3 ms·

Bothering to learn the historical significance of the monroe doctrine is a lot different than having to memorize what year the doctrine was issued. It is simil

Bothering to learn the historical significance of the monroe doctrine is a lot different than having to memorize what year the doctrine was issued. It is similar to learning the why of multiplication rather than memorizing multiplication tables. If who know the why, you have a foundation laid for higher math. If you just memorize the results you lack the foundation. You sure can spit out results fast, but a computer can spit them out faster. Same with dates and names for historical events. If you know what year the doctrine was issued, and who wrote it, there isn’t much knowledge that can be built on that. But if you understand the significance, but have no idea what year it was written or who wrote it, you can apply that knowledge to other situations.

SiVal 12y ago
Really? Then in what ways might the Mexican slaughter of Texans at the Alamo and US plans for retribution have helped shape the Monroe Doctrine's policy that the European countries should not interfere in the affairs of countries in the Americas? Answer without knowing any dates. And as far as "knowing the why" of multiplication being sufficient to lay the foundation of higher math, just try to solve a system of three simultaneous equations or find a volume with double integration on a classroom test, each problem requiring that a couple of dozen little algebraic operations be done correctly or the problem gets all messed up, when you really never learned what 7x5 or 8x(-3) are, but you fully understand what these operations mean. You'll pick a humanities major when you get to college and heave a great sigh of relief when you take your last "higher math" class.
- RogerL 12y ago
  Google will give me the dates in 5 seconds, and then I can reason about it. I doubt you know (remember) the date of everything that happened in history. I do not doubt that you can reason about, understand, and learn from history. No one is arguing for no memorization, ever. We are arguing against rote memorization and for learning how to think and reason. It is not a dichotomy, it's a continuum. Of course any example that someone comes up with by way of illustrating their position is going to have a quibble or counter. But that is kind of missing the forest for the trees, IMO. To expand that line of thought. We have new tools now, like google, and an ever increasing body of facts. It was perhaps reasonable to 'memorize the world' in 1912; there is no chance of it today. A few dozen European, white dead authors to read, handfuls of major population centers, tons of jobs related to shipping corn and such (thank you ships and trains!), and so memorizing the almanac and learning percentages made a lot of sense (perhaps, I'll stipulate it). Now, to have an effective mind you have to be able to find and assimilate data from several sources quickly, and find the meaning behind the facts. I don't know the answer to your Monroe Doctrine question, but I have no doubt that I could get you the answer quickly, and write an "A", graduate level paper in a few days should I choose. That's what I need to succeed in this world, not know the stupid date of some treaty.
  - SiVal 12y ago
    If you don't already "know the stupid date of some treaty" without looking it up with Google, you can't know its context with any depth, so you don't understand the issue well enough for your opinions about it to be of any value "5 seconds" later.

SiVal 12y ago

Really? Then in what ways might the Mexican slaughter of Texans at the Alamo and US plans for retribution have helped shape the Monroe Doctrine's policy that the European countries should not interfere in the affairs of countries in the Americas? Answer without knowing any dates. And as far as "knowing the why" of multiplication being sufficient to lay the foundation of higher math, just try to solve a system of three simultaneous equations or find a volume with double integration on a classroom test, each problem requiring that a couple of dozen little algebraic operations be done correctly or the problem gets all messed up, when you really never learned what 7x5 or 8x(-3) are, but you fully understand what these operations mean. You'll pick a humanities major when you get to college and heave a great sigh of relief when you take your last "higher math" class.

RogerL 12y ago
Google will give me the dates in 5 seconds, and then I can reason about it. I doubt you know (remember) the date of everything that happened in history. I do not doubt that you can reason about, understand, and learn from history. No one is arguing for no memorization, ever. We are arguing against rote memorization and for learning how to think and reason. It is not a dichotomy, it's a continuum. Of course any example that someone comes up with by way of illustrating their position is going to have a quibble or counter. But that is kind of missing the forest for the trees, IMO. To expand that line of thought. We have new tools now, like google, and an ever increasing body of facts. It was perhaps reasonable to 'memorize the world' in 1912; there is no chance of it today. A few dozen European, white dead authors to read, handfuls of major population centers, tons of jobs related to shipping corn and such (thank you ships and trains!), and so memorizing the almanac and learning percentages made a lot of sense (perhaps, I'll stipulate it). Now, to have an effective mind you have to be able to find and assimilate data from several sources quickly, and find the meaning behind the facts. I don't know the answer to your Monroe Doctrine question, but I have no doubt that I could get you the answer quickly, and write an "A", graduate level paper in a few days should I choose. That's what I need to succeed in this world, not know the stupid date of some treaty.
- SiVal 12y ago
  If you don't already "know the stupid date of some treaty" without looking it up with Google, you can't know its context with any depth, so you don't understand the issue well enough for your opinions about it to be of any value "5 seconds" later.