I left a comment on Pinillos’s original post which I’ll recreate here:
It’s nice to see an instrumental argument for the value of philosophy, but once we start down this path how far do we go?
Why not just have classes or modules with topics like “how to write a letter to your boss” or “how to confront your child’s teacher” or “how to interpret a medical study”? (Medical schools already routinely teach that last type of module.)
After all, directly and explicitly teaching the valuable topics seems more efficacious and efficient than teaching about abstract topics like free will and the existence of God, and then hoping the skills transfer over to real life.
In other words, if we keep trying to make philosophy more instrumentally valuable maybe it just turns into home economics (how to bake a cake) or shop class (how to patch dry wall), but for reasoning. Would that be bad?
Except it's impossible to predict and specifically prepare for all the places reasoning skills will be needed in an individual's life. Going so specific so early seems like a recipe for leaving people underprepared.
If they don’t, you’re better off starting with areas most likely to have demand for critical thinking, like writing a letter to your boss, not the nature of universals.
If they do, either topic is fine.
So starting with the most likely topics is Pareto superior to starting with traditional philosophical topics. It might be better, and it’s never worse.
I guess it depends on whether generalization is more likely when learning the skills in an obviously abstract context or learning them in an apparently specific context.
I left a comment on Pinillos’s original post which I’ll recreate here:
It’s nice to see an instrumental argument for the value of philosophy, but once we start down this path how far do we go?
Why not just have classes or modules with topics like “how to write a letter to your boss” or “how to confront your child’s teacher” or “how to interpret a medical study”? (Medical schools already routinely teach that last type of module.)
After all, directly and explicitly teaching the valuable topics seems more efficacious and efficient than teaching about abstract topics like free will and the existence of God, and then hoping the skills transfer over to real life.
In other words, if we keep trying to make philosophy more instrumentally valuable maybe it just turns into home economics (how to bake a cake) or shop class (how to patch dry wall), but for reasoning. Would that be bad?
Good objection. Agree with Daniel Rubio's response below. Plus the intrinsic value of philosophy, of course.
But beyond that, I don't see why high school or college students shouldn't ALSO take practical courses on taxes, insurance, medicine, etc.
Except it's impossible to predict and specifically prepare for all the places reasoning skills will be needed in an individual's life. Going so specific so early seems like a recipe for leaving people underprepared.
Either the skills generalize or not.
If they don’t, you’re better off starting with areas most likely to have demand for critical thinking, like writing a letter to your boss, not the nature of universals.
If they do, either topic is fine.
So starting with the most likely topics is Pareto superior to starting with traditional philosophical topics. It might be better, and it’s never worse.
I guess it depends on whether generalization is more likely when learning the skills in an obviously abstract context or learning them in an apparently specific context.
So funny I was about to say this sounds like sci fi home ec, before I reached the end of your comment 😂