TED Conversations

Colton Cutchens

This conversation is closed.

How much of a right do students have to questioning and independent thinking?

What is your opinion on how much students should be allowed to question? Do they have the right to question if they may see a logical fallacy? If so, how far are they allowed to question it? Why?

In addition: I understand teachers try to allow students to question, but sometimes are limited by the administration (and/or bureaucracy). Why is this?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 8 2013: @Mike Colera: You made a few good points there Mike. And I should probably change my wording a bit, but I can't think of a more succinct way to give a one word name to the act of questioning and the process involved. Is it not from being critical and curious about a subject that an engaged student would then begin to ask questions? Not to discount truth and fact, 1 + 1 does, in fact, equal 2, but when you consider other mathematical concepts and explanations then the question become, does 1 + 1 actually equal 2? There is a 14 year old mathematical genius who is currently attempting to disprove one of Einstein's theories, one that has be held to be true for decades. Being critical of the knowledge we are exposed to helps us not only determine the truth of those knowledges, but also helps us extend our curiosity beyond those truths, and sometimes into realms that are new and exciting and revolutionary.

    As for freedom and democracy, my own conceptual ideal is one where social inequality is at a minimum. That is not to say that I'm a socialist, although I might be somewhat more liberal than other Canadians (although that is a trend between young and old generations), but there is a certain amount of unaccountability within Canadian politics that leaves a great deal of Canadians without a life that can be called a good life. Currently, capitalism and the democracy practiced in most developed countries embody the characteristic of exploitation. Someone or something must be at the bottom so that the rest can benefit. Is that ethical? Is that moral? Is that right? Is that not just the question "If you could kill someone to cure all disease, would you?", but answered?

    In my opinion, there needs to be a radical rethinking of how we practice politics and economics. Capitalism and democracy are simply ideas; there are better systems to discover and implement that will benefit, maybe not everyone, but definitely more people.
    • Jan 10 2013: "There is a 14 year old mathematical genius who is currently attempting to disprove one of Einstein's theories, one that has be held to be true for decades."

      Don't you think this might be a little bit more persuasive if he actually did disprove it? I think you are counting your chickens before they hatch...lol
      • Jan 10 2013: The point is that he's trying, which is integral to progression. Really, it seems like you're actively trying to miss the point of this thread...
        • Jan 10 2013: This thread has NO point...It doesn't even describe a real dilemma. Academia is one of the most thought encouraging areas in all of our existence.

          The original author has never provided one single example of this supposed issue ever really happening. He has provided zero examples of bureaucracy hamstringing dialog because it simply doesn't happen outside of prohibiting religious discussion.
      • thumb
        Jan 16 2013: To Brock- Yes, Academia's purpose is to encourage thinking, understanding, and questioning. But my question is if, and how, it is actually being accomplished, within every area of it, from the subjects to the procedures. The example I know of is my own experience, and since it is anecdotal, I do not wish to state it or base a stance on it, and I wish to find what the truth of this situation is. This is why this thread is a "Question" not a "Debate."

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.