Moral relativism and metaethics in general is unrelated to the scientific method, I hope you can figure out why and maybe discuss it the next time.
You appear to make a sharp division between you (the enLWightened) and “them” (the unwashed). Given that “the need to detect [the biases] in ourselves”, how much effort and time have you put into describing your own experiences?
Given the apparent failure of this last class, can you identify your personal bias or a fallacy which resulted in you being blindsided by this failure?
Consider starting small, with short, clear and engaging examples, like the Newcomb’s problem, the PD or the Trolley problem, or the Milgram or Stanford experiments
A common problem of novice instructors is to cram a lot more material in one class than the students can conceivably absorb. This is because we tend to underestimate how hard something is to learn after we internalized it. After all, it looks so clear now! Consider reducing the amount of material you plan to present and go over more examples instead.
If you know your audience well, consider modeling their reactions to what you say, given their level of understanding, interest and skepticism, then plan for contingencies, like how to get a sidelined discussion back on track without being heavy-handed.
Consider starting small, with short, clear and engaging examples, like the Newcomb’s problem, the PD or the Trolley problem, or the Milgram or Stanford experiments
Newcomb and Trolley problems are too removed from the real world to be useful topics for an introductory class, and I’d say the others are too advanced for an introductory class. All of them are controversial enough that you can’t simply say, this is the right answer and all other answers are wrong.
Thinking aloud about how I might go about it (but without ever having done so) I wouldn’t start with biases. I’d start on the positive topics of the truth being out there and what you must do to discover it. The virtues of rationality, with the vices (biases, error) introduced to illustrate how people go wrong. The 2,4,6 problem is about the right level of example to use, rather than exotic decision theory.
I’d start on the positive topics of the truth being out there and what you must do to discover it.
Yeah, I thought about it, but then my personal ontology does not rely on the concept of objective truth, so I’ve been reluctant to suggest it. It is easy to imagine that postulating objective truth would likely devolve into a discussion of logical positivism and its issues, which is not what the OP wants.
Sorry, I can’t make any better guess as to what you mean, that would rule out the truth of what traffic is out there and what you must do to perceive it as valid concepts, while making crossing a road safely unproblematic.
Consider starting small, with short, clear and engaging examples, like the Newcomb’s problem, the PD or the Trolley problem, or the Milgram or Stanford experiments
It’s awfully easy to read the Milgram or Stanford experiments as (e.g.) ammunition for anti-authoritarianism without deeply understanding what makes them tick. This seems to be a general problem with dramatic psychological results.
A few notes:
Moral relativism and metaethics in general is unrelated to the scientific method, I hope you can figure out why and maybe discuss it the next time.
You appear to make a sharp division between you (the enLWightened) and “them” (the unwashed). Given that “the need to detect [the biases] in ourselves”, how much effort and time have you put into describing your own experiences?
Given the apparent failure of this last class, can you identify your personal bias or a fallacy which resulted in you being blindsided by this failure?
Consider starting small, with short, clear and engaging examples, like the Newcomb’s problem, the PD or the Trolley problem, or the Milgram or Stanford experiments
A common problem of novice instructors is to cram a lot more material in one class than the students can conceivably absorb. This is because we tend to underestimate how hard something is to learn after we internalized it. After all, it looks so clear now! Consider reducing the amount of material you plan to present and go over more examples instead.
If you know your audience well, consider modeling their reactions to what you say, given their level of understanding, interest and skepticism, then plan for contingencies, like how to get a sidelined discussion back on track without being heavy-handed.
Good luck!
Newcomb and Trolley problems are too removed from the real world to be useful topics for an introductory class, and I’d say the others are too advanced for an introductory class. All of them are controversial enough that you can’t simply say, this is the right answer and all other answers are wrong.
Thinking aloud about how I might go about it (but without ever having done so) I wouldn’t start with biases. I’d start on the positive topics of the truth being out there and what you must do to discover it. The virtues of rationality, with the vices (biases, error) introduced to illustrate how people go wrong. The 2,4,6 problem is about the right level of example to use, rather than exotic decision theory.
Yeah, I thought about it, but then my personal ontology does not rely on the concept of objective truth, so I’ve been reluctant to suggest it. It is easy to imagine that postulating objective truth would likely devolve into a discussion of logical positivism and its issues, which is not what the OP wants.
Against that background idea, how do you manage even to safely cross a road?
Consider less strawman.
Sorry, I can’t make any better guess as to what you mean, that would rule out the truth of what traffic is out there and what you must do to perceive it as valid concepts, while making crossing a road safely unproblematic.
I posted about my ontological views multiple times, here is one. Not interested in revisiting this discussion here, since it’s not relevant to the OP.
It’s awfully easy to read the Milgram or Stanford experiments as (e.g.) ammunition for anti-authoritarianism without deeply understanding what makes them tick. This seems to be a general problem with dramatic psychological results.
I haven’t noticed that that’s any less common among non-novice instructors.