Program logic bugs vs input/environmental errors

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/07/2014 04:55 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
> On 10/7/2014 5:19 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> Anyway, when I say "teach logic in schools" I just mean (at the very
>> least) the basic things: Like recognizing and identifying the basic
>> logical fallacies (no need necessarily to dive into the actual latin
>> names - the names aren't nearly as crucial as understanding the concepts
>> themselves), recognizing ambiguity, understanding *why* the fallacies
>> and ambiguity are flaws, and the problems and absurdities that can occur
>> when such things aren't noticed and avoided.
>
> In other words, critical thinking. This is something that, at least in
> America, is not at all part of the primary school experience.
>

Pretty much, yea.

In all my years of schooling, I only had one class that actually covered 
any of that stuff (as an actual stated topic anyway, rather than just as 
an implied part of another topic): It wasn't until college, *and* it was 
just an elective. Formal Logic, IIRC, or something along those lines, 
from the Philosophy dept (aiui, logic *is* considered a branch of 
philosophy, at least historically. Which does make sense IMO).

It was actually a good course (not much new to me though since I was 
already neck-deep in programming, which basically *IS* applied logic. 
But it's one of the few courses I've ever actually been impressed with.)

The downside of the course, though: Ever since I took it I've been 
ashamed at society for placing such incredibly minimal emphasis on 
something so crucially fundamental and important. :/ Just something that 
make me scream in by head "Yes! Everybody needs to know this!!!"

>>
>> This is VERY simple, and crucial, stuff. And yet I see SOOO many grown
>> adults, even ones with advanced graduate degrees, consistently fail
>> completely and uttery at basic logical reasoning in everyday life (and
>> we're talking very, very obvious and basic fallacies), that it's
>> genuinely disturbing.
>>
>>>
>
> I've personally seen two university courses offered under different
> guises that try to correct this problem. One is called "Introduction to
> Mathematical Thinking" and is taught by Keith Devlin at Stanford. The
> other is called "Think Again: How to Reason and Argue", headed by alter
> Sinnott-Armstrong at Duke. Despite the disparity in the course titles
> and the very different approaches taken by the instructors, the content
> is directed at the same goal -- pushing students to get past their
> cognitive biases and critically and logically examine any data presented
> to them.
>

Personally, I think that not presenting it *as* logic may be somewhat of 
a mistake. Makes it sounds almost like some self-help or management 
seminar or something. Less respectable-sounding, and obscures the true 
core nature of the material: logic.

But then again, MANY people seem to be repelled by any mention of logic, 
whereas I've aways been attracted to it, so maybe that's just my own bias.

> Sadly, American culture seems to increasingly encourage the opposite of
> critical thinking. It has almost become a badge of honor among some
> (rather large) circles to embrace a form of willful ignorance rooted in
> rejecting logic and hard, cold data in favor of falling victim to
> confirmation bias.
>

Unfortunate, yes.

Of course, there have *always* been things that have quite blatantly 
encouraged people to deliberately *not* think, reason, or question 
assumptions. So it's naturally not limited to just a modern american 
culture thing, FWIW.