What should be taught? Language? Math? Chemistry? Philosophy? The
list can go on. It is indeed very hard to do justice by simply
nodding yes to language, yes to math, yes to chemistry, but not
yes wholesale, without putting the question in the pragmatic
context. This means that education should not be approached with
the aura of religion, or dogmatism, assumed up to now: The
teacher knew what eternal truth was; students heard the lectures
and finally received communion.
All basic disciplines have changed through time. The rhythm of
their change keeps increasing. The current understanding of
language, math, chemistry, and philosophy does not necessarily
build on a progression. Science, for example, is not
accumulation. Neither is language, contrary to all appearance.
Rules learned by rote and accepted as invariable are not needed,
but procedures for accessing knowledge relevant to our dynamic
existence are. To memorize all that education-no matter how
good or bad-unloads on students is sheer impossibility. But to
know where to find what a given practical instance requires, and
how one can use it, is quite a different matter.
Should square dancing, Heavy Metal music, bridge, Chinese cuisine
be taught? The list, to be found in the curriculum of many
schools and colleges, goes on and on. The test of the relevance
of such disciplines (or subjects) in a curriculum should be
based on the same pragmatic criteria that our lives and
livelihoods depend on.
Pages:
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416