Value of Education

Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Messages
209
Reaction score
56
Points
1
@VraieEsprit

I agree with your assertion, but NOT with your outcome. The very purpose of the scientific method is to question and be skeptical of information, until it can be repeatedly proven to be fact. That very method is how we determine "facts" and how best to deal with those facts in our world. If repeatedly proven data shows something to be a fact, such as for example, climate change; it stands to reason that it is a fact until proven otherwise. Less funding for science is how you get far-right populist movements like Donald Trump/Brexit.

Maybe it's from me speaking as an American, but less funding for science, which is an action being currently undertaken by the latest regime, is an act being taken out of pure ignorance; and in turn making our populace more ignorant to boot.

I don't disagree with teaching of humanities helping in some regard to countering anti-intellectualism & bigotry, I disagree that critical thinking skills rely solely on those studies. The sciences are exactly an understanding of how the world works by reasoning and critical thinking skills, so to defund them is to defund this basic understanding. The humanities are meant to sort of build on this so we can use our data more effectively in a societal sense.

As for education being based on class, which is also an issue in the states, that is an economic issue that needs to be addressed. We need people to have more access to higher education, rather than defund aspects of the education itself.
 
Last edited:

VraieEsprit

Taira hime, Dragon queen.
Joined
Feb 19, 2014
Messages
238
Reaction score
91
Points
0
@VraieEsprit

I agree with your assertion, but NOT with your outcome. The very purpose of the scientific method is to question and be skeptical of information, until it can be repeatedly proven to be fact. That very method is how we determine "facts" and how best to deal with those facts in our world. If repeatedly proven data shows something to be a fact, such as for example, climate change; it stands to reason that it is a fact until proven otherwise. Less funding for science is how you get far-right populist movements like Donald Trump/Brexit.

Maybe it's from me speaking as an American, but less funding for science, which is an action being currently undertaken by the latest regime, is an act being taken out of pure ignorance; and in turn making our populace more ignorant to boot.
But while we all accept climate change is a thing, what if, in ten years, someone proves it isn't a 'thing' any more? And where does science take into consideration the impact that protecting the climate has on poorer economies who are reliant on non-environmentally friendly forms of production to sustain their economy? Science has no answer for these elements. Science needs humanities in order to build a bigger picture.

Fundamentally, I think your argument is flawed. And I'll reiterate now I am not an American, so obviously you know more than I do about your current political rhetoric.

I also remember learning from my science classes at school that there was a scientist who stated that the only thing science could prove was that what they had tested was or was not possible the number of times they tested it. They could not prove that the next test would have the same outcome, only provide a probability of it. This is essentially how history also works. The difference is that science often ignores that potential doubt factor, and assumes that they know the answer, because they've tested it 100 times and got the same result. Science cannot be applied to human nature, however, because in a crowd of 101 people, even if 100 do the same thing, you cannot assume 101 will act likewise. Again, this is where history comes in, because if you know history, you know that people never do what the pattern says they will do, and that, in fact, all patterns are created subjectively, and thus are not so much proof, as educated assumption.

From this, you'll guess that the first problem I have with your argument is the assertion of the existence of the 'fact'. Historians will tell you that facts are not really facts, but a multitude of accounts from different perspectives, which ultimately, if patchworked together give an approximation of what really happened. A good example of this is the perspectives people in different parts of the world have on the Second World War and what actually happened. Even the dates of the war are different depending on where you live. There are no facts about this war, but there are general consensuses of belief about several key elements involved. These elements have been extracted through detailed analysis of source material, which is what history entails. However, they are not 'facts'. In my own research, I am looking at Japanese War Tales. These are not considered 'facts', yet I have been to a number of locations here in Japan where the stories of those tales are presented to visitors as 'factual accounts'. Even though the text is officially classified as literature, and academics constantly talk about the inaccuracies, out in the field popular history has taken over. This is proof that what people want to believe can be more powerful than 'facts'. This is what we see with Brexit and Trump. What the Japanese people have done with their war tales is made them into facts. They aren't true facts, so semantically they're not 'facts' at all - but if everyone believes them, they might as well be. There is no scientific equation to cope with the gap between belief and proof.

Human beings only record a fragment of the things they remember. Even if someone tried to write an absolutely true account, they still would omit something which someone else might remember or consider absolutely vital. Science, however, takes a position that it knows the answer to everything, and thus anything that disagrees with its answer must be wrong. You can apply those rules to a bench experiment. You cannot apply it to human nature. Humanities are, by their very definition, studies of human actions. Science cannot teach empathy, but I think that we also see a lack of empathy that has caused our respective countries to go down the paths they currently are. For me this clinical lab-mentality to the 'problem' (ie immigration) is a result of reducing education in subjects which require actual engagement with the human problem and human beings of another time, country, or space. This even extends to spiritual or religious entities, if understanding that belief system allows us to understand and thus work with another culture on a more positive level. Instead we have religious intoleration - but science cannot explain or understand that. You need a humanity to really get to grips with that problem, let alone trying to solve it. Science can create weapons, like the atom bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, but it cannot mend the psychology of the people who grew up in its aftermath.

Modern science makes people look down on past societies, but those societies also had their own concept of cutting edge 'science' which made them look down on the people who came before (see for example the witch trials, and then the undermining of the witch rhetoric by later societies). The problem with priveleging science over a humanity such as history is that you lose that context or the ability to realise we are just people living in this age who know a few things and don't know a lot of things.

I have no doubt that real scholars of science are diligent, intelligent and working on cutting edge material. But I am not talking about them. I am talking about the weakness of teaching young people that there are such things as 'fact', and expecting them to absorb said 'facts'. Children in schools do not question those 'facts'. They may do experiments, but they are experiments to prove the 'fact' the teacher is wanting them to learn. History is not about teaching facts. It can be used as powerful political propaganda, and this is where it can be dangerous, but real history is where the student looks at the source material and judges for themselves what did or did not happen.

In the modern society, your argument that not teaching science created Trump and Brexit is therefore flawed. Trump and Brexit come about because people are taught to believe 'facts'. We get things like post-truth and fake news as though they are new concepts, but they aren't. Ignorance of history is the reason why people continuously fall into the same traps. We also get intolerance towards religious groups because science keeps telling us that religion is impossible. Now we have a situation whereby people believe it is ok to look down on religious groups because they are believing in things that cannot be seen or verified. But realistically, science is also something which, at any moment, could be undermined, disproved and thus looked down on.

This debate is not about whether science is or is not relevant in society, but about the value of education. And in terms of the classroom, I think that humanties - and in particular history, although not just history - provide a much better arsenal for life understanding than anything taught in the lab.

For the record, when I was at school, I was in the advanced set for science, I took extra qualifications in it and passed my school exams early. But for me, science has problems and it has gaps which scientists attempt to cover up with theorising. A really good example of this is all the publicity from 'experts' about autism. Experts don't understand autism. But to admit that would be to admit that some element of the human brain eluded them. So instead, they throw out random and dangerous theories that have impact on real people and their lives. And because we live in a 'fact' society, nobody questions them. So even if science should be rigorously tested and re-tested, in reality, it isn't. Science has become so big now that it gets to set the rules, even if it doesn't have the answer.


As my history teacher used to say, a society without history is a person without a memory - and those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

As we see with Trump and Brexit, even in this so-called advanced scientific age.

In terms of further education and class system, I agree, but the problem is more fundamental than access. Fees have become a bigger problem here than they used to be, and that has created an extra wall, but there is also a problem with some communities believing they should go to university, or that they have the right to, or even that going to university is a respectable thing to do vis a vis going to get a job. It's that which really needs to be challenged. Besides, not everyone should go to university; some people are better placed in this world to go through the practical apprenticeship system and contribute to society in a positive way based on their skills. Unfortunately the apprenticeship program in the UK is severely restricted in terms of its availability and mostly the opportunities are not in every region. Another mistaken 'fact' is that university is the answer to everything, but it isn't. We need much more than just people at uni to resolve the fundamental problems in both our understanding of the world and our economy.
(And I say that as a PhD student ;))
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Messages
209
Reaction score
56
Points
1
But while we all accept climate change is a thing, what if, in ten years, someone proves it isn't a 'thing' any more?
Unlikely.




All data so far has shown an amazingly overwhelming evidence that CO2 emissions are affecting climate. In any case, science goes based on the knowledge of what is/has been taking place. We could discover in 10 years, for example, that the supernatural figures (ancient astronauts or whatever) in some world religions are real or responsible for humanities origin. However; overwhelming data and the fossil record is showing instead that man evolved from ape, and evolution has occurred for all life on earth. We do not work off of what could be; we work off of what is or strongly appears to be under observable scrutiny.

And where does science take into consideration the impact that protecting the climate has on poorer economies who are reliant on non-environmentally friendly forms of production to sustain their economy? Science has no answer for these elements. Science needs humanities in order to build a bigger picture.
Not really seeing how the humanities alone solve this particular problem, either. This is mainly an economic problem, as the case of rising superpowers like China. In this case, the issue is also one of health and safety concerns from pollution, which once again, science provided the facts to back up. Those poorer economies may be convinced that this is enough reason to switch to more renewable energy sources, which once again China is currently attempting.

I'd also support economies considering Nuclear Energy, as it is a literally near limitless and clean source of power. The newer technology behind the plant construction (and certainly better infrastructure spending) could avert potential disasters we've experiences in the past with the outdated models. Nuclear also averts some of the problems usually faced with renewables, such as energy storage and power demands.

Fundamentally, I think your argument is flawed. And I'll reiterate now I am not an American, so obviously you know more than I do about your current political rhetoric.
I think my argument could easily be made for many countries, it's just our (U.S.) scientific illiterate audience tends to be quite noisy.

I also remember learning from my science classes at school that there was a scientist who stated that the only thing science could prove was that what they had tested was or was not possible the number of times they tested it. They could not prove that the next test would have the same outcome, only provide a probability of it. This is essentially how history also works. The difference is that science often ignores that potential doubt factor, and assumes that they know the answer, because they've tested it 100 times and got the same result. Science cannot be applied to human nature, however, because in a crowd of 101 people, even if 100 do the same thing, you cannot assume 101 will act likewise. Again, this is where history comes in, because if you know history, you know that people never do what the pattern says they will do, and that, in fact, all patterns are created subjectively, and thus are not so much proof, as educated assumption.
Honestly, this has less to do with the scientific method itself, and more to do with the fact that humans are highly irrational animals. We are biased, and do not often go with cold hard data or logic for one reason or another. As for history on human nature, I believe certain "trends" on human behavior are certainly predictable:

-- Human behavior is 93 percent predictable, a group of leading Northeastern University network scientists recently found. Distinguished Professor of Physics Albert-László Barabási and his team studied the mobility patterns of anonymous cell-phone users and concluded that, despite the common perception that our actions are random and unpredictable, human mobility follows surprisingly regular patterns. The team’s research is published in the current issue of Science magazine.“Spontaneous individuals are largely absent from the population. Despite the significant differences in travel patterns, we found that most people are equally predictable,” said Barabási, who is also director of Northeastern’s world-leading Center for Complex Network Research. “The predictability represents the probability we can foresee an individual's future whereabouts in the next hour based on his or her previous trajectory.”


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-02-human-behavior-percent.html#jCp
In any case, I thought one of the necessary reasons to study history was to not repeat it? Such a quote is meaningless unless there are some societal behavioral patterns repeating, no? Sure, patterns are oftentimes broken, but that doesn't mean that all of them will be.

Most of our behaviors are hardwired into our brains, which itself could be used as a basis for why humans acted the way they have in history.


From this, you'll guess that the first problem I have with your argument is the assertion of the existence of the 'fact'. Historians will tell you that facts are not really facts, but a multitude of accounts from different perspectives, which ultimately, if patchworked together give an approximation of what really happened.
That's because what you just described is not a fact at all, but an event. Yes, the account of events can indeed be described differently based on what was experienced, and as stated before, bias. We may never have a full framework of unbiased human history because it is based on human account.

However; ask each and every one of these historians to take a plunge off a 100 story building and see what they tell you. Gravity, one of our fundamental forces of nature pulls them each down to the ground, leaving them a historic mark on the pavement. That is an unarguable fact. Is the earth not a spherical object? Are there not other planets within our solar system that are also spherical? How did we even come to these conclusions? By gathering empirical data about the world around us.

A good example of this is the perspectives people in different parts of the world have on the Second World War and what actually happened. Even the dates of the war are different depending on where you live. There are no facts about this war, but there are general consensuses of belief about several key elements involved. These elements have been extracted through detailed analysis of source material, which is what history entails. However, they are not 'facts'.
Well, it certainly is a fact that the atrocities of that war occurred; such as the Holocaust. These events also need to be labeled as facts in order to prevent deniers from twisting "accounts" to their own ends, or alternative facts as it were. We literally just had a gaffe about this very thing recently with Sean Spicer claiming that Assad was worse than Hitler due to his supposed recent use of chemical weapons. Not only is this intellectually dishonest and untrue, considering that Hitler had gas chambers used on those people who suffered during the Holocaust, and apparently that Nazis had even considered using chemical weapons in warfare, but didn't for tactical rather than moral reasons as "Spicey" was claiming. Never mind that Hitler was also the instigator of one of the most destructive wars to ever take place.

Is it not also fact that the United States used nuclear weapons on Japan? Regardless of anyone's accounts, the blast, the effects, the radiation and fallout; these are all unquestionable.

In my own research, I am looking at Japanese War Tales. These are not considered 'facts', yet I have been to a number of locations here in Japan where the stories of those tales are presented to visitors as 'factual accounts'. Even though the text is officially classified as literature, and academics constantly talk about the inaccuracies, out in the field popular history has taken over. This is proof that what people want to believe can be more powerful than 'facts'. This is what we see with Brexit and Trump. What the Japanese people have done with their war tales is made them into facts. They aren't true facts, so semantically they're not 'facts' at all - but if everyone believes them, they might as well be. There is no scientific equation to cope with the gap between belief and proof.
People can believe whatever they want, but the daytime sky isn't changing colors from blue to red to green based on "belief." Is this belief powerful enough to cause people who jump off a building float in midair? Belief falls under the category of "faith" and religion imo, and has no basis in fact. In order the find the facts behind events or accounts, then bias needs to be removed as much as possible.

'Everyone' can believe strongly that fire-breathing dragons existed, or that humans lived during the time of the Dinosaurs, but that doesn't make it so. The gap between belief and proof is testing if said belief holds up to reality. If such proof for whatever belief exist and falls under repeated scrutiny, then it is likely a fact. If said belief is somehow unable to be tested, then it is pragmatically useless.

Human beings only record a fragment of the things they remember. Even if someone tried to write an absolutely true account, they still would omit something which someone else might remember or consider absolutely vital. Science, however, takes a position that it knows the answer to everything, and thus anything that disagrees with its answer must be wrong.
Nope, that is the exact description of a religion. Science actually claims to know nothing in particular, but uses a method based on physical reality to find the answers. That is why science will first put these "answers" through observation, theory, and modifying their theories when new evidence presents itself.

The only reason that science "disagrees" with any other assertions (say myths), is because these assertions cannot actually "prove" anything or disprove any scientific conclusions made. Again, pragmatically useless in regards to determining evidence.

You can apply those rules to a bench experiment. You cannot apply it to human nature. Humanities are, by their very definition, studies of human actions. Science cannot teach empathy, but I think that we also see a lack of empathy that has caused our respective countries to go down the paths they currently are. For me this clinical lab-mentality to the 'problem' (ie immigration) is a result of reducing education in subjects which require actual engagement with the human problem and human beings of another time, country, or space. This even extends to spiritual or religious entities, if understanding that belief system allows us to understand and thus work with another culture on a more positive level. Instead we have religious intoleration - but science cannot explain or understand that. You need a humanity to really get to grips with that problem, let alone trying to solve it. Science can create weapons, like the atom bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, but it cannot mend the psychology of the people who grew up in its aftermath.
You actually can.

Neuroscience itself deals in this exact subject. Science can teach empathy by understanding what causes it within our brain to begin with. From there, we can also understand what decreases empathy as the study above indicates.

The same energy that powers the atomic bomb can also provide free and clean energy for your home. As for the people who grew up in it's aftermath, understanding what makes up their psychology can go a ways toward mending it. Science is not atomic bomb/energy exclusive, after all.

Psychology Today said:
Neuroscience allows us to see inside the human brain and better understand our minds. With this knowledge we can begin to make daily choices of mindset and behavior that not only reshape our neural circuitry but can alter the way human beings interact with one another.
-Article

Modern science makes people look down on past societies, but those societies also had their own concept of cutting edge 'science' which made them look down on the people who came before (see for example the witch trials, and then the undermining of the witch rhetoric by later societies). The problem with priveleging science over a humanity such as history is that you lose that context or the ability to realise we are just people living in this age who know a few things and don't know a lot of things.
Believe it or not, the exact opposite of this belief is exactly one of the major themes that really fueled Trump's (possibly Brexit's) campaign. This myth that America needed to be made great again, as if we were living in a dark age in comparison to some golden aged past. Yes, empirical evidence shows that we are better in many many areas than past societies, especially in regards to how we view/treat the rights of other people, which ironically also falls under the humanities. It's not just our technical capability that is much better, but our understanding of each other and how our world works. Truly, despite our current problems and existential threats, overall we are in the best times of human history in comparison to the past.

The truth is that we do know a lot of things, and are discovering new realizations every day due to science and many other fields. Science itself is also helping our understanding of history better, as our instruments get better we get a better idea of just how past societies lived.

The witch trials were done out of ignorance and fear. Scientific rationality developing a society cannot be blamed for other's arrogance and bigotry. If those people were truly rational, they might have seen how their fear was baseless simply due to witchcraft itself also being baseless. Or, perhaps they may have simply left them in peace to continue their "practice," but the persecution itself was done due to much older beliefs, not newfound arrogance gained by a superior societal standing.

I have no doubt that real scholars of science are diligent, intelligent and working on cutting edge material. But I am not talking about them. I am talking about the weakness of teaching young people that there are such things as 'fact', and expecting them to absorb said 'facts'. Children in schools do not question those 'facts'. They may do experiments, but they are experiments to prove the 'fact' the teacher is wanting them to learn. History is not about teaching facts. It can be used as powerful political propaganda, and this is where it can be dangerous, but real history is where the student looks at the source material and judges for themselves what did or did not happen.
With regards to something like Christopher Columbus being a good man who discovered North America being taught, I'd agree wholeheartedly. In regards to facts themselves, no. You simply teach those kids some critical thinking skills and theoretical observation.

You acting as if "facts do not actually exist" opens the doorway for someone like Conway/Spicey to manipulate people into believing "alternative facts" where they do not question those assertions at all. History that is twisted because facts regarding what took place are not agreed upon or adhered to is exactly how you get powerful political propaganda in the first place.

If the student themselves judge what did or didn't happen, then how in the world do you reconcile topics like genocide? You can't just leave something like that up to the student to judge if that happened or not. What about slavery or oppression? What about an invention even?

What you suggest is related more to personal accounts, rather than overall events of what took place. I can understand letting the students theorize on the "reasoning" or even "morality" of what took place in the past, but never on whether the events themselves actually occurred.

In the modern society, your argument that not teaching science created Trump and Brexit is therefore flawed. Trump and Brexit come about because people are taught to believe 'facts'. We get things like post-truth and fake news as though they are new concepts, but they aren't. Ignorance of history is the reason why people continuously fall into the same traps. We also get intolerance towards religious groups because science keeps telling us that religion is impossible. Now we have a situation whereby people believe it is ok to look down on religious groups because they are believing in things that cannot be seen or verified.
If they were taught to believe in "facts" then we wouldn't have an administration actively trying to suppress those facts right now. We are still having a debate about climate change precisely because people don't view it as a fact or something they should even be concerned with.

Ignorance of history is not going to fix these problems one way or another. We get intolerance towards religious groups due to violent terrorist/extremist, fear-mongering and opportunistic politicians, general ignorance, and incompatible beliefs of said religion itself in regards to modern society. NONE of this, is due to scientific inquiry, and most who don't believe in or look down upon said belief systems aren't even violent to begin with.

But realistically, science is also something which, at any moment, could be undermined, disproved and thus looked down on.
I've yet to see anyone accomplish this, should be somewhat impossible due to science itself simply being the study of observable reality rather than belief. They can foolishly look down on it, but undermine or disprove the scientific method itself would be something to see. For example, you can pretend that the earth is flat, but that is just ignoring reality. You can pretend that the fundamental forces don't exist, and end up dead for your efforts.

This debate is not about whether science is or is not relevant in society, but about the value of education. And in terms of the classroom, I think that humanties - and in particular history, although not just history - provide a much better arsenal for life understanding than anything taught in the lab.
Science and critical thinking skills are incredibly valuable. Perhaps if more people were rational instead of purely emotional, we wouldn't have had the climate of fear that led to Brexit/Trump. People would have fact checked more, and led themselves to accepting more logical conclusions.

Yes, an educating in humanities and interaction of different cultures indeed helps. But, the problem is multi-faced, being economic, environmental, as well as prejudice or "fear of the other." Logic is the overall antidote to this ignorance.

For the record, when I was at school, I was in the advanced set for science, I took extra qualifications in it and passed my school exams early. But for me, science has problems and it has gaps which scientists attempt to cover up with theorising. A really good example of this is all the publicity from 'experts' about autism. Experts don't understand autism. But to admit that would be to admit that some element of the human brain eluded them. So instead, they throw out random and dangerous theories that have impact on real people and their lives. And because we live in a 'fact' society, nobody questions them.
Theorizing is the only way to conceptualize what may or may not be true. We start off as a theory, and then work ourselves from there. How do you know that so called experts don't understand autism? There are many elements of the human brain that we are just now discovering or understanding due to neuroscience, autism being one of them, but only if we continue the research being done in this field.

I don't think they throw out any "random" or "dangerous" theories, unless you prefer people actually believing the cause of the disorder is vaccinations? A myth which has been debunked, but and has definitely dangerously impacted real lives by parents being afraid to vaccinate their own children from diseases. If this is what you were referring to, the scientific community rigorously opposed it due to being intellectually dishonest. If it is something recent, I can only understand some possible feel of it being "rushed" due to pressure from societal expectations to have an answer to a complex issue. This is no fault of the researchers themselves. In any case, recent studies are more sound and based on actual empirical evidence.

So even if science should be rigorously tested and re-tested, in reality, it isn't. Science has become so big now that it gets to set the rules, even if it doesn't have the answer.
Proof that it isn't? Science should be setting the rules, but its chief purpose is finding out what natural "rules" make up our earth & universe.

As my history teacher used to say, a society without history is a person without a memory - and those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
Agreed, and ironically it's what I said above. I just disagree that history or humanities are the sole or "principle" teaching points. Science can help give us a better more unbiased view of history, that isn't marred by human opinion. We can figure out our origins (evolution) or how we think, plan, and organize at the societal level; how we even function at all way down to the genetic level.

Science teaches us how things work, including how humans themselves work. Humanity and science are not two separate dualistic entities, which require some sort of separation to understanding each. Science is the study of a reality that we are apart of, and take part in each and every day.

In terms of further education and class system, I agree, but the problem is more fundamental than access. Fees have become a bigger problem here than they used to be, and that has created an extra wall, but there is also a problem with some communities believing they should go to university, or that they have the right to, or even that going to university is a respectable thing to do vis a vis going to get a job. It's that which really needs to be challenged. Besides, not everyone should go to university; some people are better placed in this world to go through the practical apprenticeship system and contribute to society in a positive way based on their skills. Unfortunately the apprenticeship program in the UK is severely restricted in terms of its availability and mostly the opportunities are not in every region. Another mistaken 'fact' is that university is the answer to everything, but it isn't. We need much more than just people at uni to resolve the fundamental problems in both our understanding of the world and our economy.
(And I say that as a PhD student ;))
Not sure that I agree with this argument, but as you know I am from the U.S. so things could be somewhat different in that regard. The problem here is gaining experience after college, on top of affording ridiculous college fees/loans. I won't argue the people being "better placed" as that could be specific, but as for Uni being the answer to everything... well, more education never really hurts anyone in the long run. It just depends on what type or quality of education you are receiving. I agree that we need more than college or Uni, but again having more being able to attend never hurt. Perhaps we need programs within that will allow job training for whatever the student(s) are majoring in, that way they can immediately make proper use of their education.

On another note; great first step to the state of New York! It isn't quite nearly universal college, but in this age of anti-intellectualism, it's a win nonetheless.
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Messages
209
Reaction score
56
Points
1
I know this is double posting on this forum... but the supposed President of the United States has no idea as to why we had a Civil War.

Given the recent debate I just had above, I think this is exactly why historical facts cannot be left up to personal interpretation. When the most powerful position on earth shows this insane level of ignorance, there can be no doubt on the value of education. Education and well proven facts are INVALUABLE.
 
Last edited:

wanda lensherr

Scarlet witch
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
2,925
Reaction score
329
Points
376
Education is important as it expands on people's knowledge and critical thinking, pushing human race forward.
That said, education in practice is sadly suffering damage from poorly devised and often outdated education programs, poor funding, teachers who are not made for this job, and overzealous parents putting pressure on their children and teachers.
This is so true. I have seen and heard that some teachers arent getting paid enough here. I believe i was told from both a friend and family member of mine aka a cousin to be exact that private schools pay more versus public. I believe education is very important which is why i support every child in getting one. i just wish that teachers got more raises so they don't have to cover supplies out of their own wallet
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
757
Reaction score
493
Points
376
Access of education should be a right, but education without imparting a civic responsibility and ethics becomes useless to some extent. It even tarnish the image of it. It's very important to absorb civic responsibilities in whatever field a person wants to pursue. There are some other things which should be in the ecosystem as well in order for education to bear its fruits and that is functional institutes to serve needs and provide solutions. The more institutes are, the less tribal barbaric attitudes would be by the societies. So overall, the more important thing than value of education is the nature of environment in which the education is taught especially the early schooling. The environment should appeal to mind and it should instill high spirits and aspirations besides appreciation for life to contribute in high desires, not an unnatural stress which would turn people into mental patients.

Another thing I would like to add is that educational institutes should have a full ecosystem starting from early schooling to doctorate level and have links with the institutes serving in different fields. This gives the early school kids the role models from the very same institute to follow rather than parents instilling fake dreams of becoming astronauts or pilots which end up in disappointments. (I never wanted to become astronaut or a pilot, I'm just giving a generic example)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 4, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
1
Points
1
I think education is valuable when you're a child, but not a teenager. It seems to me that they should keep the Kindergarten and 1st-6th Grades, and get rid of the 7th-12th Grades.
 
Top