Learn to Be Reasonable: What Should Be Learned from American Basic Education

Published in Sohu
(China) on 17 June 2010
by Xu Ben (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Crystal Jin. Edited by Harley Jackson.
Reasonable thought is a characteristic of democratic society while unreasonable ideas often originate from autocracy, gain popularity in an autocratic society and even become the standard in autocratic government policy. As for social function, the reasoning ability of students is necessary to protect democratic public lifestyle; in terms of citizens' quality, this ability can improve liberal education.

A few years back, a professor told me that China was seriously lacking in public intellect, and he wanted to publish a writing textbook for college students that would strengthen their basic reasoning ability. Public reasoning is an achievement of civilization, and it is also an essential condition for social relationships and democratic political order. Only if it is a reasonable society can it be an upright, forgiving society. Logic and reasoning among the common public are the results not only of knowledge but also of habit, and habits need to be formed from childhood. Once a man has missed the time when it was easy to form ways of thinking and speaking habits, he will find it very difficult to form them later on, even if he engages in further education.

How can we develop the habit of reasoning? Let's take American public education as an example.

In American public schools, analysis lessons start from the first grade in primary school, even though it is not explicitly mentioned during the lower grades. For example, in the reading and language arts framework for the public schools in California for kindergarten through the 12th grade there are detailed requirement for the five grades in elementary school. Students should be able to: "retell the central ideas of simple literary passages" in first grade; restate facts and details in the text to clarify and organize ideas" in second grade; "distinguish the main idea and supporting details in expository text" in third grade; "distinguish between cause and effect and between fact and opinion" in literature in fourth grade; and separate facts, "supported inferences and opinions" in text in fifth grade. Expository critique is only mentioned specifically after the fifth grade.

From the fifth grade on, expository critique is required for the rest of secondary education, and the sixth grade is an important period. On the basis of the fifth grade, there are systematic requirements: "to determine the adequacy and appropriateness of the evidence for an author's conclusions; make reasonable assertions about a text through accurate, supporting citations; note instances of unsupported inferences, fallacious reasoning, persuasion and propaganda in text."

While teaching, there are two parts in the expository critique. The first is to analyze faulty reasoning, and the second is to screen out propaganda. There are five types of faulty reasoning: overgeneralizations, cherry-picking the evidence, circular reasoning, false dichotomy and non sequitur. And there are 10 types of propaganda: bandwagon, name-calling, stereotyping, lesser of two evils, plain folks, big lie, card stacking, testimonial, appeal to fear and transfer. These two parts are combined as logical fallacies since propaganda itself is a way to mislead people by taking advantage of weaknesses in most people. Students can understand these two items better by perceiving concrete examples while reading.

For the sixth grade, the focal point is to "determine the adequacy and appropriateness of the evidence for an author's conclusions." Evidence is publicly known fact while someone's conclusions are just personal views. Not all conclusions can automatically be right — they need to be proven. And here "to be proven" means to persuade and to tell people clearly why the conclusions are correct, so conclusions need to be supported with reasons. There are four common sources of reasons: fact, example, data and expert opinion.

Expository critique emphasizes two of a student’s prerequisite skills. The first is identifying whether there is adequate and appropriate evidence. For example, “Lincoln was an American President,” is obviously correct whereas the “conclusion,” “Lincoln was a great President,” needs to be reasoned about and discussed in order to be confirmed. The second is distinguishing conclusions substantiated with ample and appropriate evidence from those which are not substantiated. For example, adjectives such as "circular," "European," "wooden," "toxic" and so on are substantiated while "beautiful," "ugly," "great" and "awesome" are not. In other words, evidence-based writing says “please check it,” but unsupported conclusions say “I’m right, just right.” Evidence-based writing is modest and consulting; unfounded conclusions are arrogant.

The seventh grade’s literary analysis requires students to "assess the adequacy, accuracy and appropriateness of the author’s evidence to support claims and assertions, noting instances of bias and stereotyping." “Bias” and “stereotyping” are new factors, which are also turning formal logic into social logic. In the eighth grade, students are required to review the relevant contents of grade six and seven, emphasizing evaluating the "unity, coherence, logic, internal consistency and structural patterns of a text."

Reading material for the seventh and eighth grades is deeper than that of the sixth grade, and the fallacies to be analyzed are also more complicated. For instance, there are American classic works in the text of the eighth grade. When reading the works of Edgar Allan Poe, there is a reasoning review of his novels. This review claims that all of his novels are about idiots, scholars or crazy people. The teachers will tell students that this is hasty generalization — a type of fallacy in which words such as “every,” “all,” “everyone,” “always” and so on are always used. The review also says that an emotionally healthy writer would not write such stories, since a sane person does not know what it feels like to be crazy, which is a false dichotomy (either crazy or not crazy). In fact, the writer can write about craziness by using imagination, and he himself does not need to be crazy. The review also says that, “as we all know,” writers are all a little weird — those who write horror stories in particular. The problem in using phrases like “as we all know,” “undoubtedly,” “everyone knows” and so on is that the so-called common knowledge needs to be proven.

Literary analysis in high school requires students to obtain an even stronger ability. There are two periods in high school. The first one is from ninth to 10th grade, and it emphasizes the need "to critique the logic of functional documents by examining the sequence of information and procedures in anticipation of possible reader misunderstandings." Also important are evaluating "the credibility of an author’s argument or defense of a claim by critiquing the relationship between generalizations and evidence, the comprehensiveness of evidence, and the way in which the author’s intent affects the structure and tone of the text (e.g., in professional journals, editorials, political speeches and primary source material)."

The second period is from 11th to 12th grade, in which analyses are conducted of public documents. It requires students to critique the following: "the power, validity and truthfulness of arguments set forth in public documents; their appeal to both friendly and hostile audiences; and the extent to which the arguments anticipate and address reader concerns and counterclaims (e.g., appeal to reason, authority, pathos and emotion)."

In many colleges, essay writing is a required course for freshman majoring in either the arts or the sciences. A year-long writing course is often required in many colleges: the first semester emphasizes the writing abilities of describing, narrating, comparing, persuading, arguing and criticizing; the second semester focuses on essay writing, which is also known as analysis and research. College students need to write essays in just about every course, and essay writing helps students improve their relating and analyzing abilities in terms of both professional writing and social life.

All in all, in American schools there is a continual process of education about analytical ability from primary school to high school and even into college. The analytical course is a 10-year-long required course beginning in the fourth grade. And the middle school period is especially important, since the learning abilities, curiosity and thirst for knowledge are strong for students at that age. As a result, students are apt to absorb knowledge and turn it into habit. The reason why most American people have rather high-quality, independent elaborative faculties and social rationality is that the United States is a country with democratic traditions that also pays great attention to education.

The writer of this article is a professor in the English Department of Saint Mary’s College in California, USA.

*Editor's note: The original quotations above are taken from the "English-Language Arts Content Standards for California: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve" from the California State Department of Education.


学会讲道理:向美国基础教育学什么
作者:徐贲
2010年06月17日08:52

  理性话语是民主社会的特征,而非理性话语则常常伴同专制而生,在专制社会中大行其道,甚至成为政府的权力话语。从社会作用来说,重视学生理性话语能力,是一种维护民主公共生活秩序的公民教育。从公民修养、禀性来说,则是一种提高国民素质的人文教育。
  几年前,一位教授朋友对我说,中国公共理性话语危机已经严重到了非采取行动不可的程度。他想编一本给大学生用的写作课本,训练他们基本的逻辑说理能力。公共说理是公共文明的成就,也是形成良好社会关系、民主政治秩序的根本条件。只有说理的社会才是正派、宽容的社会。公共话语逻辑和说理不只是一种知识,更是一种习惯,而习惯是需要从小培养的。一个人一旦错过了易于培养思想和话语习惯的形成期,即使后来有机会获得相关知识,也很难真正成为习惯。
  说理的习惯如何养成呢?不妨以美国现有的公共说理教育为例,大致说一说可借鉴的实践经验。
  美国公立学校的教育中,公共说理教育其实从小学一年级就已经开始,只是对低年龄的学生没有明确提出“说理教育”的说法。例如,《加州公立学校幼儿园至12年级阅读和语言艺术(教学)纲要》对小学五个年级的“说理”有具体的要求:小学一年级:“重述简单说理和叙述段落中的主要观点。”二年级“重述文本中的事实和细节,说清和组织要说的意见。”三年级“在说理文中区别主要观点和支持这些观点的细节。”四年级“区别说理文本中的”原因”与”结果”、”事实”和”看法”之不同。”五年级“分辨文本中的”事实”、”得到证明的推论”、和”看法”(尚有待证明的观点)”。 而五年级第一次明确“说理评估”(expository critique)的要求。
  小学五年级以后,初、高中阶段一直继续用“说理评估”作为一项基本阅读要求。其中又以六年级最为关键。在五年级的基础上,六年级阶段对学生“说理评估”能力有了系统要求:一、判断作者结论所用论据的合适性和恰当性;二、用准确、有说服力的引述语合理陈述观点;三、察辨文本中缺乏论据支持的推理、谬误推论、说辞和宣传。
  在具体教学中, 六年级公共说理分为两个部分:一、辨析“逻辑谬误”;二、 提防“宣传”。要辨析的逻辑谬误又分五种: 过度简单化、浮泛空论、巡回论证、虚假两分法、无凭据推理。要提防的宣传手法有十种:人云亦云、谩骂、偏见、势利、老百性的话、吹嘘、“科学”根据、证词、恫吓战术、株连。这两部分的内容在有的教科书中合并为“逻辑谬误”,因为“宣传”本来就是一种利用一般人逻辑思考弱点和缺陷的“误导”话语。这两项都需要在实际阅读中通过感性、具体的实例,不断让学生讨论和加深印象。
  六年级的公共说理重点在于区分“事实”和“想法”。“事实”是公认的知识,而“想法”只是个人的看法。任何“想法”都不具有自动正确性,必须经过证明才获得正确性。证明也就是说服别人,清楚告诉别人为什么你的想法是正确的,理由是什么。想法必须加以证明,提供理由。四种常用的理由是:事实、例子、数据、专家意见。
  六年级的公共说理教育强调“客观事实”与“个人看法”之间存在着两种辨认方式。一、 “事实”的陈述是可以确认的,如“林肯是美国总统”。而“看法” 的陈述则必须通过说理、讨论才能确认,如“林肯是一位伟大的总统”。二、事实陈述使用那些具有可共同确认词义的字词,如“园形”、“欧洲”、“木头”、“有毒物质”等等。而“看法”使用的字词是个人理解的,如“美好”、“丑陋”、“棒”、“爽”、“折腾”、“胡闹”。归纳起来便是,事实说:“请你核实”;看法说:“我说对,就没错。”事实陈述是谦虚的、协商的;而看法陈述则是傲慢的、独语的。
  七年级对学生“说理评估”能力的要求是:“评估作者在支持结论和立场时所用的论据是否适当、确切、相关,并注意有偏见和成见的例子。”其中注意“偏见”和“成见”是新要求,也是从形式逻辑向社会公正内容过渡。八年级则是要求复习六、七年级的“说理评估”,重点在“评估文本的统一性、连贯性、逻辑以及内部的一致性和结构”。
  七年级和八年级读物内容比六年级要深,所分析的不当推理和谬误论述也更为复杂。例如,八年级课本中已经有美国经典作家的作品。在阅读作家埃德加•爱伦•坡作品的时候,课本中有一篇含有说理谬误的评论,评论写道:“爱伦•坡的小说、诗歌写的全是心智不宁,甚至疯狂的人物。”教师会告诉学生:这里犯了“普遍泛论”的谬误。常见的泛论表述法包括“每个……”、“所有的……”、“大家都……”、“总是……”这一类用词。评论还写道:“自己精神没有问题的作家是写不出这种故事的,不然爱伦•坡又如何能体会什么是疯狂。”这里犯的是“虚假对立”的逻辑谬误(要么“疯”, 要么“不疯”)。其实,作家写疯子可以运用想象,不一定自己非要是疯子不可。再有,评论写道:“我们知道,作家都有些怪,特别是那些写恐怖故事的作家。”“我们知道”类似“毋庸置疑”、“众所周知”、“大家都知道……”,犯的是“本来就有问题”的逻辑谬误,因为“所知道”的恰恰是有待证明的。
  高中对学生的“说理评估”能力要求比初中有所提高。高中分两个阶段。第一个阶段是九到十年级,“说理评估”要求在说理中必须有对方意识,懂得说理是“对话”,不是“独语”。 说理文写作除了形式逻辑,还要讲究结构逻辑(例如,文章不同部分的顺序、逻辑过渡)、能够预先估计和避免读者可能会有的误解。此外,还要求学生注意概说和论据之间的关系、正确理解论据(不望文生义、不曲解、不断章取义)、弄清不同文本的结构、语气、读者(如学术刊物、报纸评论、政治演说等等)。
  高中第二阶段是十一到十二年级。这个阶段的“说理评估”对象是“公共文件”(public documents),例如:政府的文告、政策说明、政党文宣、公共服务部门的宗旨、规章、条例、商贸和招聘信息等等。当然,一切发表了的东西,只要议及公共话题都是公共文件,这也就涵盖了很大一部分出版物。这些出版物既然都是公共文本,就必须接受公众的“说理评估”。凡是印成铅字的,并不一定就在道理上说得通,这是反复进行的“说理评估”要告诉学生的基本道理。
  公共说理写作在许多大学里是大学一年级学生,不管是文科还是理科的必修课。与中小学时期写作仅是英文课一部分不同,大学里开设有专门的写作课。许多大学写作课有一学年的内容,第一学期注重于基本写作技巧,如描写、叙述、比较、说服、辩诘、评述。第二学期则完全是“说理写作”(expository writing),说理写作又称“分析与研究”。大学生修各种课程,基本上都要写“论文”。“说理写作”是为了帮助学生提高普遍论述能力,不仅是专业写作,而且也是社会生活中的公共说理。
  总之,在美国学校里,从小学到初中高中再到大学,有一个持续的说理教育过程。从小学四年级算起,光必修课就有10年。这其中尤其重要的是初中3年,这个时期的学生,教育可塑性最强,有自然的好奇心和求知欲,而且能很快将学到的知识吸纳并转化成为习惯。美国之所以能有比较高的公民素质、国民独立思考能力和公民社会理性,除了这个国家的民主传统之外,重视公民教育应该是一个重要的原因。
  作者系美国加州圣玛利学院英文系教授
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: Elbows Down on the Digital Services Tax

Sri Lanka: Gaza Genocide: Who Stands for Justice-and Who Stands in the Way?

Germany: Europe Bending the Knee to Trump

Nepal: The Battle against American Establishment

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Topics

Nepal: The Battle against American Establishment

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

Sri Lanka: Gaza Genocide: Who Stands for Justice-and Who Stands in the Way?

Turkey: Europe’s Quiet Surrender

Austria: Trump, the Bulldozer of NATO

     

Israel: In Washington, Netanyahu Must Prioritize Bringing Home Hostages before Iran

Ukraine: Why Washington Failed To End the Russian Ukrainian War

United Kingdom: Trump Is Angry with a World That Won’t Give Him Easy Deals

Related Articles

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Previous article
Next article