The fallacy of the course again

I wrote about the fallacy of the course here. Since I have several posts drafted but never seem to get around to finishing and posting them, I may as well revisit the idea. In a nutshell, where it probably belongs, the fallacy is to think that requiring students to take a course will give them some significant, life-enhancing skill. Put like that it doesn't sound so fallacious, perhaps, but here's an example from the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Students in every major are well advised to take a class or two in improvisational acting, creative writing, or drawing. Being proficient at writing code or any other technical skill will take you only so far in an evolving labor market.

Without creativity, good luck not being replaced by a less costly alternative.

See the problem? A class or two in drawing will not make you creative. Perhaps it will make you more creative in some ways (though I doubt it--I imagine it would mostly a) make clear to you that you are not that great at drawing, and b) teach you some techniques to improve your drawing). But why on earth would anyone think it would make you more imaginative in a general or transferable way?  

Parts of the article are fine. Its overall point, rightly understood, might even be right. But it's hard to think that any real thought has gone into it when you see this kind of thoughtless blather about creativity.

For more of my grumpy ranting see also here. 

Vietnam

I went to Vietnam. You can read about it over at philpercs here, here, here, and here if you like. Short version: it's hot, there are lots of motorcycles, it seems to be developing quickly, I liked it.

Meanwhile, back on the prairie...

Me on writing and yoga at philpercs.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch

At philpercs I've been talking about (Wittgenstein and) education and (Wittgenstein and) Shakespeare.

Philpercs update

Over at philpercs, my thoughts on descriptivism versus prescriptivism, dictators who write poetry, and getting started in Chinese philosophy.

More from me at philpercs

On the strange idea that jobs you don't get are usually ones you are better off without and the surprisingly common idea that taking a (single) course will give people a skill or virtue they currently lack, e.g. critical thinking, writing, ethics.  

More on Williams

I have a third, and probably final, post at philpercs about Williams on Orwell and Merton on language here. I might try to write something about how Wittgenstein's work embodies the virtues that Williams identifies as belonging to good writing, but we'll see.

Lies, lies, lies

More from me at philpercs on Gerald Dworkin on lying.

Slouching towards the Christmas spirit

Over at philpercs I end up moaning a bit again but mean to say how happy I am to find work in the humanities outside philosophy that I agree with so much.

More at philpercs

Here I am moaning about the pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy that seem so prevalent these days in academia. It's probably very boring to go on about this, but part of me thinks it's something that should be done constantly. After all:

6.53 The right method for philosophy would properly be this: To say nothing other than what can be said, thus propositions of natural science – thus something that has nothing to do with philosophy –, and then always, if another wanted to say something metaphysical, to point out to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying for the other person – he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy – but it would be the only strictly correct one. 

I'm not talking about metaphysics, and Wittgenstein doesn't really seem to recommend this "right method," but still. One role for the philosopher, as for the satirist, is pointing out nonsense. And this isn't likely to work if it isn't done consistently. (Although it might not work even then.)