Julian Baggini applies some deep thought
Humanist Philosopher Julian Baggini has some sympathy for the idea that “deep thought” should be encouraged, but is sceptical about Michael Gove’s plan to reduce the breadth of courses studied in favour of depth. The information age has already taught people more critical thinking, argues Baggini, and a narrow specialism can limit our mental toolkits.
The obvious response to the attention-deficient culture of the sound-bite is a kind of “slow thought” movement, one which advocates a return to unhurried rumination. In sixth form, for instance, children need a chance not just to learn and regurgitate as quickly and efficiently as possible, but to digest and assimilate their knowledge.
There is something right in this line of thought, but many things wrong with it, too. Most obviously, slower minds are sometimes just that. More importantly, we have to be careful to distinguish between depth of knowledge and depth of thought. Studying fewer subjects for longer certainly gives you more in-depth knowledge, but that alone does not make you a profound thinker. Mastermind is a test of knowledge, not mental dexterity.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/julian-baggini-what-is-deep-thought-2018423.html
Julian Baggini is a member of the Humanist Philosophers group administered by the British Humanist Association.
Depth of knowledge, depth of thought; I’m trying to remember what the focus was on in high-school, perhaps if I had depth of memory I’d be able to re-call, though I suppose that comes under knowledge as presumably knowledge is the ability to recall facts, figures and the like, whilst thought is the ability to put them to some practical use?
I’d have loved philosophy classes in high-school instead of religious education, which was just a load of non-sense dressed up to look profound and important. If any of the class had ever had the where-with-all to challenge the teacher on whether any of it was true her head might have exploded.
After all that is what R.E. is at the end of the day, just learning crap that you don’t need in the hope that you don’t insult someone’s religious sensibilities later on in life; it is the acquisition and retention of useless knowledge for the sake of social etiquette, rather than the study of anything useful.
I concede it has some meagre importance somewhere in the curriculum, multi-faith schools certainly should have an appreciation of each others’ – parents’ – notions of morality and ethics; but to place this above philosophy, a subject that can actually equip youngsters with the mental tools they need for depth of thought and critical thinking, seems silly in the extreme.
Parents should demand that the national curriculum places its priority on how to think, not what to think. I do not recall a single lesson in high-school that covered the scientific method, despite being quite interested in the subject.
That was in the ’90s, does anyone know if anything has changed since then? Or are teachers still stuffing kiddies’ brains full of crap they haven’t the intellectual means to digest?