5 ms·

Again, while that's a good lesson, the story doesn't teach it. The story only gives an example of evaluating new information when you're told it will contain a

Again, while that's a good lesson, the story doesn't teach it. The story only gives an example of evaluating new information when you're told it will contain a lie.

dasil003 17y ago
You're nitpicking. Humans (and all animals) operate by constructing mental approximations and generalizations. This does in fact teach students not to trust authority.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  I think what would teach not to trust authority is an explanation of why it's bad to trust authority. The story does not contain such an explanation. Secondarily, I think an example where people trusted authority and got burned would work. The story doesn't contain such an example. Thirdly, one could have an example where people refused to trust authority and got good results. The story doesn't have that either. What it does contain is students who did what their teacher wanted and got good results by going along with the authority's lessons.
  - driax 17y ago
    I agree that the story does not explain WHY it is bad to trust authority. But it tells the story of HOW the author have learn to mistrust authority. It's one thing to know that you shouldn't trust authority, it's another thing to have practiced it. And this is exactly what the professor teaches: giving the students the tools and practice of constant skepticism toward even qualified authority.
btilly 17y ago
You claim that the story doesn't teach that. Yet that lesson, in those words, is at the end of the article in the list of things that student learned from that professor.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  That someone said "I learned X from Y" is not evidence he's correct.
  - btilly 17y ago
    True. But conversely that you don't see how that someone learned X from Y is not evidence that he's wrong. The experience of seeing how easy it is for an almost correct statement to sound authoritative, or to be arrived at from almost correct reasoning, does cement the lesson of how easy it is for experts to be wrong. The practice of listening to an expert sounding authoritative and listening for the mistake gives practice in that skill. Applying that practice with other experts would give ample verification of the value of listening to "experts" with that care. I am not at all surprised that this would teach the lesson and it would stick.

Again, while that's a good lesson, the story doesn't teach it. The story only gives an example of evaluating new information when you're told it will contain a lie.

dasil003 17y ago

You're nitpicking. Humans (and all animals) operate by constructing mental approximations and generalizations. This does in fact teach students not to trust authority.

xenophanes 17y ago
I think what would teach not to trust authority is an explanation of why it's bad to trust authority. The story does not contain such an explanation. Secondarily, I think an example where people trusted authority and got burned would work. The story doesn't contain such an example. Thirdly, one could have an example where people refused to trust authority and got good results. The story doesn't have that either. What it does contain is students who did what their teacher wanted and got good results by going along with the authority's lessons.
- driax 17y ago
  I agree that the story does not explain WHY it is bad to trust authority. But it tells the story of HOW the author have learn to mistrust authority. It's one thing to know that you shouldn't trust authority, it's another thing to have practiced it. And this is exactly what the professor teaches: giving the students the tools and practice of constant skepticism toward even qualified authority.

btilly 17y ago

You claim that the story doesn't teach that. Yet that lesson, in those words, is at the end of the article in the list of things that student learned from that professor.

xenophanes 17y ago
That someone said "I learned X from Y" is not evidence he's correct.
- btilly 17y ago
  True. But conversely that you don't see how that someone learned X from Y is not evidence that he's wrong. The experience of seeing how easy it is for an almost correct statement to sound authoritative, or to be arrived at from almost correct reasoning, does cement the lesson of how easy it is for experts to be wrong. The practice of listening to an expert sounding authoritative and listening for the mistake gives practice in that skill. Applying that practice with other experts would give ample verification of the value of listening to "experts" with that care. I am not at all surprised that this would teach the lesson and it would stick.