I find that understanding the ways in which dolphins are mammalian, is very much an informational challenge; I need to know a lot more biology to be able to use the category of âgenetically mammalâ than just plain old âfish.â Obviously, knowing more is better, but it is not obvious to me that forcing everybody to learn the more informed categories is societally optimal. I doubt anyone but specialists will ever find the information instrumentally useful, so we are just wasting some limited bandwidth to teach people stuff they donât need to know. (On the other hand, people mostly waste their time with, e.g., learning about the differences between ten different Robin characters, so perhaps the endeavor is justified after all.)
The idea of âgeneral educationâ is that itâs good for ordinary people to learn lots of things that were discovered by specialists: partially because we value knowledge for its own sake, but also because itâs hard to tell in advance what knowledge will end up being useful. In principle, you could reject the idea that general education is generally good, but if youâre going to be consistent about what that entails, I donât think anyone who reads this website actually wants to go there. Do I really need to know that matter is made of âatomsâ, that have a ânucleusâ composed of âunchargedâ âneutronsâ and âpositively-chargedâ âprotonsâ, surrounded by ânegatively-chargedâ âelectronsâ? When have I ever used any of this stuff to make money? Do I really need to know that the world is round? &c.
My point is more about prioritization. English, math, programming and computer literacy, economics, basic home skills (cooking, trivial repairs, etc.), and possibly rationality (though the existence of âThe Dark Valley of Rationalityâ makes me a bit hesitant on this one) are much better subjects for a âgeneral infoâ curriculum.
PS: Knowing about elementary particles (without a mathematical model of them) is trivial. You can fit all such facts into a single yearâs science curriculum. The things that take time to learn are calculations, e.g., finding the mass of some reagent after some chemical reaction.
I find that understanding the ways in which dolphins are mammalian, is very much an informational challenge; I need to know a lot more biology to be able to use the category of âgenetically mammalâ than just plain old âfish.â Obviously, knowing more is better, but it is not obvious to me that forcing everybody to learn the more informed categories is societally optimal. I doubt anyone but specialists will ever find the information instrumentally useful, so we are just wasting some limited bandwidth to teach people stuff they donât need to know. (On the other hand, people mostly waste their time with, e.g., learning about the differences between ten different Robin characters, so perhaps the endeavor is justified after all.)
The idea of âgeneral educationâ is that itâs good for ordinary people to learn lots of things that were discovered by specialists: partially because we value knowledge for its own sake, but also because itâs hard to tell in advance what knowledge will end up being useful. In principle, you could reject the idea that general education is generally good, but if youâre going to be consistent about what that entails, I donât think anyone who reads this website actually wants to go there. Do I really need to know that matter is made of âatomsâ, that have a ânucleusâ composed of âunchargedâ âneutronsâ and âpositively-chargedâ âprotonsâ, surrounded by ânegatively-chargedâ âelectronsâ? When have I ever used any of this stuff to make money? Do I really need to know that the world is round? &c.
(Incidentally, Dick Grayson is the best Robin.)
My point is more about prioritization. English, math, programming and computer literacy, economics, basic home skills (cooking, trivial repairs, etc.), and possibly rationality (though the existence of âThe Dark Valley of Rationalityâ makes me a bit hesitant on this one) are much better subjects for a âgeneral infoâ curriculum.
PS: Knowing about elementary particles (without a mathematical model of them) is trivial. You can fit all such facts into a single yearâs science curriculum. The things that take time to learn are calculations, e.g., finding the mass of some reagent after some chemical reaction.