Nothing I said implies I think education only teaches fact. Obviously I believe the contrary, as evidenced by my comments. As far as education teaching people h

Nothing I said implies I think education only teaches fact. Obviously I believe the contrary, as evidenced by my comments. As far as education teaching people how to be net-positive members of society, I agree that's what the education we subsidize is intended for, but that doesn't apply to this situation. A mid-level psychology course at a higher learning institution. If you honestly think that the GOAL of that course is to teach children not to cheat, I think you're grossly mistaken. First and foremost by the fact that not all students are "young people". And then by the fact that we have other courses, even in higher learning institutions, that deal with teaching the students ethics. In the other classes, as with all other areas of life, you're just expected to employ the ethics of the society. It's a meta-reinforcement of those lessons, but the reinforcements are not the lessons of the other classes. If a student fails in their ethics classes due to their ethical decisions, that makes sense. If a student fails math with the right answers but the wrong "ethics", that doesn't make sense. Unethically sourced math answers can still provide the solutions to problems. Just ask NASA. So then, if a professor of an unrelated or tangentially related field takes it upon themselves to make a lesson out of what should be a meta-reinforcement, in a field that they readily admit that they are unprepared to work in or do data analysis for, that is not a reasonable source of ethical education. Especially not when done without prior social experiment approval and safeguards.