, yes, UHT, where the milk is cooked to 216 degrees for a fraction of a second kills the bad shit and preserves the full body and flavor of the milk.
There is interest in high pressure pasteurization (pascalization), but the technology is still being developed.