Is it rational to teach rationality?
Communications with the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority
Over the last two years I contacted various authorities connected to the public education system with the proposal to integrate the fundamental laws of logic in the national curriculum. The responses received can be characterised as ‘uninterested’. My latest inquiry was formulated as follows:
Letter to The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (19.01.2023)
Dear VCAA,
I propose including the fundamental laws of meaning/sense, otherwise known as the laws of thought, as a new cross curriculum priority.
There are more than 100 recognised logical fallacies, but they are all reducible to just 3 laws: the law of non-contradiction (two opposite claims cannot be true at the same time and in the same respect, or, no claim can be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect), the law of excluded middle (a claim can be either true or false with no intermediate possibility), and the law of identity (everything is identical ONLY to itself, or, no two things are identical in every respect). The 3 laws are in fact just different articulations of the same One law of logical sense/meaning, and one could simply rely on non-contradiction to reach the same conclusions. For example, the ‘principle of sufficient reason’, which dictates that we ought not to assert anything as a ‘known’ fact without a proof, is reducible to the law of non-contradiction.
Including the laws of logic as a cross curriculum priority is the only effective antidote to misinformation. It would teach both the students and the teachers how to be more rational in every context. I suggest that making logic a cross-curriculum priority would dispense with the need for any other priority.
I can help you design and implement the proposed cross-curriculum priority.
VCAA response (30.01.2023)
Many thanks for your email.
The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) has commenced the revision process to ‘adopt and adapt’ the revised Australian Curriculum v9 into the next generation of the Victorian Curriculum F–10. As a result, the three cross-curriculum priorities will continue to be:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures
Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia
Sustainability
The Australian Curriculum is reviewed by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) every 6 years and, as part of this process, there are opportunities for stakeholders to provide feedback. To keep up-to-date with when the Australian Curriculum will be next be reviewed, please consider subscribing to the ACARA newsletter (link found on the ACARA homepage below Quick Links).
My Follow-up Letter (01.02.2023)
Dear VCAA,
Is it rational to teach rationality?
Since there is no possibility of a rational argument against this proposition without contradicting oneself, the answer is necessarily YES. We must teach rationality, which hinges on the three fundamental laws of logical sense: non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity. From consistency (the law of non-contradiction) it follows that it is irrational not to teach rationality.
The question that now arises is: Why do those who teach, resist teaching rationality?
My offer still stands. I can help you formulate a strategy to seamlessly integrate the three fundamental laws of logic as a new cross-curriculum priority, to the benefit of everyone involved.
A few days ago, Jordan B Peterson announced that he is collaborating with a team of exceptional individuals to solve global problems and asked for submissions of ideas that could serve this objective.
Jordan Peterson is looking for a global solution to conflict. This is my proposal.
The only way to resolve disagreements is via diligent application of the fundamental laws of logic, which also entails arguing with one another in good faith - being open to the possibility of error in one’s own thought process and seeking to achieve mutual understanding. Most people cannot state the three fundamental laws; we use these laws unconsciously but often ad hoc, when it suits our emotional states or personal preferences, without conceiving of a unifying standard. This has to change before we can make any social progress on global scale.
Laws of logic are not taught in any public school, as far as I know, anywhere in the world. Nations could agree at the UN level to implement the fundamental laws of logic as a cross-curriculum priority, so that it is not necessarily a dedicated subject but may be included in every subject as the ultimate framework of its sense, truth, validity and meaning. I suggest that unmatched progress would follow just from this commitment.
People like Jordan Peterson and his collaborative group, who are now talking about the need to develop more constructive and less corruptible systems of governance, have the capacity to influence the UN with the above proposal. This should be easy; after all, logic is the only reliable antidote to misinformation.
I will keep pushing this issue, given it would be irrational not to do so.
Email to the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the U.N. (02.02.2023)
I am a philosopher/ethicist and an advocate of teaching all children in the world how to think rationally.
I suggest that the most humane and effective strategy for solving the biggest social problems, such as political conflict, inequality, exclusion and poverty, is by equipping all people with the tools necessary to reliably discern sound reasoning from logical fallacies. The necessary tools are called the fundamental laws of logic, or the ‘laws of thought’. Only a minuscule percentage of people are aware of the fundamental laws, even though all humans rely on these laws unconsciously when perceiving, thinking or acting intentionally. Consequently, human thinking remains susceptible to emotional biases, insecurities and habits, without conceiving of a unifying global standard of rationality. This has to change before all of humanity will be able to communicate and understand one another on equal terms and make unified social progress.
There are more than one hundred recognised logical fallacies, but they are all reducible to just three laws: the law of non-contradiction (two opposite claims cannot be true at the same time and in the same respect, or, no claim can be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect), the law of excluded middle (a claim can be either true or false with no intermediate possibility), and the law of identity (everything is identical ONLY to itself, or, no two things are identical in every respect). The three laws are in fact just different articulations of the same One law of logical sense/meaning, and one could simply rely on non-contradiction to reach the same conclusions. For example, the informal ‘principle of sufficient reason’, which dictates that we ought not to claim certainty about beliefs without a proof, is reducible to the law of non-contradiction. Including the fundamental laws of logic in the public education system of every nation would therefore be an effective antidote to misinformation.
The fundamental laws of logic are not taught in any public school, as far as I know, anywhere in the world. Nations could agree at the UN level to implement the fundamental laws of logic as a cross-curriculum priority, so that it is not necessarily a dedicated subject but may be included in every subject as the explicit framework of sense, truth, validity and meaning. I suggest that unmatched social progress would follow just from this commitment.
Is it rational to teach rationality?
Since there is no possibility of a rational argument against this proposition without contradicting oneself, the answer is necessarily YES. We must teach rationality, which hinges on the three fundamental laws of logical sense. From consistency (the law of non-contradiction) it follows that it is irrational not to teach rationality. Moreover, Article 26 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “Everyone has the right to education”, is not rationally and fairly implemented for as long as the primary tools for discerning rational thinking from logical errors are not universally taught. Every human being, male and female, of all nations and races, deserves to be equiped with the fundamental tools of logic, which would give everyone the power to deliberate on equal terms and be able to challenge false or unjust propositions on rational grounds.
VCAA's non-response is a crown jewel of bureaucratese 😂 Whatever suggestion you may have, however well-reasoned and plain brilliant for low-cost effectiveness if implemented, they'll serve you this same canned assortment of words soaked in ruling ideology du jour.
That's their mo. Easily seen through logic-aided rationality lens 😏