Even in the arts, students must challenge established styles and forms rather than learn to
imitate them; otherwise, no genuinely new art would ever emerge. Bee-bop musicians such as
Charlie Parker demonstrated through their wildly innovative harmonies and melodies their
skepticism about established rules for harmony and melody. In the area of dance BaUanchine
showed by way of his improvisational techniques his skepticism about established rules for
choreography. And Germany’s Bauhaus School of Architecture, to which modern architecture
owes its existence, was rooted in skepticism about the proper objective, and resulting design,
of public buildings.
Admittedly, undue skepticism might be counterproductive in educating young children. I am
not an expert in developmental psychology; yet observation and common sense informs me
that youngsters must first develop a foundation of experiential knowledge before they can
begin to think critically about what they are learning. Even so, in my view no student, no matter
how young, should be discouraged from asking "Why?" and "Why not?"
75
To sum up, skepticism is the very stuff that progress is made of, whether it be in science,
sociology, politics, the law, or the arts. Therefore, skepticism should be encouraged at all but
the most basic levels of education.
Issue 68
"Both parents and communities must be involved in the local schools. Education is too
important to leave solely to a group of professional educators."
Should parents and communities participate in local education because education is too
important to leave to professional educators, as the speaker asserts? It might be tempting to
agree with the speaker, based on a parent’s legal authority over, familiarity with, and interest in
his or her own children. However, a far more compelling argument can be made that, except
for major decisions such as choice of school, a child’s education is best left to professional
educators.
Communities of parents concerned about their children’s education rely on three arguments
for active parental and community participation in that process. The fzrst argument, and the
one expressed most often and vociferously, is that parents hold the ultimately legal authority to
make key decisions about what and how their own children learn including choice of
curriculum and text books, pace and schedule for learning, and the extent to which their child
should learn alongside other children. The second argument is that only a parent can truly
know the unique needs of a child including what educational choices are best suited for the
child. The third argument is that parents are more motivated--by pride and ego--than any other
person to take whatever measures are needed to ensure their children receive the best
possible education.
Careful examination of these three arguments, however, reveals that they are specious at
best. As for the first one, were we to allow parents the right to make all major decisions
regarding the education of their children, many children would go with little or no education. In
a perfect world parents would always make their children’s education one of their highest
priorities. Yet, in fact many parents do not. As for the second argument, parents are not
necessarily best equipped to know what is best for their child when it comes to education.
Although most parents might think they are sufficiently expert by virtue of having gone through
formal education themselves, parents lack the specialized training to appreciate what
pedagogical methods are most effective, what constitutes a balanced education, how
developmental psychology affects a child’s capacity for learning at different levels and at
different stages of childhood. Professional educators, by virtue of their specialized training in
these areas, are far better able to ensure that a child receives a balanced, properly paced
education.There are two additional compelling arguments against the speaker’s contention. First,
parents are too subjective to always know what is truly best for their children. For example,
many parents try to overcome their own shortcomings and failed self-expectations vicariously
through their children’s accomplishments. Most of us have known parents who push their child
to excel in certain areas--to the emotional and psychological detriment of the child. Secondly, if
too many parties become involved in making decisions about day-to-day instruction, the end
result might be infighting, legal battles, boycotts, and other protests, all of which impede the
76
educational process; and the ultimate victims are the children themselves. Finally, in many
jurisdictions parents now have the option of schooling their children at home, as long as certain
state requirements are met. In my observation, home schooling allows parents who prefer it
great control over a child’s education, while allowing the professional educators to discharge
their responsibilities as effectively as possible--unfettered by gadfly parents who constantly
interfere and intervene.In sum, while parents might seem better able and better motivated to make key decisions
about their child’s education, in many cases they are not. With the possible exceptions of
responsible home-schoolers, a child’s intellectual, social, and psychological development is at
risk when communities of parents dominate the decision-making process involving education.
Issue 69
"There is no such thing as purely objective observation. All observation is subjective; it is
always guided by the observer’s expectations or desires."
The speaker claims that all observation is subjective--colored by desire and expectation.
While it would be tempting to concede that we all see things differently, careful scrutiny of the
speaker’s claim reveals that it confuses observation with interpretation. In fact, in the end the
speaker’s claim relies entirely on the further claim that there is no such thing as truth and that
we cannot truly know anything. While this notion might appeal to certain existentialists and
epistemologists, it runs against the grain of all scientific discovery and knowledge gained over
the last 500 years.
It would be tempting to afford the speaker’s daim greater merit than it deserves. After all, our
everyday experience as humans informs us that we often disagree about what we observe
around us. We’ve all uttered and heard uttered many times the phase "That’s not the way I see
it!" Indeed, everyday observations--for example, about whether a football player was out of
bounds, or about which car involved in an accident ran the red light--vary depending not only
on one’s spatial perspective but also on one’s expectations or desires. If I’m rooting for one
football team, or if the player is well-known for his ability to make great plays while barely
staying in bounds, my desires or expectations might influence what I think I observe. Or if I am
driving one of the cars in the accident, or if one car is a souped-up sports car, then my desires
or expectations will in all likelihood color my perception of the accident’s events.
However, these sorts of subjective "observations" are actually subjective "interpretations’’ of
what we observe. Visitors to an art museum might disagree about the beauty of a particular
work, or even about which color predominates in that work. In a court trial several jurors might
view the same videotape evidence many times, yet some jurors might "observe" an incident of
police brutality, will others "observe" the appropriate use of force to restrain a dangerous
individual. Thus when it comes to making judgments about what we observe and about
remembering what we observe, each person’s individual perspective, values, and even
emotions help form these judgments and recollections. It is crucial to distinguish between
interpretations such as these and observation, which is nothing more than a sensory
experience. Given the same spatial perspective and sensory acuity and awareness, it seems
to me that our observations would all be essentially in accord--that is, observation can be
objective.77
Lending credence to my position is Francis Bacon’s scientific method, according to which we
can know only that which we observe, and thus all truth must be based on empirical
observation. This profoundly important principle serves to expose and strip away all subjective
interpretation of observation, thereby revealing objective scientific truths. For example, up until
Bacon’s time the Earth was "observed" to lie at the center of the Universe, in accordance with
the prevailing religious notion that man (humankind) was the center of God’s creation.
Applying Bacon’s scientific method Galileo exposed the biased nature of this claim. Similarly,
before Einstein time and space were assumed to be linear, in accordance with our
"observation." Einstein’s mathematical formulas suggested otherwise, and his theories have
been proven empirically to be true. Thus it was our subjective interpretation of time and space
that led to our misguided notions about them. Einstein, like history’s other most influential
scientists, simply refused to accept conventional interpretations of what we all observe.
In sum, the speaker confuses observation with interpretation and recollection. It is how we
make sense of what we observe, not observation itself, that is colored by our perspective,
expectations, and desires. The gifted individuals who can set aside their subjectivity and delve
deeper into empirical evidence, employing Bacon’s scientific method, are the ones who reveal
that observation not only can be objective but must be objective if we are to embrace the more
fundamental notion that knowledge and truth exist.
Issue 70
"The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of
human minds."
This statement actually consists of a series of three related claims: (1) machines are tools of
human minds; (2) human minds will always be superior to machines; and (3) it is because
machines are human tools that human minds will always be superior to machines. While I
concede the fn:st claim, whether I agree with the other two claims depends partly on how one
defines "superiority," and partly on how willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future
scenarios.
The statement is clearly accurate insofar as machines are tools of human minds. After all,
would any machine even exist unless a human being invented it? Of course not. Moreover, I
would be hard-pressed to think of any machine that cannot be described as a tool. Even
machines designed to entertain or amuse us--for example, toy robots, cars and video games,
and novelty items--are in fact tools, which their inventors and promoters use for engaging in
commerce and the business of entertainment and amusement. And, the claim that a machine
can be an end in itself, without purpose or utilitarian function for humans whatsoever, is
dubious at best, since I cannot conjure up even a single example of any such machine. Thus
when we develop any sort of machine we always have some sort of end in mind a purpose for
that machine.
As for the statement’s second claim, in certain respects machines are superior. We have
devised machines that perform number-crunching and other rote cerebral tasks with greater
accuracy and speed than human minds ever could. In fact, it is because we can devise
machines that are superior in these respects that we devise them--as our tools--to begin with.
However, if one defines superiority not in terms of competence in per-forming rote tasks but
78
rather in other ways, human minds are superior. Machines have no capacity for independent
thought, for making judgments based on normative considerations, or for developing
emotional responses to intellectual problems.
Up until now, the notion of human-made machines that develop the ability to think on their
own, and to develop so-called "emotional intelligence," has been pure fiction. Besides, even in
fiction we humans ultimately prevail over such machines--as in the cases of Frankenstein’s
monster and Hal, the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yet it seems presumptuous to
assert with confidence that humans will always maintain their superior status over their
machines. Recent advances in biotechnology, particularly in the area of human genome
research, suggest that within the 21st Century we’ll witness machines that can learn to think on
their own, to repair and nurture themselves, to experience visceral sensations, and so forth. In
other words, machines will soon exhibit the traits to which we humans attribute our own
superiority.