(June 13, 2013 at 5:07 am)Esquilax Wrote:(June 13, 2013 at 2:30 am)Undeceived Wrote: What do you mean by "verified," and why should I accept its application here? Your answer will necessarily presume a worldview/philosophy. Philosophy isn't factually verified, yet it is required to answer questions about knowledge and metaphysics before humankind can even begin judging what is verified. So one's worldview is the cone, not the sprinkles. Why not lay out a wide selection of cones first, before the ice cream? Otherwise, we are educated before the reason for education comes to light.
By verified I mean demonstrable. If you can't demonstrate it to be true- or at least provide evidence that it exists- then you can't rightly call it to be factual. Since you could never hope to demonstrate that Jesus was the son of god, you have no right to expect that it be taught as fact in schools, any more than someone who worships any other god has. We simply do not give equal time for unsubstantiated ideas in the educational system, regardless of how many believe them, no matter how fervently; when you learn about World War two, equal time is not given to holocaust denial, because that's got no evidence to support it.
Why would you want to teach things that aren't demonstrated as true in the first place?
So we should only teach science? No history or philosophy? I thought we taught undemonstrable subjects so we could deliberate and flesh them out. Isn't deliberation the purpose of democracy? How else are kids supposed to learn to think critically? What about important topics that are not undisputed? Is it even possible to decide which topics are undisputed unless we deliberate on them?
