Importance of "presenting all the sides" of an issue, or "Fairness" with an Agenda

[stripe]

I am taking this post from this thread, and putting a line of thought here.

 

Does every conversation need to include the idea that black people really aren't human, the earth might be flat or round, or that the president is really (insert assertion here, like, a Martian), or whatever, and say, "who knows!" OR that every layperson should "look at the evidence and decide for her/himself." At what point are debates not worth having; at what point is something an established fact. At what point am I full of myself to think a) I know the facts, b) I can understand these facts, c) I can draw conclusions about those facts, and d) is something really in dispute or am I insane? I really should start a thread about the idea of always presenting multiple sides.

 

At what point is it critical thinking, and at what point is it delusion? Are there any "known knowns"?

[boscopup]

For some things, you have very strong evidence. For example, black people are human - they can reproduce with white people and have fertile babies, so they're obviously the same species. ;) You can also look at the DNA and see that they're human just like any other color. I don't think you'd find any evidence anywhere that supports another side of that issue.

 

The earth is round. We have seen pictures of it from space. That is direct observational evidence. Back when the flat/round debate was going on, they had no way of observing which one it was directly. They had to make an educated guess. The educated guesses got better as more mathematics was discovered, but seeing pictures from space pretty well proves that the earth is, indeed, round. :)

 

Now when you get something like the origins of the earth or the origins of man, there is no direct, observable evidence that can definitely without any doubt prove either position. There are educated guesses, and there is scientific evidence on both sides. But we can't go back in time and actually observe the origins, so we continue to have to make educated guesses based on the evidence found, and that evidence continues to change, again on both sides, as we learn more and more.

 

Now whether the president is a Martian... I'm making a strong educated guess that he's just a human being like any of us, though I haven't looked at his DNA. :D To that, I'm just going with "He looks like a human to me." and calling it good. :lol:

[Veritaserum]

There are some "theories" that don't need to be covered with equal detail and weight. We have discussed hateful and/or erroneous beliefs as we encounter them in our study of history. Here are some example explanations. Yes, people thought black people were not as smart/not human. No, that's not true. Yes, people thought the earth was flat because that was the best explanation they had at the time. Now we have better science that tells us differently. Myths like the creation story in Genesis or the Greek story about Persephone are stories that give a supernatural explanation of nature. Some people still believe stories like this are literally true, but scientific evidence points to other answers. Yes, God still created the world but he probably used evolution to do it. The Genesis story may have been all the people of that time could have understood. Some people still feel very strongly that evolution does not exsist because it does not fit with their interpretation of the Genesis story. I believe the evidence that suggests evolutionary processes and do not feel that these scientific findings in any way contradict the existence of God or his hand in the creation of the world. You are free to form your own opinion.

 

Beyond comments like the above we don't study these kinds of viewpoints with the same depth that we study widely accepted facts.

[HappyGrace]

does not fit with their interpretation of the Genesis story.

 

Correct, both sides have their own interpretation of the Genesis story, neither of which can be proven conclusively at this point in the human race's scientific knowledge.

 

Other things mentioned above ARE able to be proven conclusively at this point in the human race's scientific knowledge.

 

And as far as teaching other viewpoints outside of scientific areas, see my thread about liberal, conservative, etc. Our family is firmly in one camp, but I seek to teach my children that other people feel equally valid in their opinion, though it may differ from ours, so that they value the freedom in this country and their fellow human beings' inalieable rights.

 

Now, when it comes to religion, I believe in religious freedom, but as a Christian know that there can only be ONE Truth.

 

So I guess it differs on whether you're talking about science, politics, religion, etc.

[Tarreymere]

Well, I do recall some speculation that the President was the Anti-Christ.....he does look a bit like Anubis, doesn't he? I guess time will tell on that one. Unless anyone has gotten a DNA sample from him?

[Rebecca VA]

His records are sealed.

[stripe]

So basically, anyone who is unlike us or has views we don't like, is automatically wrong or bad or an idiot or whatever, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, and anyone who shares our position is right, no matter how much evidence there may be to the contrary? Is this why people homeschool? To advance conspiracy theories?

[LittleIzumi]

So basically, anyone who is unlike us or has views we don't like, is automatically wrong or bad or an idiot or whatever, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, and anyone who shares our position is right, no matter how much evidence there may be to the contrary? Is this why people homeschool? To advance conspiracy theories?

:confused:

I didn't see anyone saying anything like that.

[kristinannie]

I will discuss the flat/round thing with my kids just in a historical perspective. For example, I will explain how originally scientists thought the earth was flat and that the sun orbitted us, but now we know that isn't true. I am also going to discuss the Constitution and how black people were treated VERY wrongly there. The founding fathers were great in many ways, but obviously not perfect. I think that is a great way to start off a conversation with my (slightly older kids) about how people are treated. Blacks used to be treated as less than a person. Can they think of any groups that are suffering now from the same stereotypes (muslims, gays, etc). Is it right to treat others differently or are we all God's children? We might disagree on certain things, but God loves everyone. Etc, etc, etc....

 

I am going to teach my kids evolution and creationism. (Waiting for the lightning bolt...LOL) I am not going to avoid tough topics, especially if I am still HSing during high school.

 

However, I don't think we need to tell our kids about every nutjob in America who says whatever crazy thing they have said! I do want to teach my kids logic so they can be able to determine whether they should believe what is being told to them on TV or the internet or whatever.

[boscopup]

:confused:

I didn't see anyone saying anything like that.

 

She may be referring to the two posts prior to hers. I took those posts to be facetious though. Maybe Stripe didn't take them that way?

[lionfamily1999]

So basically, anyone who is unlike us or has views we don't like, is automatically wrong or bad or an idiot or whatever, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, and anyone who shares our position is right, no matter how much evidence there may be to the contrary? Is this why people homeschool? To advance conspiracy theories?

If you know the truth (2+2=4 for instance), then do you have to even consider other opinions? As far as the existence of God and His being the creator of all life, I know the truth. So, yes, people who disagree with the existence of God or His being the creator of life are wrong. 2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how much evidence people come up with to the contrary. Some things are not really up for discussion, no matter how much we like to discuss them, iykwIm.

 

Not everything is like that. There are plenty of subjects up for interpretation, discussion and mind changing. It's just those things (and they are different for everyone) where one person is convinced of the truth.

 

As for hsing to advance conspiracy theories......... uh no :confused:

[*~Tina~*]

I am taking this post from this thread, and putting a line of thought here.

 

Does every conversation need to include the idea that black people really aren't human, the earth might be flat or round, or that the president is really (insert assertion here, like, a Martian), or whatever, and say, "who knows!" OR that every layperson should "look at the evidence and decide for her/himself." At what point are debates not worth having; at what point is something an established fact. At what point am I full of myself to think a) I know the facts, b) I can understand these facts, c) I can draw conclusions about those facts, and d) is something really in dispute or am I insane? I really should start a thread about the idea of always presenting multiple sides.

 

At what point is it critical thinking, and at what point is it delusion? Are there any "known knowns"?

 

It seems to me that the underlying agenda is that everything comes to be viewed as relative, i.e., clouded by so much gray, doubt, or confusion, that each person can believe what they want, argue without merit, voice their opinion of the"facts" the loudest, and those opinions as well as anything that can be actually be supported and/or proven as actual "fact" should be viewed as equally valid and acceptable, less you been seen as intolerant.

 

Thus, it serves to make arguing seem pointless, clearing the way for all sides of an issue, as well as various agendas to be heard loud and clear with little room for seemingly intellectual objection.

 

Okay, I'm rambling now. Hope that made sense.

[Daisy]

If you know the truth (2+2=4 for instance), then do you have to even consider other opinions? As far as the existence of God and His being the creator of all life, I know the truth. So, yes, people who disagree with the existence of God or His being the creator of life are wrong. 2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how much evidence people come up with to the contrary. Some things are not really up for discussion, no matter how much we like to discuss them, iykwIm.

 

Not everything is like that. There are plenty of subjects up for interpretation, discussion and mind changing. It's just those things (and they are different for everyone) where one person is convinced of the truth.

 

:iagree:

[ondreeuh]

Even though I have strong beliefs about certain issues, I do think it's important to inform my children about the "other side" of the debate. I don't want to isolate them from other viewpoints and make them look foolish when they encounter them for the first time. Sometimes, it also strengthens my side to show how irrational the other side can be. For example, we live in an area that is strongly pro-legalization of marijuana. I explain my side of it and try to explain the other side, but obviously explain in detail why I have come to my conclusion. I know for a fact some of my daughter's friends have parents who feel totally differently than I do about the issue and are probably teaching their kids their side of it, and I want her to be prepared.

 

Another example - we have family members with religious beliefs that are very different from ours. I do my best to explain their beliefs with respect, because I want my kids to know that their relatives aren't "weird" or "wrong" but have just come to different conclusions.

 

I would just concern yourself with issues in which your children are going to be exposed about passionate debates. I certainly hope they'll never hear people debating whether Black people are human!

[johnandtinagilbert]

I am taking this post from this thread, and putting a line of thought here.

 

Does every conversation need to include the idea that black people really aren't human, the earth might be flat or round, or that the president is really (insert assertion here, like, a Martian), or whatever, and say, "who knows!" OR that every layperson should "look at the evidence and decide for her/himself." At what point are debates not worth having; at what point is something an established fact. At what point am I full of myself to think a) I know the facts, b) I can understand these facts, c) I can draw conclusions about those facts, and d) is something really in dispute or am I insane? I really should start a thread about the idea of always presenting multiple sides.

 

At what point is it critical thinking, and at what point is it delusion? Are there any "known knowns"?

Every conversation? No. Some things carry no debate so why establish one; while others are areas of life where many people disagree (faith, for example). Points of disagreement are not necessarily a debate while teaching, but more a time for preparation for the real world. Our children, all of our children, will encounter new things once they leave home. Instead of throwing them to the lions, I think many people would prefer to prepare them for what may come their way. Then, we know we have done our job and the rest is no longer up to us. So, why they're home with us, we're not brewing conspiracy theories, we are simply passing along our personal culture. Timing is everything, so what I share with the Elders will not be the same as what I share with the Little League....sometimes the content is the same, but the delivery will vary.

 

As a parent, don't you hope your child agrees with what is important to you? I'll create an arbitrary example. If your life is focused heavily on the religion of the Left Shoe b/c you find truth and peace and you believe the Left Shoe is the only place to find peace, wouldn't you want your child to follow in your footsteps (pun intended) and have personal peace? Of course you would, so you'll teach them the ways of the Left Foot.

 

All that to say, in clarification, we present another side when we don't believe the one offered is just, complete, or correct. Yup, we put in our side every time. We teach to our culture. It's the nature of teaching in our house. This happens in p.s., too. Classrooms are very P.C., this is cultural education.

 

Another example: we home school and while I can offer a dozen reasons why home schooling is better for our family and how p.s. have problems, I can present both sides and end the conversation with, "Home schooling is not for everyone, but it is for this family and here's why..." I can have that conversation w/o being ugly, although sometimes the plain truth can be harsh. Am I making sense? I am certain, though, to present that home schooling is not an option to many people, so we carry to disrespect or unkindness for those who walk differently. Context matters no matter what we teach.

 

I have approached some of the biased history in the same way...thinking back to the TCoO thread. We used it, we talked about it, we learned, we moved on; it was No Big Deal. Had I not used the time to discuss the issue, I think I would have done my children a disservice and in my silence, saying the unkindness was acceptable. Better to speak up here. There was no debate, just a time to dig a little deeper and talk about a different perspective from a different time.

 

Each time we go to church or read something about church history, we share when we disagree, not b/c of any disservice, but b/c we long for likeness and fellowship with our children. We want to share who we are as people, which goes well beyond who I am as a teacher. For matters of faith, it's part of the essence of my being. How could I not share that with my children? It's never been a debate, just a time to grow with my children and hope they grow with me, too.

 

Whether or not any of these things are debates here on the Forum...well, the proof is in the pudding! They always are! But that's okay, my kids aren't reading here, I am and I can handle the debate or bow out if I can't.

[Paula in PA]

As a parent, don't you hope your child agrees with what is important to you? I'll create an arbitrary example. If your life is focused heavily on the religion of the Left Shoe b/c you find truth and peace and you believe the Left Shoe is the only place to find peace, wouldn't you want your child to follow in your footsteps (pun intended) and have personal peace? Of course you would, so you'll teach them the ways of the Left Foot.

 

For us, the answer is no. We want our dd to explore and experience and find the path/beliefs that are right for her. Telling her our views is just part of her discovery process. Please don't assume that everyone does it your way.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Paula in PA

[johnandtinagilbert]

 

As a parent, don't you hope your child agrees with what is important to you? I'll create an arbitrary example. If your life is focused heavily on the religion of the Left Shoe b/c you find truth and peace and you believe the Left Shoe is the only place to find peace, wouldn't you want your child to follow in your footsteps (pun intended) and have personal peace? Of course you would, so you'll teach them the ways of the Left Foot.

 

All that to say, in clarification, we present another side when we don't believe the one offered is just, complete, or correct. Yup, we put in our side every time. We teach to our culture. It's the nature of teaching in our house. This happens in p.s., too. Classrooms are very P.C., this is cultural education.

 

For us, the answer is no. We want our dd to explore and experience and find the path/beliefs that are right for her. Telling her our views is just part of her discovery process. Please don't assume that everyone does it your way.

That IS teaching to Your Culture. You believe in discovery -- that's how I was raised, fwiw. There are some that teach there is only one path that works. Both teach to their culture. That's like saying I use PR to teach language arts and Betty Sue uses MCT, so we're doing "it" the same way, just using a different source....we're both teaching language arts. :001_rolleyes:

 

I think the point still applies. You want your daughter to "explore" and "experience" and "find her path." These are your values and you hope to pass them on.

 

You're not giving her specific content, necessarily, but certainly a worldview that values exploration and experience, etc.

:iagree:

 

Christian content Soapbox warning that was reminded by the quoted post, but not directed to it individually: it cracks me up when people pretend that Christians are the only people indoctrinating their children. Unless a parent is actively Not Teaching their values to their kids, we're all indoctrination our dc with something....even in the ways we home school. Classical home schoolers are showing their dc approval of the merits of classical educations b/c they chose to use classical education; unschoolers show their approval of the merits of unschooling b/c they unschool; the same is true of all things. Your participation in a line of thought shows your children something, while your absence shows them something, too. That's just the consequence of being a parent and making decisions. Parents who don't share anything with their dc are also showing something.

Edited January 29, 2011 by johnandtinagilbert