England has produced a number of outstanding detective story writers. Agatha Christie comes to mind with her character Hercule Poirot. Another is Dorothy L. Sayers, with her diffident, yet steely-minded toff, Lord Peter Wimsey.
There were also other sides to Dorothy. She was a moderate feminist, and one of the first women to graduate from Oxford University. She was a reputable medieval scholar.
In 1947 she delivered a talk at Oxford University called ‘The Lost Tools of Learning’, in which she suggested that western education has lost its way, by trying to cram in facts, rather than first developing skills. She pointed to the medieval trivium as a good way of giving students the ‘tools of learning’, namely logic (to think clearly), grammar (to write and speak clearly), and rhetoric (to mount a persuasive argument).
We see plenty of environmental rhetoric on this blog site, but is it all logical? Is there too much quoting of ‘facts’ (some might say ‘factoids’), and not enough sound argument? Is the use of scientific jargon and acronyms intended to obfuscate or impress, rather than to seek the truth? Should not all ‘models’ be accompanied by a clearly written statement of their assumptions?
In my view Dorothy’s argument was valid in 1947, and is even more valid now. She also wrote it up as an essay, which is available at several websites. Search on (sayers tools trivium). Have a read – it’s only a few pages.
Dr. David Naugle (search on naugle trivium sayers) has reviewed her essay, and the benefits of the trivium have been discussed elsewhere, for example in the book ‘Chaucer and the Trivium:The Mindsong of the Canterbury Tales’, by J. Stephen Russell.
I suggest that the humanities, and the medieval trivium, have a great deal to offer in current political and environmental debate. It might help people to cope with the torrent of ‘news’, advertising, and ‘spin doctoring’. Any comments?
Green and Medieval Davey Gam Esq.
Perth, Western Australia
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Brilliant! Lots of cats walking over the piano keys on this blog.
It has only recently come to my attention, Davey, that your namesake was a rough and ready Welshman and posthumous hero at Agincourt. The weapon of choice, of this brother of Henry V, be he ne’r so vile, a spiked lump of metal with handle for crushing helmeted skulls. Splendid stuff, do carry on.
Aye! Davey’s report after a recce of the French lines at Agincourt was that there were “enow to kill, and enow to run away”.
Two years ago, I allowed myself to be dragged to an education school graduation at a major Australian university (mainly for the cocktail party afterwards) and heard the most amazing diatribe on education by the commencement speaker.
The honourable speaker declared the education system in Australia had failed in its mission to churn out enlightened, intelligent, morally superior citizens. Australia he claimed had become a mean spirited country full of semi-literate imbeciles.
Although, I thought it a bit stuffy of a start, I was hanging in there with him until he got to his evidence—The electorate had returned Howard to office, not once, but twice! The voting public was obviously too thick to understand the depth of the moral depravity of the Coalition. He listed all of John’s big crimes: Iraq/Afganistan, non-core promises, children overboard, etc.
The problem lie in out dated methods of teaching—shibboleths of the Right were the cause of the miserable state we find ourselves in today with sprawling suburbs of mcmansions and families that think they need two vehicles, meanwhile those on the dole are forced to work and border security enforced. The youth of today have no values, he roared!
Worse, now Howard wants to perpetuate Liberal rule for generations to come by introducing regressive education policies, such as teaching history, focusing on the fundamentals and instituting rigorous testing standards designed to stigmatize students and shame teachers.
But how to rectify this problem of national urgency?
The good speaker beseeched the starry-eyed young class of educators to bring not just new pedagogics to their classroom, but to teach proper sociopolitical values and work with their union officials to fight government oppression in the classroom.
And, for God sakes, do not assume that being able to think for oneself is any substitution for knowing the right thing to think, he thundered!
…to a standing ovation….
You think I exaggerate? I wish. The cocktail party sucked too.
Davey Gam,
Excellent topic and I do enjoy reading Lord Peter Wimsey mysteries as well.
I wonder whether schools still have debating classes? I recall a debate during university at the Sydney Branch of the Aus.I.M.M. – topic was uranium mining and the year was 1975. The Aus.I.M.M. students picked two teams and flipped a coin to determine government and opposition. I was tail-end-charlie for the opposition arguing against the motion. Did it quite successfully despite being totally pro-uranium mining.
The only interesting moment was overhearing older members complaining why we argued against uranium mining. I could but only shake my head.
I had an interface with Australian academia after a long career in my chosen profession – it was uninspiring 🙂
I Find whimsey in the scientific establishment most foul.
Logic should be taught at the same time as arithmetic, in young minds, but then again logic statement is about principals and not politics. If you study logic you accept principal.
As Jennifer reminds everyone about her brother the politcian and fow and her risk.
Stop being smart arses.
Stay blonde teach it aint about you. You got a parachute I didn’t get one.
Post script stop being a smart arse.
Interesting comment JVK – was that an example of current logic, rhetoric, and grammar?
It was only a reply to scientific cowards, trying to do politics AND media.
Define terms, Jen wants to do heroine, I say, then go girl, but in email she insulted me once accusing me of lap dog big money status when she is paid everday.
She treated me badly. I never did the same.
Anyway!
That’s emote, /emo/
I live in her slum family.
As a tenant
Do let us know if some of your neurones eventually connect, JVK. I wish you well.
“We see plenty of environmental rhetoric on this blog site, but is it all logical? Is there too much quoting of ‘facts’ (some might say ‘factoids’), and not enough sound argument? Is the use of scientific jargon and acronyms intended to obfuscate or impress, rather than to seek the truth? Should not all ‘models’ be accompanied by a clearly written statement of their assumptions?”
I find this paragraph regarding facts, assumptions and truth particularly interesting.
Mohammed,
I am glad that you find the ideas of Dorothy Sayers interesting. They apply to me, and you, as much as to anybody else. I am sure my logic is sometimes awry – how about yours?.
Luke has now sworn on a stack of IPCC reports that he is not you, and you are not he. I look forward to your future contributions to these debates. Perhaps if you tell us something about yourself, it will help to avoid future wrong assumptions. It is always interesting, and valuable, to get fresh perspectives on politics and the environment.
How about sending Jennifer a discussion point for posting?
I see Dorothy’s ideas as fitting into a larger piece of tapestry. My logic here is fine thankyou. I see no need to tell you anything about myself, just like other posters shouldn’t find it necessary in order to stop you from making wrong assumptions. Perhaps you should take a thread out of Dorothy’s woven text? And with regards to Luke, are you sure you are not confusing him with Jennifer, I think you may find that more honest?
Jennifer,
Your post is spot-on, and unfortunately, it’s an accurate critique of all the humanities over the last three decades.
What’s worse, the trend is spreading into the sciences.
Hurling quotes and deriding sources has almost entirely replaced what once was prized the most–original thought or original evidence.
In most disciplines, “scholarship” now consists largely of head-butting lofty tomes. This accusation was once leveled at Medieval scriveners, but it has again become apposite for the bulk of modern–or, should I say–‘post-modern’ works.
Ah … Jennifer is really Luke .. now there’s a thought. What dastardly trick will he pull next? He once posed as a member of the aristocracy, but was soon rumbled and cashiered. Thanks for the tip, Mohammed. How’s my logic? Dorothy, help …
Dr Phil says that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. That must be true, he said it on TV. So we must expect Phil (Done) to appear in various guises from time to time. I wonder if he is a doctor too, and if so, why isn’t he on TV?
How’s my Logic, Davey?
Hence why I decided to call him “Medusa”, of many heads.
You are both being very mean to poor Luke – he’s quite a nice boy, really, although possibly related to the von Munchausen family. He should read more detective stories.
I have just been reading, online, the book ‘On Being a Scientist’ (US National Academy of Sciences), which you both may know. The URL is cumbersome, but a Google search should work.
One passage relevant to the climate debate (and logic) is ‘But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results’.
On the role of skepticism, the case of ‘polywater’ is given. Announced by a Soviet scientist in 1966, hundreds of papers appeared in the refereed scientific literature over the next few years (presumably grammar okay). Models were developed, and warnings of impending doom issued, should ‘polywater’ escape from the laboratory (great rhetoric).
Sadly the logic proved to be faulty. How many journalists write about ‘polywater’ now?
What? Do you deny the existence of polywater, comrade? Perhaps you would like to be reassigned to a nice little gulag in Siberia, eh?
You laugh? Something frightfully similar is happening today in Canberra.
And don’t be mean to Luke. Really. He needs our love and support to get his head back together again.
As I see it, trouble began with separation from nature. Cerebral capability became unconstrained by a former grounding in common truth.
To a person sitting on a moving train, another passenger appears stationary, but to a pedestrian at a crossing, that same person is moving at the speed of the train. Perspective plays an important part and unless we all share the same perspective, in truth, we become vulnerable to persuasion to the perspectives and agenda of others.
Sharing occupancy in a natural landscape subjects the sensitivities of all to the same natural (chemical) truths, feeding directly through to the limbic centres of the brain and to the common inner voice. Against this common counsel, cerebral capability remains free from corruption.
You can trust me on this, I live in the Daintree rainforest:)
Very true, Neil. I find my thoughts are clearest when walking in the bush. There is a common grounding, or framework, out there. I think Dorothy’s trivium would provide a common educational grounding, so we can at least argue coherently – back to Neurath’s Boat, Popper’s Piles, and poor old Pierre Duhem.
Neil/Davey
Interesting line of discussion you have started here.
Neil’s statement that the trouble began with separation from nature is interesting – do you two (I assume you have) firm ideas what caused this, and when?
Louis, Nothing detailed. Just an idea that ‘grounding’ is important. Perhaps the human imagination begins to go off the rails when we live too much in a fantasy world. Maybe psychiatrists have something to offer on this.
In the make-believe world of a prison, prisoners can go ‘stir crazy’. Is it more widespread than that? Another thread raised the topic of ‘climate crazy’. If victims walked in the bush, and experienced actual weather, they might recover. A bit like ‘brat camp’, if you watched that one?