Subscribe here:Â https://tinyletter.com/peopleinpassing
More to the point, consider that the DNA of world leaders is already a subject of intrigue. According to Ronald Kessler, the author of the 2009 book In the Presidentâ€™s Secret Service, Navy stewards gather bedsheets, drinking glasses, and other objects the president has touchedâ€”they are later sanitized or destroyedâ€”in an effort to keep wouldâ€‘be malefactors from obtaining his genetic material. (The Secret Service would neither confirm nor deny this practice, nor would it comment on any other aspect of this article.) And according to a 2010 release of secret cables by WikiLeaks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directed our embassies to surreptitiously collect DNA samples from foreign heads of state and senior United Nations officials. Clearly, the U.S. sees strategic advantage in knowing the specific biology of world leaders; it would be surprising if other nations didnâ€™t feel the same.
While no use of an advanced, genetically targeted bio-weapon has been reported, the authors of this pieceâ€”including an expert in genetics and microbiology (Andrew Hessel) and one in global security and law enforcement (Marc Goodman)â€”are convinced we are drawing close to this possibility. Most of the enabling technologies are in place, already serving the needs of academic R&D groups and commercial biotech organizations. And these technologies are becoming exponentially more powerful, particularly those that allow for the easy manipulation of DNA.
The problem is that critical thinking is the Cheshire Cat of educational curricula â€“ it is hinted at in all disciplines but appears fully formed in none. As soon as you push to see it in focus, it slips away.
If you ask curriculum designers exactly how critical thinking skills are developed, the answers are often vague and unhelpful for those wanting to teach it.
This is partly because of a lack of clarity about the term itself and because there are some who believe that critical thinking cannot be taught in isolation, that it can only be developed in a discipline context â€“ after all, you have think critically about something.
So what should any mandatory first year course in critical thinking look like? There is no single answer to that, but let me suggest a structure with four key areas:
Arguing, as opposed to simply disagreeing, is the process of intellectual engagement with an issue and an opponent with the intention of developing a position justified by rational analysis and inference.
PeopleÂ generally speakÂ of formal logic â€“ basically the logic of deduction â€“ and informal logic â€“ also called induction.Â Deduction is most of what goes on in mathematics or Suduko puzzles and induction is usually about generalising or analogising and is integral to the processes of science.
We are masses ofÂ cognitive biasesÂ as much as we are rational beings. This does not mean we are flawed, it just means we donâ€™t think in the nice, linear way that educators often like to think we do.
4. The nature of science.
Learning about what the differences are between hypotheses, theories and laws, for example, can help people understand why science has credibility without having to teach them what a molecule is, or about Newtonâ€™s laws of motion.
Before he sat down with the best tennis player on the planet for a noonday interview in the middle of the 2006 Wimbledon fortnight, David Foster Wallace prepared a script. Atop a notebook page he wrote, â€œR.Federer Interview Qs.â€ and below he jotted in very fine print 13 questions. After three innocuous ice breakers, Wallace turned his attention to perhaps the most prominent theme in all his writing: consciousness. Acknowledging the abnormal interview approach, Wallace prefaced these next nine inquires with a printed subhead: â€œNon-Journalist Questions.â€ Each interrogation is a paragraph long, filled with digressions, asides, and qualifications; several contain superscripted addendums.Â In short, they read like theyâ€™re written by David Foster Wallace. He asks Roger Federer if heâ€™s aware of his own greatness, aware of the unceasing media microscope he operates under, aware of his uncommon elevation of athletics to the level of aesthetics, aware of how great his great shots really are. Wallace even wrote, â€œHow aware are you of the ballboys?â€ before crossing the question out.
â€œIâ€™m not a journalistâ€”Iâ€™m more like a novelist with a tennis background.â€ Wallace had a history of anti-credentialing himself both in person and in print, and while this reportorial and rhetorical maneuver may have disarmed sources it also created a calculus for Wallace to write under.[i]Â He saw clear lines between journalists and novelists who write nonfiction, and he wrestled throughout his career with whether a different set of rules applied to the latter category.[ii]
4. Dear Kids
The idea that there is anything especially bad about 2014 is temporal narcissism. We just live in an age of countless opinions. We are just starting to get used to it, this idea that we can document everything. We can document it but we canâ€™t begin to interpret or understand it.
You are two sweet, small people with oval faces. How do I prepare you for whatâ€™s coming? This week: An angry, mentally unstable man shot two policemen in their cars in a kind of retaliation for the strangulation of a man by police many months before. Some people blame the Mayor, who worries that his black son will be injured by policemen. Weâ€™ll put cameras on cops now. That feels like it will fix everything but it will probably just introduce a new class of ambiguities.
And next week: something else.
Iâ€™m worried about those things but more worried about getting you out of bed and dressed in the morning. Iâ€™m worried about looking out the window one day and seeing a column of fire but more worried about teaching you to be sad when I could be teaching you to be happy. Iâ€™m worried about the college teacher writing for the New York Times who also works as a waiter. I want you to have careers and cats; I want you to have apartments without roommates in your thirties.
A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.
– George Bernard Shaw