"The point of CCSS is to demonstrate that this is possible if you can *identify* the relevant facts, opinions and reasoned judgments in a reading passage. Teaching students to think for themselves, and in some instances "play devil's advocate" with logic, causes social conservatives to have conniption fits. That's the real heart of the matter."

Once again, Jeff - to teach kids to "identify the facts, opinions, and reasoned judgments" in a passage is to teach them that facts and opinions are opposites, which is false. This was especially highlighted in the quizzes he quoted.

"Go to bed? It aint even 6 here. How dare you lecture me about the crustacean period when you cant even tell time. Marmalade!" He may have been talking to me. I already was asleep. And regarding "everything is permitted" (which isn't even relevant to the thread), the only contemporary usage of that phrase is Assassin's Creed, and was thus what Marquis was referencing when he said it. Both parts are the bases for major themes in the series. One such theme is growing up from a young and naive assassin who thinks they're free to do as they wish because they're part of a secret society becoming an elderly and wise individual. That's especially the case in the very first game. Altair at the outset of the game broke all of the tenets of the Order (yes, they have rules and their motto is "Nothing is true, everything is permitted), and when he was being punished for this, he tried to justify his actions with "everything is permitted" which was said to him by the Master of the Order. Altair had your understanding of the Creed during his youth. His struggle to come to grips with and understand the meaning of "everything is permitted" is a major part of the game. It takes a truly wise assassin to understand what it means, and taking it literally is a major folly at any step. They kill, but never innocents. And never openly. I previously quoted 2 assassins (one being a wiser Altair) and their understandings of the Creed. Both spent much time with the Order and grew wise by it. Both were of major importance to the Order in their most dire moments, and both quotes were stated by them in their most wise state. As a whole, it means that through the lies and illusions "nothing is true," and when society and staunchly powerful set out silly commands that would enslave you "everything is permitted. Transcending those illusions, you must become a creature of reason. And again "Our Creed does not command us to be free. It commands us to be wise.

It is a sorry state of affairs to see someone leap to Assassin's Creed before Dostoevsky or Nietzsche.

As for the OP, I think it's a poor idea for schools to teach that facts and opinions are opposites, because, as the article states, it's possible for a claim to be both. On the other hand, I don't care about the moral education of students. The fact is (tee hee), normative claims are opinion, and our wish for something to be true doesn't necessarily make it so.

pangloss: Again, it's the only contemporary use of the phrase. That's why I used its explanation. And the leap won't make it to Dostoevsky because, again, there's the tracing back to Nietzsche I explained earlier.

oh absolutely TrPrado. Absolutely.

@smeck:
The goal of CC is to have teachers to dig deeper with lessons and teach them to think critically as opposed to memorize information.

Where we are seeing things from this article is that when a new system is implemented, it can take decades to make a successful transition. Teachers usually revert to teaching the way they were taught instead of the way they were trained in universities.

An example of this is teaching formulas in math as opposed to concepts. It's very very difficult to get kids to think critically when they have spent years memorizing information and being told an answer instead of discovering it.

Additionally, critical thinking is a developed art. Kids in Kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grade lack the ability to analyze on their own. This is developed over time.

That's not to say that kids cannot understand joint areas between fact and opinion, but it takes a great teacher to guide students to these conclusions. It's far easier to get children to memorize facts than to think and draw conclusions, analyze results, and challenge their own perceptions.


CCS are standards that are more vague because they target goals of deeper understanding. People often confuse this (educators and noneducstors alike) with vagueness in wording, dumbing down curriculum, and allowing for the teaching of errant ideas--and, in cases where educators are either inexperienced or not fully trained and practiced, it can lead to these issues.


This is not to say I have all the answers because I still teach students to memorize facts, formulas, etc as opposed to think and evaluate. It takes a long time to develop skills and lessons that guide students into becoming self-actuated learners.

Tru,

Education has to teach facts as well as thinking skills. Teaching thinking skills without a framework of facts and knowledge is like teaching driving with no roads.

That said, the particular criticism here was about the presence of an actual false dichotomy in the CC standards, not just a misplaced balance between learning facts and concepts.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

The dumbest line in the prequels. Worse than anything Jar Jar said

"That said, the particular criticism here was about the presence of an actual false dichotomy in the CC standards..."

This just in: FACTS ARE NOT OPINIONS. There is no false dichotomy at all.

Simply adding, "I believe that..." in front of a fact doesn't change it into an opinion. That's a linguistic trap.

pangloss said it best. "Normative claims are opinion," and that includes most moral statements.

@smeck: I totally agree with you that solid truths have to be taught. That's not where I quibble.

Where I disagree is that it's a problem with CC. The worksheets were not put out by CC. I appreciate the goals of Common Core Standards in their essence. Standards are loose enough to allow for me to teach more critical - thinking level instead of more memorization level. Plus, there are fewer standards, which is what I think we need.

@Jeff,

"This just in: FACTS ARE NOT OPINIONS. There is no false dichotomy at all.

"Simply adding, "I believe that..." in front of a fact doesn't change it into an opinion. That's a linguistic trap."

A fact is not an opinion, that's true -- in fact, they refer to different things (one's beliefs, versus what is true). However, some opinions are facts, and some are not. It is impossible to know something without both believing it and its being a fact. (Also there must be solid justification).

In short, every fact you believe in is, among other things, an opinion of yours (it happens to be a justified true opinion/belief). Putting a dichotomy between facts and opinions, therefore, is silly.

@Tru,

Thank you for the comments. I don't pretend to be an expert on CC, so I appreciate the perspective. I did find the quotation he included from the CC troubling. It seems to promulgate a trivially wrong but worrisomely growing misconception about epistemology in our society. I didn't mean it as any broader a complaint than that, though.

@Jeff,

An example may help clarify.

Suppose you say, "It's my opinion that semck has brown hair." That is an opinion. If I happen to have brown hair, then it is also a fact. If it is a fact and you have good reason for believing it -- maybe you've seen me -- then it counts as knowledge.

Any time somebody makes ANY assertion, they are stating an opinion (unless they're lying). The relevant question is not whether their opinion (or belief) is an opinion, but whether it is rationally supported. For example, my belief that my car runs on gasoline is grounded in very strong evidence of several different kinds.

@semck83,

I'll repeat: Just by adding "It's my opinion that.." or "I believe that..." does NOT turn a fact into an opinion. Rather, the inverse is true.

If you can take away "It's my opinion that..." or "I believe that..." from a sentence, you eliminate unnecessary words and get to the point of the matter. What remains is a statement of fact. That statement may be true or false, but it is a statement nonetheless. This is also what the CCSS is trying to demonstrate.

Words like "good" or "bad" are not absolute, despite what some may *believe.* There are generally accepted standards for good/bad, right/wrong, better/worse, but those are *not* facts. If you want to call normative statements a "moral code" that's fine, but they are not facts.

Your "belief" that you have brown hair or "belief" that your car runs on gasoline has *absolutely* nothing to do with the truth of the matter. Those facts can be objectively determined outside any human judgment.

Think of how the CCSS would be used in a mock trial. Facts are indisputable bits of evidence. Opinions are beliefs about what happened outside the facts. Reasoned judgment is the intersection of the two where the facts and evidence provide the ability to infer outcomes or behavior.

It really is that straightforward.

I would say the FACT that murder is wrong is more of a fact than the color of my hair.

/\ That is because you are irrational, and lack the ability to think clearly and understand the physical world you live in, apparently.

The color of your hair is in no way a "belief". Color is actually a pretty specific thing -- you shine a spectrum of energy onto your head, some of that energy is absorbed, some of it reflects and can be observed. The energy that is reflected an observed in the visible spectrum is the color of your hair. It is measurable. it is pure fact.

That childish, wanna-be-intellectuals play fast and loose with actual physical facts, and then pretend that other non-physical, non-measurable, etc things are the actual facts is a large part of what is wrong with this world, today's youth, etc.

Princess Di is wearing a new dress...

You can't change the world
But you can change the facts
And when you change the facts
You change points of view
If you change points of view
You may change a vote
And when you change a vote
You may change the world...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=217Yqyndmik

Spoken like a true Libtard.

"I would say the FACT that murder is wrong is more of a fact than the color of my hair."

but dipplayer, this isn't a fact you're stating, it's an opinion.

"more of a fact" haha :)

Why is "Murder is wrong" a fact?

Because it is a Truth.

@dipplayer: What if a terrorist approached a group of bystanders with a bomb strapped to his body and was about to kill and maim hundreds of innocents with the push of a button. You happen to have the chance to take him out, and if you didn't, many will die. Is "murder" wrong in that scenario? I think not. I think "murder" would be a Christian duty, lest you murder the innocents by abiding to your unerring "Truth." (with a capital T, for some reason)

@Jeff Kuta

'murder is wrong' is a moral truth, if based on Christian Values.
'murder is right' is a moral truth if placed on the beliefs of a religion that murders people.
however, fact is SCIENTIFIC TRUTH. and 'murder is wrong' is in no way a fact.

The problem is that so many people are Christian, they assume their moral standpoints are the only correct ones. In truth, I agree with most of their morals but I ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that others think differently. I don't like it always, but it is their choice and way of life.

THERE IS NOT 1 SET OF UNIVERSAL MORALS. UNDERSTAND THAT

@Jeff Kuta this is in no way being mean to you, I am on your side

@Lanium that is protecting your people, in self defense.

MURDER (verb) the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

killing the terrorist is not unlawful

I would also like to point out that I am not being snide. I too, am a Christian, and Jesus himself was against overly simple "Thou shalt not" type logic. Jesus never gave those kind of rules, that is what the Pharisees and hypocrites did. Instead, he took each situation that was presented and made a choice based on the "most loving" thing to do. Jesus understood that it is the intent with which something is done that matters, rather than the action itself.

@JamesYanik: I knew someone was going to bring this up. So change the scenario to you have the chance to assassinate said terrorist (premeditation). The logic still holds.

No... if it isn't an immediate threat, killing is unnecessary. why not try to detain him?

And if it is '2 hours before attack, you are able to kill the terrorist by clicking a big red button but if you dont, he will go kill civilians and you cant stop him'

then yes click the button, but death should always be a last resort