About teaching—and blogs and public discourse

I’ve pretty much decided that the name of my other blog—Contra PalaVerities—sucks. Evidently, everyone is too polite to say that, but there are numerous indications. I suspect that the repeated question, “What does it mean?” is indirect evidence of massive suckage.

Got any ideas out there? I’m considering “OC Philosopher,” but, obviously, there are other OC philosophers, lots of ‘em, and they’re all pretty much smarter than me, so that idea ain’t such a hot one, I guess. (You’ve got to admit, though, that, essentially, a blog name is an ad. Special considerations apply.)

The blog name issue is forcing me to think about what it is that I do generally—and what I do, specifically, here on DtB and on CP.

I have the obnoxious notion that I am a teacher.

(“Why, the unmitigated arrogance of the fellow!”)

As a teacher, I see myself primarily as a “modeler of clear and reasonable thinking.” Now, before you climb all over me, let me offer this point: that one can be a model of X without being a fine example of X. Whether I am a fine model of “clear and reasonable thinking” I will leave for others to judge. But, again, I don’t have to be a fine model. As a teacher, and especially as a community college teacher, I face a student population that, for the most part, is logically sans clue. In truth, the same came be said about UC students, for I’ve taught them too, long ago.

Do I really need to unpack or defend the "sans clue" thesis? I hope not.

If students are logically clueless (please note: students who arrive in our classrooms generally have learned nothing about logic and fallacies—unless they’ve learned that from a writing instructor, in which case—well, let’s leave that for another day), then being a good model for them does not require that I be the smartest guy or the most logical thinker on the block. What is required is this: that my thinking (that I “model” in class, etc.) is fundamentally sound and that it clearly and consistently illustrates and clarifies sound principles and procedures of reasoning and discourse. 

In the course of my many years as an instructor, I have become increasingly conscious of my role specifically as a modeler (that’s an ugly word, I guess, but it’s logically spot on). And so, generally, I make a real effort to avoid eccentric or dubious logical moves in class.

There are lapses, like the day I announced to a class that I had decided to “teach homosexuality.” If I’m gonna be accused of it, I said, I may as well do it. "All of you who are thus inclined," I said, "please get off the goddam fence." "Think of the benefits to future generations!"

Maybe it’s just me, but when I think about teaching, I always think back to that awful setup in Kafka’s “The Penal Colony” in which the criminal’s sentence is slowly etched into his flesh. Evidently, Kafka thought his stories (some of them, anyway) were hilarious, and, in a way, I see them that way too. 

But I (an inveterate foe of the use of torture) see myself as a version (black humor here) of that torture machine. Over time—a semester is 16 weeks—students are getting the moves of logical thinking carved into their brains, like it or not, painful or not. I don’t care. I’m gonna keep modeling these moves until there’s nothing left for these students to do but surrender to the dance. (OK, I'm switching metaphors now.) I can usually tell that, by the end of the semester, some of my students find themselves dancing, and happily so.

More or less.

Yes, it’s really quite ruthless and awful, I guess, but I relentlessly immerse (further metaphor switchage!) my students in a world of thinking informed by logic and scientific method. It comes at them all the time like Niagara Falls. I make a real effort (mostly) to know what I’m talking about and (always) to admit error when I commit it. (That is, of course, a great teaching opportunity.) (Don't you just hate writers [and others {like today's edition of Roy}] who use lots of parentheses? Say it or don't say it, I say. Don't quasi say it!)

(As I've explained previously, I do not teach conclusions; I teach methods. I don't need to go into all that again, do I?)

Now, this wouldn’t work if I were boring. Am I? Check out my page on Rate My Professors. About half of the students who offer opinions there say I’m some kind of breath of freakin’ fresh air. The other half think that I drone and pontificate. It’s fascinating. Reading that page is like watching a ping-pong game: he’s brilliant (no he’s the Borg!) he’s funny (God he’s so boring!) he’s a really nice guy (he’s offensive!) his allegiance is only to the arguments/evidence (he spouts PC crap!), etc.

OK, so, to a certain extent, my posts on Contra PalaVerities are an extension of the "modeling" thing. Even my posts on DISSENT the BLOG have, in my mind, generally modeled what I, as a philosopher and appreciator of science, view as good, clear thinking, especially in the back-and-forth of comments/responses. (See below.) 

I love the back-and-forth. I love the opportunity to model such principles as that “evidence and argument” is prior to belief (i.e., at no time and in no sense should one form beliefs independently of the indications of a review of the available evidence/arguments, properly considered). Sometimes, readers err in that regard. What do I do? I relentlessly go back to the evidence, the arguments. Someone writes, “Typical lefty sh*t, you pig-f*cker!” I essentially ignore the ad hominem. I say: OK Porky, where’s your argument?

Obviously, I do sometimes find that I am the one in error. Recently, I wrote a comment (I’ve written several) on the Red County blog and someone noted, none too politely, that I and others needed to update their info (the issue was OC Treasurer Chriss Street's record). Well, clearly that person was correct, and I backed off. I love that about me. Have I mentioned that I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me?

Two further points: no, I don’t view my colleagues or many among the public who read these blogs in the same way that I view my students, who are almost always young and only half way through their education. (On the other hand, generally, the public is about as ignorant and logically clueless as my students—just read the relevant polls. My God! —My colleagues? It’s not my job to “instruct” them, of course, but I do wish many of them were more conscious of their lack of “background” [heehee] re evidence and argument. How many of them could explain induction vs. deduction or the very idea of an argument as understood by logicians?)

Second, I have tremendous respect for most of my colleagues, including (and in some respects especially) those in writing and literature; and I do view myself as one who can benefit from their training and perspective. Obviously, the voice of Rebel Girl is very different from the voice of Chunk Wheeler. I love that. The Reb brings things to “the conversation” that I cannot duplicate (I’ve tried) and that I admire and value. Often, I marvel at her pieces. And I have no idea how she does what she does, which is invariably far warmer and more inviting than what I, a gruff logical bastard, do.

Chunk (Roy) focuses on critical thinking:

• ”It’s all subjective,” he said [No it isn't.]
• Human folly is so very entertaining [Thinkin' 'bout cause 'n' effect: stretching before exercise.]
• In defense of name-calling [Not necessarily fallacious.]
• How we know that homeopathy doesn’t work [An assumption about nature.]
• Is the truth liberal? [Often, it is.]
• Without data, we only have a bloke [On the rhetorician's advice about "ethos."]
• Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit [I think this is about bullshit.]
• Knowing, not knowing, and confident boobery [Confident boobery is killing us. I have nothing against boobs, however.]
• Teaching and revealing beliefs [Contra Fish's extreme view re advocacy in the classroom.]

The ol’ back-and-forth (see especially "comments"):

• Stupidity and cell phones [Lots of back and forth here re conservatism.]
• Huntington Beach and God
• The Bible as literally true
• Give cats ‘n’ dogs the vote

Philosophy, more or less

• Acting like a vicious human (notes on free will) [Odd thinking; a puzzle about moral character.]
• Clueless [Seeking knowledge w/o the prospect of seeing the Promised Land; can/should mindless processes dazzle?]
• Where are the conservatives? [None to be found 'round here.]
• The lives of moral soldiers [The focus on purity is morally silly.]
• Manifest falsity: why do we embrace stupid ideas? [Ruminations on "moral character"; attacking the "self-esteem" philosophy.]
• Why morals cannot be rooted in religion [Why philosophers have rejected the Divine "roots" idea for 2400 years.]