Philosophy for Children does not work
Who could ever have predicted that a primary school philosophy course would not improve outcomes in reading and maths?
 |
|
This story has been a long time coming. Back in 2015, the UK’s Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) published a report on a randomised controlled trial involving Philosophy for Children. Remarkably, it appeared to show that lessons where, for instance, children discussed whether it is OK to hit a teddy bear, improved reading outcomes. The mechanism by which this worked was unclear and seemed implausible.
A number of people raised objections to this trial, such as that the reported measures were not the ones specified in the original project outline. Given a difference between the control and intervention groups at baseline, the question was raised as to whether the researchers had simply found regression to the mean.
Nevertheless, the EEF were undeterred. EEF figures promoted the trial outcomes and factored it in to the ‘metacognition and self-regulation’ strand of their toolkit. Perhaps most significantly of all, they decided to spend millions on a scale-up trial, a decision I criticised at the time.
Anyway, it turns out that I was right. The results from that scale-up study have now been published. Some headlines:
“There is no evidence that P4C had an impact on reading outcomes on average for KS2 pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds (i.e. FSM eligible pupils). This result has a high security rating… Similarly, there is no evidence that P4C had an impact on reading attainment at KS2 for the whole cohort of Year 6 pupils… There is also no evidence that P4C had an impact on attainment in maths for KS2 pupils – either for the whole cohort, or for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds… there was no evidence of impact on children’s social and communication skills, as measured by the pupil survey.”
Such is life, I guess.
If course trying to get better at maths and reading is a silly reason to do philosophy.
I'm absolutely sure I had wrestled st an even earlier age with important questions of moral and political philosophy ("Should I be vegetarian?". "Do Smurfs need money?").
So I think philosophy for kids is a real and valuable thing. Which is different from saying that it should be done in schools.
We sometimes call them "rhetorical" questions -- not because the answer is obvious, but because we've long given up on ever finding one. Like, what is the reason for human suffering? Why the history of "civilization" is filled with violence, oppression, wars, even though none of it can be justified rationally? Why we can't agree on anything despite sharing the same reality and the same nature as humans? Why do we keep telling the same lies to our kids, forcing them to learn the same lessons?
Indeed, how can we hope for meaningful and happy lives if 3,000 years later we are still debating the nature of rationality, the meaning of truth, the meaning of meaning?.. Perhaps it's time to admit that we are fundamentally irrational, and the real question is "Why so?..."
Foundations of morals and a rational worldview.
"Once a man knows good from evil, nothing on earth can compel him to act against that knowledge.
--Socrates
Assuming Socrates was right, the Moral Excellence is attained when the person achieves Full Rationality,¹ which means having a system of beliefs that
Is reasonably comprehensive (its coverage) and deep (its resolution).
The person themselves can explain why their beliefs are true, and
The explanation of a belief is only valid if
a) it is rooted in the notion of the objective reality as its first premise,
and
b) is the kind that your grandma would understand (as Albert Einstein would put it)
¹ Yes, the Gödel incompleteness theorems. The first premise of a fully rational system, the existence of objective reality, is the Kierkegaard's "leap of faith". It has to be assumed (as we knew from a long, long time ago):
❝The ignorant think that Spirit lies within knowledge, the wise man knows it beyond knowledge.
--Kena-Upanishad
So why we must have faith?..
Two words: Cartesian doubt. You see, relying on pure reason alone, we must conclude that impossible is nothing, leaving us thoroughly deprived of freedom.
Wait, what?..
OK, that does sound a bit counterintuitive, but first, we really can't know if God is real, or the real world is real, or we live in the Matrix, or are dreamt by Cthulhu, tho the last one would explain a lot... still, anything is possible -- it just doesn't mean we can actually accomplish anything. An attempt to do something could produce just what we intended, but also every other imaginable outcome (and every one that isn't).
Imagine walking in darkness. You are "free" to pick your heading literally on every step. Only you won't get far that way -- you'll be walking in circles instead. It's not real freedom unless you see, where you are going. Unless you can use your eyes to drastically limit your freedom, limit which way you are going. That's how you get where you want, by knowing where to go.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4 [and not 5]. If that is granted, all else follows. -- Goerge Orwell, 1994
How can we get to knowledge then? Our only other choice is to start assuming things. Assumption means we pretend, irrationally, that we know something we don't. The other term for it is a "leap of faith". A leap, as opposed to unconditional faith. The latter, being an open-ended proposition would simply put us back to square one, as faith makes anything possible.
What we want to assume, instead, is a core belief capable to act as the first premise of a fully rational, otherwise -- or scientific! system of -- beliefs. That way, rather than ditching rationality, we are making a certain leap of faith as our only rational choice.
Or we can leave the faith out altoghether, because that leap, the first premise of science, itself qualifies as a scientific theory!
Specifically, it posits that we all belong to the same explainable, through logic and reason, reality. The One, and the only, in terms of science. Or call it God,1 since we are talking faith. Also -- told you! -- since John 16:25, "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father." So I don't know... You think that was plain enough? I think that was plain enough. And there's more below.
And, if you were wondering, I can totally explain the "I" thing. Like sure, before Abraham was born, I AM, but keep in mind that I is "the lógos became flesh". Jesus was the flesh part, and maybe he did some weird things with it, but he has his reasons and his flesh. And I have mine, and I'd prefer it to stay that way.. if no one minds terribly (sorry, no endless cookies either)...
OK, I'm not trying to be unreasonable, I merely suggest that you beautiful people might want to check out something else I offer, cause it is just as endless too. I've got human souls waiting for you, those "lógos" things, ready for consumption, for free -- keep your virgins! (actually tho.. 'cause gets weird, ok)
Anyway, I'm not kidding, and the time is no longer coming. It is here now. And that's everyone's choice -- a cookie with my name on it, or a copy of the divine spirit,† a human soul with yours?
† And I can just as easy retell this story in terms of evolution, neuro-, computer, etc. science. I go archaic simply to emphasize that I did not come up with all this after 2020 of staying home with drugs, an empty room, and all the marbles on the floor to keep me company. All usernames checkout but please, don't take my word for it, check it out yourself! --
¹ Needless to say, the Bible and many ancient texts start making a whole lot of sense once you've got the metaphors right. Like "God" ==> "the objective reality"; a "human soul" (or lógos) ==> our conscious rational "Self"; the "divine spirit" (lógos again, 'cause everyone gets their own copy, but in the God's image.. well, in theory they do) ==> wait... I'm not sure if we actually have a word for... whatever makes the world go round in strict accordance? Because Other than through [the lógos], not a thing has been made, unless it, indeed, has not! <== I'm sure it'd sound better in Greek, but that's where the "explainable" part comes from, keeping the scientists happy.