TalentEd No. 45, Autumn 1994

I asked Peter to write in figures 'a million billion trillion quadrillion' using the British 'billion'. He wrote it with sixty noughts. I asked in how many ways it could be written in words and he expressed it in powers of ten, of a hundred etc.

Anna (11), Sara (10) and Andrew (7), new pupils from a home-schooled family, had a lesson together. On arrival they noticed the magnetic marbles and I asked what magnetism is. Andrew said it is electricity, and explained how he can make a magnet.

I drew attention to The Freedom Machine and asked what freedom is. Anna said it is being able to do what you want, without being bossed around. I asked whether she would be free if ship-wrecked alone on a desert island. 'No. I wouldn't be able to go where I wanted to.'

In reply to 'Do animals communicate with people?' Anna said, 'Some do. Dolphins communicate with particular people through their minds.' Sara said, 'Yes, they can shiver, jump up, pull you there.' She said the difference between animal and human communication is that 'we can pull or point. Animals can't talk'. I asked whether they could invent a language. Both girls doubted it, explaining that they had been hearing English for too long. Anna said that a word is 'A series of letters put together so people can understand them.'

The children's mother said she would have them work on the question 'What is a word?' in their lessons during the week.

Francisco (13), returning after a year's absence to philosophy classes which he began to attend when he was six, answered a question on animal communication by 'It depends on what animal. Chimpanzees are bright, intelligent animals that communicate by sounds, expressions etc.' He explained that animal communication differs from human in that humans have voice boxes and can produce sounds by 'licking, rubbing etc.' He said we can use 'universal sign language' to communicate with people who do not speak our language. Without writing, we could know about people in past times 'by tales, paintings and fragments.' Aborigines knew about their ancestors 'by stories, legends, rock paintings and drawings on boomerangs and spears'. He thought that inventing a language would take thousands of years. I mentioned Esperanto. He replied that it was a phonetic language, and that it had failed. He commented that 'What is a word' looks like a simple question, but is really very difficult. Then he wrote that 'A word is a way of writing (or describing) an object, feeling or colour and takes its place for that object.' He illustrated this by representing pictorially 'He loves cake', 'loves' being symbolised by a heart.

Daniel (10) said that a word is 'a series of letters', that animals do not talk, that he could invent a new language using codes. He exemplified this by drawing various symbols. He mentioned that dolphins communicate by high frequency noises far out at sea.

Joshua (7) said that animals communicate by grunting, but do not communicate with people. A word is 'a group of any letters'.

Jenny (17) said that animal communication differs from humans in that it is not abstract. She explained 'abstract' communication by reference to 'what we are doing now. Its not kickable'. In reply to 'Could you invent a new language?' she said that, coming from a family of linguists, she had to be careful about that. She pointed out that there have been made-up languages, but they did not succeed. She thought this is because English, for instance, has much more use than Esperanto. People do not learn languages simply because they are easy. They want to do something with them. 'And you can pick up so much English on TV.' She had difficult with 'Why was writing invented?' saying that if you sent a messenger you might as well just tell him the message. In reply to 'What is a word?' she said there are difficulties with different kinds of words. '"Is" is different from "word". Some languages do not use the verb "to be". And how would you describe "What"?' I then asked her what a 'proposition' (in the philosophical sense) is. She suggested that it is 'A description of a little piece of the world'.

Kathleen (11) answered 'What sorts of things do animals learn?' by 'We as human beings are animals and animals are very adaptable to the environment'. Animals can be educated 'to a certain capacity'. Whether Aborigines were educated before white people came to Australia 'Depends on the sociology used with the word "educated".' Wisdom is 'a form of common sense usually acquired with age'.

Francisco (13) said animals cannot be educated but 'can learn quite a bit'. Aborigines 'were taught all family ties which was education'. He thought education is a good thing because it gives 'a wide spectrum on life' and leads to your not being prejudiced against people. He said that 'Reading, writing, music and gardening are important both spiritually and mentally to fully mature yourself as a human being'. 'Education' is knowing mentally and 'knowledge' is physical. Wisdom is knowing about God and the structure of life. He explained further that education makes you feel secure as a human being. When I asked whether there was a logical principle involved in solving one of the points Francisco said, 'There's a logical principle to everything except spiritual things.'

Peter (12) said he wanted to be educated to get a job and that reading and writing are necessary for this. He thought wisdom is 'knowledge of lots of different things'.

Anna (11) said that animals learn how to survive, that they can be educated and that an educated person is 'somebody who knows something'. She thought it good to be educated because it helps us to survive. She thought reading and writing of first importance in education, while painting, music, swimming, gardening and carpentry are secondary. She distinguished education from knowledge in that education is 'learning things' whereas knowledge is 'knowing things'. She defined 'wisdom' as 'knowledge'.

Daniel (10) said that freedom is not being locked up. He and Kathryn (10) thought that Robinson Crusoe was free, as are street children. He said children are usually free, but not if kidnapped. He cited the case of a girl kept in an attic for two years with two slices of bread a day. I commented that she must have been very thin. Joshua (7) said she must have been thirsty. Kathryn said that adults who have to look after children are not quite free. Those who are able to travel are free. Joshua (7) said freedom is 'when you are let out'.

Frances (7) said adults are not free because they 'have to tell the kids if they go out'. Joseph said he is free when he gets up at 6 am to use the computer. I asked if the people who used to live in caves were free, in view of the fact that they had to spend so much time finding food and warmth. Anna asked how, if they had no freedom, they thought of inventions (to stop being cave people). Sara said she is usually free, but not in Sydney where 'we will get lost'. She thought that working people are free in their time off. Anne said they are free to quit. Anna said that children are not free 'because in this world grown-ups rule'. Andrew thought dogs are free if not chained, because 'they have a bit of fun playing'.

Jenny (17) said that 'free' is like 'good'. There are degrees of freedom. Wild animals are not completely free - especially herd animals. Children are not free because there are many rules and regulations. Adults have even more rules and responsibility makes them less free. Animals are not free if hunting all the time. People who are working are not free. They have prescribed tasks. Farmers have to do certain things to get money. In reply to 'What is a free country?' she said that people are free, not the country, and that 'freedom' should not be used as an absolute. There is freedom of speech, religion and thought.

I asked Jenny about free will. She said 'You are determined by what you are, even if we know all about someone we wouldn't know what will happen in the next half hour because outside events affect us.' She thought we 'start off blank, then build up. You are what's inside you'.

Kathleen (11) answered 'Do we know that the sun will rise tomorrow?' by saying that if she dies tonight it won't be rising for her. She replied to 'Is there such a thing as luck?' by 'I don't know, but if there is I don't have any.' To 'Is there such a thing as fate' she answered 'That depends on your beliefs'.

Jenny (17) said we know the sun will rise tomorrow because we know how the universe works. We do not know if it will rain tomorrow because 'there are a lot of factors involved'. She thought the earth's rotation is 'simpler' than rain patterns. She said she cannot predict what job she will have in the future 'because it's complicated, like the rain, or perhaps more complicated than the rain'. She said we can predict with certainty 'things that are facts - medical facts - that people will die - things that have been happening for a very long time'. We cannot predict what a child will be as an adult because there are 'outside influences - we don't know what will happen'. There is no such thing as luck, 'everything is caused by something ... But we use the word, so it must mean something - perhaps that someone is fortunate'. There is probably 'fate' in the sense that 'there is something we are destined to be, but we can't possibly know what it is'.

Peter (12) was not sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. 'Anything is possible'. Joshua (7) also said we do not know that the sun will rise tomorrow. Daniel (10) answered, presumably facetiously, that we can know if the sun will rise tomorrow by watching the news. He said he can predict with certainty that he will do work.

Kathryn (10) said the sun will rise because the earth is still turning round. She would like to foresee the future because she would like to know if she will marry and have children. She mentioned that she hopes to become an archaeologist.

Francisco said there is no such thing as fate, because 'we can change everything'.

Jenny (17) said parents should look after children so that the parents will have someone to look after them when they are old. Beau Kim (4) said parents should look after children so that they won't get lost. Jenny said children should look after parents 'because it's nice'. Beau Kim told me he looks after his parents by giving them flowers, making things and giving cuddles. Jenny replied to 'should children look after other children?' by 'Everyone should look after everyone'. Beau Kim described his looking after another child when he was three. Jenny said people can own a dog 'more than children'. Beau Kim said 'Everyone' owns Australia. Most of the children answered this question by 'God'. One boy (aged 10) wrote 'Mr Keting [Keating]'.

In the course of conversation with Beau Kim I said I did not know anyone who is getting younger. Beau Kim suggested that Puff [the Magic Dragon] does not get old.

Kathryn (10) said it is the duty of parents to look after children and that children should look after parents because 'it's the right thing to do'. Children should look after other children because 'it's nice to do'. She thought animals can own land, and mentioned lions as having their own territory.

Joshua (7) said children should look after parents 'to keep them healthy', and that 'the judge' owns Australia. Daniel (10) thought parents should look after children 'so they don't get stuck'. Further questions elicited that children are apt to get stuck up trees, on fences and in tankstands.

Francisco (13) said that parents take on a responsibility by having children. He said nobody owns Australia 'but it's ours to look after'. He said we can't own animals 'because every living animal has the right to own itself. We might however, have responsibility for an animal.' Peter (12) said children should look after parents 'because the parents gave them life.' He said people do not own land - we own only what we have made.

Kathleen (11) wrote that 'in man's law everyone owns their bit of Australia. They can borrow it and change it but it's not theirs'. She said that whether parents should look after children 'is an opinion'. She thought parents own their children 'to a certain extent. If they think they do, they do'. Children own their parents 'in a way - in man's law'.

 

 

TalentEd No. 46, Winter 1994

Joseph (9) and his sister Frances (7) had difficulty with logic questions depending on the statement that only pack or herd animals can be trained. They did not understand what 'pack' and 'herd' animals are.

I changed the questions, asking Joseph, 'If only home-schooled boys come to philosophy on Thursday morning and Bill comes to philosophy on Thursday morning, what does this tell us about Bill?' and 'If only home-schooled boys come to philosophy on Thursday morning and Bill is home-schooled, does this tell us that Bill comes to philosophy on Thursday morning?' Joseph answered these correctly.

I asked Frances, 'If we know that only very young children go to play group and this girl goes to play group, what does that tell us about this girl?' She answered correctly.

Three children, aged 7 to 9, after deciding that the answer to 'Does anybody know everything?' is 'God does', discussed whether 'God is a man or a lady'. One of them, aged 9, stated that 'God is a man because if God is a lady, ladies could be priests, and ladies can't be priests'. The logic of this is impeccable: If p is true, q is true; q is not true; therefore p is not true.

I thought that Beau Kim (4) was having difficulty with questions derived from the statement that only pack or herd animals can be trained. I mistakenly believed he did not understand 'pack' and 'herd'. His mother, the following week, explained what his problem had been. He had explained to her after the lesson that I seemed to use 'pack' and 'herd' as if they meant the same thing 'But', he explained, 'herd animals eat grass, and wolves are pack animals'.

Joshua (7) and his brother, Chris (6) both answered 'Yes' to 'Would it be possible for anyone to know everything?' and 'Are there some things that nobody knows?' Joshua's answer to 'Are there some things that nobody will ever know?' was 'Yes - how big the universe is'.

Frances (7) said that nobody knows 'how many metres the world is ... God knows - he made the world - I don't know how he made the world'. Kathryn (9) said it would not be possible for her to know 'how big the whole universe is ... How high heaven is ... What God looks like'. She said people in the future will know more than we do because they will have more advanced computers. Beau Kim (4) said that nobody knows 'how the sky got there'. He answered 'Do we really know that we know something, or only think we do?' by 'We think we do'.

Kathleen (11) said that, as mortal beings, there are some thing we are not supposed to know. She pointed out that if we had continued to be 'savages' we would not have caused pollution. She said that computers can help with logic questions but not with others. She thought that there are some things we can know with certainty. 'God left bits of evidence' of some things but not of others.

While the adults were talking one of the young children, aged 4, made a comment not acceptable to his mother. On the way home she asked him, 'How long have you believed that?' The reply was, 'I don't. I only said that to stir you up'.

Jenny (17) recounted that during the day she had said to a critical school friend, 'Judge not that ye be not judged' and then realised that in saying this she herself was judging. When I asked what logic is, she said it is discovered, not invented, and cannot be disputed. Anna (11) said logic is 'possible thinking'. Sabrina (10) said that in logic 'the answers are not crazy'. Kathryn (9) said that 'logic is something obvious'. Peter (12) said logic is 'simple questions that can be quite baffling' and that it is 'working out things from the given information'.

Daniel (10) correctly answered a question on why plovers' eggs are not found in Fiji though plovers visit Fiji annually. (They lay in the Arctic region.) Peter (12) also answered this correctly, but most children had difficulty with this question. Daniel also said, correctly I think, that sparrows are not found in Western Australia because they can't cross the desert. Other children challenged this, contending that the sparrows could go round the coast. Everyone except Francisco (13) had difficulty with a question about the disappearance of some Fiji birds when the mongoose was introduced. (Mongooses eat eggs, and the birds nested on the ground.) Some children were tricked by 'Why don't polar bears eat penguins?' but Kathryn (10) found the question very amusing. Kathryn has read about 200 books this year and I am lending her some of the lesser known L.M. Montgomery and L.M. Alcott books.

Jenny (17) said there is no one correct principle in teaching, because people learn in different ways. The teacher's interest in the material taught can help, but sometimes the teacher is the only one interested. Sometimes an incidental remark is of great interest to a pupil. Teachers never seem completely bored. They seem to present the topic in some way that interests them.

Kim (4) said that two pictures of the Tower Bridge, one a photograph and the other a reproduction of a painting, were 'very like each other', but did not commit himself to its being the same bridge. Jenny (17) pointed out that this was very sensible of him as the views are not the same, being perhaps taken from opposite sides of the bridge. Francisco (13) said that as one came from a painting the scene had 'been through someone's mind' and could have been changed in the process. I asked Kim whether cars could cross the horizontal piece at the top. He replied correctly that they could not, and wondered why it is there.

Francisco's answer to 'Did people discover Australia or invent it?' was 'Both. They created culture and discovered wild life.' To a similar question about aeroplanes he replied that 'They discovered the dynamics but moulded them to fit their needs.' A story is invented, because 'it comes off the surface of your consciousness'. Penicillin was 'discovered' because 'it was always a cure'. Pictures are 'interpreted'. The equator 'is there, but they named and fussed over it'. It will always be possible to discover new things 'as long as there are that many atoms in the universe'. He thought it would always be possible to invent new things 'because the mind is infinite'. To 'How do people invent things?' he answered, 'It comes naturally to the mind, like sleep'.

Joshua (7) wrote 'Yes' to all the 'invented or discovered' questions, explaining that 'all those things were either invented or discovered'.

Kathryn (11) thought that eventually everything will be discovered, but that it will always be possible to invent new things, because 'not everything can be invented'.

Jenny (17) said it would always be possible to invent and discover new things because there is an infinite number of facts and objects, and new combinations are always possible. I asked her about the Biblical 'there is nothing new under the sun' (Ecclesiastes I). She said that when that was written it was not known that things are infinitely divisible and infinitely combinable.

Kim (4) said that no two people, leaves or grains of sand are exactly the same. Matthew H. (7) said that discovering is 'the way you find out things and inventing is the opposite'. Sara (10) replied to 'How do people invent things' by 'They fiddle around and come up with something new'. Kathleen (11) said that a castle is 'an ancient form of housing, usually inhabited by the upper class'. People built castles 'to uphold and praise their leaders.'

Kim (4) was asked: 'A boy said, 'This must be a snake because it doesn't have legs, and snakes don't have legs. Was he right?' He replied 'No. It might be a worm'. He had trouble with a question about lizards and disposable tails and explained that he had just started to study lizards. He said snakes bite people 'because they're scared' and that birds fly 'to get away from enemies'.

Kathryn (10) said that diamonds would not be expensive if nobody liked them, but Kathleen (11) wrote 'probably depends on mineral content also'. Kathryn said that whales' teeth are valuable to the Fijians 'because they are popular'. Kathleen said, 'Religion'. Joshua (7) thought it is 'because they are so special'. Joshua said that if a goldfield were discovered in NSW the price of gold would go down. Kathleen thought it would go up. She thought that a poor harvest would send the price of wheat down, but Joshua and Kathryn wrote 'Up'. Kathryn wrote 'Down. There would be more of it'. She said that the price of pictures by well-known artists usually goes up when they die 'because the artists can't repaint them.' Kathleen said, 'Because his/her style will probably never be used again'. She knew that eye surgeons usually earn more than ordinary doctors 'because [they] are more specialised'. Kathleen said that 'value' is a [compensation] of work or effort. (She actually wrote 'repensation'.)

Daniel (10) thought eye doctors earn more 'because it is a lot harder to fix'. He said 'value' means 'grade', and that whales' teeth are valuable 'because there are not many whales around the island'. He knew that Nancy Wake's medals sold at a high price 'because they are rare'. Matthew (7) said it is 'because she got them for a special reason'.

Peter (12) said that small houses in the centre of Sydney which were cheap a hundred years ago are expensive now because 'they are historic'. Nancy Wake's medals, he said, are 'irreplaceable'. Value is 'how much something is worth'. He denied that there are 'middle class values' on the ground that 'All people are equal. It's just that people are better at different things'.

Francisco (13) said that there are middle-class values in the sense that very poor people may value things which richer ones do not care about, having something better already. I asked him what class he is and he said he does not believe in 'class'. 'It's like racism'. He added that the worst countries for 'class' attitudes are India and England. He thought the medals sold at a high price 'because they might have wanted to keep (them) in Australia'.

One of the children answered 'Do most Australians now have better houses than most Australians had a hundred years ago?' by 'It depends on the psychological state of the people' and then put ditto marks for the remaining answers. When I took exception to this Francisco (13) intervened, saying that the only subjects in which there are 'right' or 'wrong' answers are maths and science. I take it he meant I should accept whatever answer I am offered. Peter (12) suggested that logic has 'right' and 'wrong' answers. Francisco asked what that is (Peter was in a group last year which did logic). I cited 'All A are B, All B are C, therefore All A are C'. Francisco indicated that if that is logic he is not impressed by it. I asked whether 'Some A are not B' tells us that 'Some B are not A'. Peter dealt with this by drawing circles.

Peter said houses today have better facilities, eg electricity and running water. None of the children thought houses were better in the past. Nobody mentioned styles/architecture, though last week some thought old houses in the city are valuable 'because they are historic'. Francisco said people had to do more physical work in the past. Peter said they had to work hard to get water. All the children agreed that people worked harder in the past. There was doubt about 'Are most Australians happier now than most Australians a hundred years ago?' Francisco asked 'How do we know that they weren't intensely happy?' He answered 'Are most Australian children now better educated than their parents were?' by 'Yes. A child nowadays would know more than the best philosopher would a hundred years ago'.

 

 

TalentEd No. 47, Spring 1994

Matthew (7) said that colour makes things beautiful, and that 'blue is better than black'. He said the autumn trees, plum tree and snake were beautiful, but not the bare tree or the egg, but thought the latter 'might be interesting if it was brown with speckles'. He thought what makes some clothes beautiful is 'the patterns'. He wrote 'Yes' to the 'harder question', which was 'Are the same things considered beautiful in different parts of the world?'

Peter (12) and Kathleen (11) were cautious about beauty, stressing the personal nature of choices in this matter. Peter qualified his 'Which of these are beautiful?' answers by adding 'In my opinion'. He said 'the dog wouldn't think these beautiful'. Kathleen confirmed this, adding that it has been 'proved' that dogs see in black and white. Kathryn added that our answers might apply to people 'from planet earth', but people from another planet might think differently. I showed her a book of Chinese paintings which I think very beautiful, but she did not agree, though she conceded that they are 'interesting' and that 'lots of work has been put into them'.

I explained to Kim (4) that the cause of the solar-powered device on my windowsill's revolving is that sun shines on it and that the revolving is the effect. When I then asked what causes it he said 'The thing that's making it go'. He concluded, from my example, that cause and effect come at the same time. He knew that in 'Bill stayed in bed because he was sick' the second part of the sentence is the cause. He said he did not know if everything has a cause or an effect. The cause of his being in philosophy was that it was a fine sunny day (perhaps because he would not have travelled 100 km to his lesson in bad weather).

Matthew (7), given the same explanation about the radiometer as Kim, said that to say one thing is the effect of another is to say 'that it is the same thing'. A sentence showing the meaning of 'because' was: 'My mum asked why I hadn't finished my lessons. I said "because".' He said the cause comes before the effect, that everything has a cause, but did not know if everything has an effect. He said 'yes' to 'Do things have more than one cause?' and that 'To learn is the cause of his being at this philosophy lesson. To 'If everything has a cause, how did the universe begin?' he answers 'No one knows'.

Peter (12) said that everything had a cause 'except one, the first thing in the universe that happens'. The cause of his being in philosophy was 'When I first heard about it it sounded interesting, and ever since then I have been coming'.

Jenny (17) said things have more than one cause - there is an indefinite chain of causes. She gave a number of 'causes' for her being at philosophy, including 'I like it' and 'there hasn't been a major earthquake in Armidale'. She said the universe did not begin.

Kim (4) answered 'When you think, does something cause you to think?' by 'Yes' and, when asked what the cause is, said 'Muscles'. To 'Does rain have a cause?' he answered that 'Clouds drop it'. He was not sure whether rain dances cause rain but replied 'No' at once to 'Is it sensible to say "It will rain because the weather report says it will"?' and 'No' to 'Does the weather report cause rain?' He said 'No' also to 'If Mr Smith always leaves for work after the 8.30 am news report, is the news report the cause of his going to work at this time?' I asked 'Can you ever be sure that one thing causes another?' 'Yes.' 'Give an example.' 'A car causes a car accident.'

Francisco (13) said that the subconscious causes thoughts. He insisted that rain dances in India, which he has visited, cause rain. 'It happens every time.' He said in answer to 'Can you ever be sure that one thing causes another?' that he is sure that life causes death.

Kathleen (12) also thought that rain dances cause rain because of 'the powers of the people and the believers'. Her example of something which she is sure causes another was 'Schools cause employment'. She attempted a 'harder question' about Hume's saying causality is the cement of the universe by 'Causality is the pathway of the universe'.

Peter (12) said it is sensible to say 'It will rain because the weather report says it will', but that sometimes the report is wrong. I questioned his answer 'Does the weather report cause rain?' He wrote, 'Theoretically "no", but maybe'. He explained that he said this 'because everything is linked to everything else'. Peter is interested in chaos theory.

I asked what is 'a really big house', 'a really big man', 'a really long story' and a 'really cold day'. Only one of the children under the age of eleven (Kathryn, aged nine) understood relative terms. I then asked which of these are relative: dangerous, blue, short, boring, Australian, clever. Kathryn pointed out that 'dangerous' can mean different things in reference to different people.

I have difficulty in persuading even adults that when someone tells me that Mr X's lectures are boring they are telling me something about themselves, not about the lecturer.

I asked 'If so many words have different meanings, how do people ever understand one another at all?' Francisco (13) suggested that it is because people talk to people they know. Peter (12) said, 'they can tell what multiple meaning words mean by how it is used and about other words it is used with'.

Peter (12) has lent me his book on fractals and explained the illustrations to me. I noticed that some of the patterns are attributed to Pythagoras. We talked about spaces, such as Australia, which have, according to Peter, 'a finite area and infinite perimeter'.

Peter defined 'real' as 'something that is actually possible and that is actually there. Something that is not imaginary.' 'True', he said, is 'something that is not false'. To 'How can you know if something is true?' he answered 'You can research or test or simply believe'. He said you can prove to someone else that something is true by showing them examples or cases where it is the only possible explanation'. He said he is not sure that he is not dreaming now but he assumes so because he can feel things (pain etc.).

Both Peter and Kathleen (11) replied 'None of them' to 'which of these are always true:

1. It is a fine day

2. There are 24 hours in a day

3. Sydney is the capital of NSW

4. 3 + 3 = 6

5. If some four-legged animals are cats then some cats are four-legged animals.

6. C-A-T spells 'cat'.'

Peter said that on the moon 3 + 3 sometimes makes 6 and sometimes not. His answer to 'What kinds of statement are always true?' he answered 'If you are alive (physically) you are not dead (physically), and vice versa'.

Kathleen (11) answered 'Are dreams real?' by 'Is real a dream?' She answered 'What does "real" mean?' by 'Real has only meaning to us. Maybe we are just someone's dreaming'. Both she and Peter maintained that any two of us might be merely part of the third's dream. Kathleen said 'You can't' in reply to 'How can you know if something is true?' In the 'Which of these are always true?' questions she replied that only the logic one (about cats) is always true. I think she was right. She said that 'true is only what we believe'.

Daniel (10) and Kathryn (9) answered 'Your brain' to 'When you think, does something cause you to think?' Neither of them thought rain dances cause rain. Kathryn said the weather report does not cause rain, but predicts it. Neither thought that if X always happens after Y, X is the result of Y'. Neither Matthew (7) nor Joshua (7) nor Chris (5) believed that rain dances cause rain.

I sent questions to Sarah (7) in Brisbane. Among her answers were these: in reply to 'What is the cause of your being at Philosophy today?' she wrote 'To understand and maybe to think about it' and to 'If everything has a cause, how did the universe begin?' the response was 'God created the world and the people helped to make it grow'.

 

 

TalentEd No. 48, Summer 1994

Matthew (7) said that children play games 'because it's fun' and that animals play too. 'Cats jump over each other. And grasshoppers'. He did not think that work becomes play if you like doing it, but could make a game of tidying his room, or of gardening, by timing himself. He did not think he could make a game of learning multiplication tables.

Kim (5) answered 'Why do children play games?' by 'That's how they work'. He said animals play chasings and that mathematics could be a game 'sometimes'. Kathleen (11) said that 'games are often preparing for something or miming life'. She said a game is 'a mime of life cut into smaller sections than just general life'. She did not attempt to specify which of a list of suggested activities are games - 'Depends what you make them'. She said that something is not a game if you don't like doing it.

I asked Sukhia the aesthetics questions used earlier with the other children. She is ten, in Year 6 in an Australian school but born in Fiji of Samoan and Indo-Chinese parents. Sukhia said that the most beautiful colours are purple, pink, blue, green, black. Grey, and 'dull colours' in general, are not beautiful. She likes pastel colours. She thought bare trees in winter can be beautiful (the younger children consistently deny this, saying the colour is necessary if anything is to be beautiful). She did not, however, think a hen's egg beautiful. A snake, however, is, because 'it has lovely colours in its skin'. I asked her to tell me about other beautiful things. She mentioned 'a picture an artist has painted', flowers, 'a rug with patterns' and a 'friendship band'. I asked whether children's drawings are beautiful. 'Yes. To them its really nice - if they do them to the best of their ability'. There seemed to be a shift here from what Sukhia herself finds beautiful and what the 'artist' enjoys. This shift to someone else's enjoyment continued when I asked whether different things are considered beautiful in different countries. She answered in terms of different foods in various countries, and explained that taro, which she described as 'a grey vegetable', is cooked in different ways in Samoa and Fiji. Then she commented that Australian food is 'different', but said none of these foods is 'better'.

Sukhia came to a lesson, voluntarily, during the school holidays, and answered extra questions. In reply to 'What is bad weather?' she said, 'Weather you don't like'. She denied that crocodiles are bad - 'They help kill bad insects'. I noticed here that while she had at once recognised the subjectivity of 'bad' weather, she was accepting that animals which damage us are 'bad'. 'Is some food bad?' 'Yes - poison fish'. 'Bad people' included robbers, killers, forgers and 'criminals'. I asked, 'Are some children bad?' Sukhia said, 'No. They could have a bad background in their families. Or they might not have many friends, and want to be popular.' She denied that some teachers are bad. T.V. programs that use 'coarse language' are bad, as are 'Porno book' and 'books about stealing'. Sukhia then defined 'bad' as 'something wrong - something that shouldn't be done'.

I asked Sukhia whether there are some kinds of statement that are always true. She said, 'Yes - obvious ones, like "a picture can be painted"'. I think she meant that tautologies are always true.

Sukhia's Samoan father asked to do the questions because, he said, there was nothing like them in his education, which took place in a Samoan village to Class 3, followed by New Zealand primary and secondary schools and the University of the South Pacific, where he teaches Pacific History. There was interest in the questions also from a Fijian woman graduate who visited Armidale recently. She commented that such lessons are what her country needs. Sukhia's father had explained that his education had consisted of taking in information rather than thinking for himself. When, however, I quoted this to an Australian friend, she said his comment applied to a good many people here too.

Morgan, an adult pupil, Samoan by birth, told me that in Samoa status depends on the history of one's ancestors. It is oral history, and subject to variation. He mentioned a case where a man had one status in one village and another in another, the story varying from village to village. When asked which version was correct the man replied that both were. It depends on which village you were in at the time.

In the course of his lesson I tried to get Kim (5) to count by 5s. 'Don't tell me to count by 5s', he said, 'I'm too much in a laughing mood now.' He explained the difference between knowing and feeling as 'Rocks you know. Drums drumming you feel'. (The rocks were small coloured stones from an Australian Geographic pencil.) He replied to 'What is a word?' by 'Something you speak' and on being asked if he could make up a new word said 'Yes. "Sapilas"'.

Francisco (13) was shocked when I told him that in Fiji altering a meke (traditional song and dance, recording local history) is punishable by death. It was terrible, he said, to take a person's life. This reminded him of capital punishment, and he told me that it takes 4+ minutes to die in the electric chair, and 6+ from the guillotine. I suggested that anaesthetic would be better. He did not agree. 'I want to die alive'.

Kathryn (9) answered 'Do babies know anything?' by 'Madeleine does!' Madeleine's age is five months. According to Kathryn Madeleine recognises her father's voice on the telephone. Kathryn explained the difference between feeling and knowing by 'feeling is like happy and sad; knowing is like I know my name'. She said that words are 'not really' necessary for knowing, 'you could use pictures'. She defined a 'word' as 'a sound we make'. She replied to 'Could you make up a new word?' by 'teao (yes)'. Her brother, Matthew (7) answered 'Depends' to 'Do dogs know their owners?' and explained that if it was the first day of ownership the dog would not know its owner. He said feeling is 'like touch' and knowing is 'like hearing things'. Daniel (10) said that babies know they are hungry and that a word is 'letters all joined together'.

Francisco (13) said he thinks people learn very little at school. I might not, he suggested like his saying this, but 'they keep telling you things you pick up in the course of your life anyway'. I asked if other people found this but he said he couldn't answer for anyone but himself.

Kathryn (9) and Daniel (10) wrote answers to questions on time. Neither thought time can stop. In reply to 'If the sun did not exist, would there still be time?' Kathryn wrote 'There wouldn't be anyone here to tell' and Daniel 'Probably'. Both thought the clocks tell the 'real time' during daylight saving, but neither answered 'What is real time?' Kathryn did not answer 'How did time begin?' and 'What is time?' Daniel said time began with 'the Romans'.

Francisco (13) said that time is 'a human invention' and answered 'If the sun did not exist, would there still be time?' by 'I don't know but I think so'. Kathleen (11) answered 'Yes and no' to 'Could time stop?' She replied to 'What is real time' by 'What is real and what is not is only mortal'. She wrote that time began 'In a flash of creativity' and that time is 'What we are, were and will be'.

Peter (12) said that time could stop. 'If the universe collapsed into nothing there would be no time'; but explained later that he had been told, but did not really understand, that it is impossible, in terms of physics, for there to be nothing. Time began, he said, 'When there were things to change' and that time is 'the measurement of change in things'.

Jenny (18) attended on October 17 for the last time before her H.S.C. We talked about paradoxes. One was 'Disobey this order'. Another was 'In a certain village the barber shaves all, and only, the men who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?'.

We discussed Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox Achilles gives the tortoise a start in a race of half the course. And can never overtake him because whenever he catches up to the tortoise's previous position the tortoise has moved a small amount forward. This continues to infinity. I pointed out that Achilles can never complete the course, even without the tortoise, since he has first to cover half, then a quarter … of the distance, and 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … never reaches one. Jenny pointed out that with that kind of calculation he could never even start, as he would have to travel first an infinitely small distance, whereas any distance actually travelled is finite. This is the best explanation of this fallacy which I have heard. (The last overtaking distance must be finite and the issue of infinite diversion cannot arise.)

Peter (12) and Kathleen (11) did a series of questions on 'Can we control our thoughts … actions … speech?' Kathleen replied 'Yes and no'. Peter said 'To a certain degree, yes'. To 'Can we choose to like or dislike someone?' he answered, 'Not really. Our brain does it for us'. In this he was apparently distinguishing between 'us' and 'our brains'. I gave the same question to the Samoan adult, who replied to 'Can we control our thoughts?' by 'Yes. But our mind has its own mind', meaning, I think, that the mind's thoughts are self-generating. If this is what he meant he was avoiding the assumption made by most people, in common with Peter, that 'we' and 'our minds' are separate. He believed that plants control what they do, 'in concert with weather, soil etc'. Here again I think he meant that we cannot separate the plant from its processes.

When I suggested to Peter and Kathleen that animals cannot control (choose) their actions as we can, that the cat has to chase the mouse, Kathleen said that a relative told her that the difference between animal and human minds is revealed in art. Animals may make beautiful things, but they never make representations, whereas, she said, all children with drawing materials soon begin making 'face' pictures.

Peter and Kathleen had some discussion on whether all minds are the same. I think the point at issue was whether we all begin with the same mental equipment, but have different experiences. This could have led, if time had permitted, to a discussion of innate intelligence and other ability.

Kathryn (9) thought that her three-year-old brother can think, but was doubtful whether her seven-month-old sister does and Matthew (7) was sure the baby can think and said he himself began to think at birth. Kathryn's answer to 'How many thoughts are you thinking now?' was 'I don't know because I can be concentrating on the question and still be thinking about something else'. She said we do not learn by thinking: 'you learn by asking questions and reading (I think!)'. She did not attempt to reply to 'Can you learn by thinking harder?', explaining that she does not know. To 'If animals had words could they think better than they do now?' she answered 'No, but they could talk about what they were thinking'.

When I asked Francisco (13) to give me a piece of a puzzle he was holding (to tease another boy), supporting my request by saying I own the puzzle, he asked how I can own anything whose atoms have been in existence long before I have. I said that this raised the question of what ownership is. Then Francisco asked if we own our hands, and went on to discuss the sale of body organs. He thought it all right for people to donate their organs (while alive), but not to sell them. (The puzzle piece had by this time been relinquished.)

Another boy (12), who came in the top 2% of a mathematics competition with Australia-wide participation, said he had fared badly in Maths at the parent interview. He explained that at school Maths is so boring that he just does not do what is required.

A colleague told me that a ten-year-old boy who does pottery with her has been diagnosed as having an 'attention deficit disability' but shows no sign of inattention when doing his work with her. I had this boy in philosophy when he was seven, at which time he was having remedial sessions in basic subjects. After the children had played with magnetic marbles I asked them and several adults what magnetism is. This boy's answer was 'There's a power in the marbles that holds them together'. When I brought a bird's nest to a lesson the other children showed no interest, but the 'remedial' boy gazed at it, saying 'And a bird made that, with only his beak'.

Kathleen (11) replied to 'Are some people cleverer than others?' by 'In certain subjects or fields but everyone is "clever" at something or cleverer in certain things than someone else'. She answered 'If you are cleverer than someone else, does this mean that you are a better person?' by 'It depends in what context "clever" is used'. I asked 'Can education make people clever?' She said, 'No, but it can broaden their talent'. She thought it unfair to tease or punish people for bad answers in class, but fair to praise them. She thought that a 'better person' is one who 'does more for the world'. She answered a question on whether white people or others are cleverest by saying that different races have, in thousands of years, developed special qualities which help them to survive.

Sukhia (11, from Fiji) denied that some people are cleverer than others. 'They just have a better education.' She said that some people are born slow learners, but they can learn. Being clever does not make you a better person - 'You just think you are'. She thought that education can make people cleverer. It is not fair to tease people for bad answers - 'Not everyone is perfect. Only God is perfect'. It is fair to praise people for good answers - 'Then they could do better in that work'. It is fair to punish people who give 'smart' answers. She did not think white people cleverer than others. 'If they had the same education they could do the same [as the white people]'. She thought it 'racist' to say who is smartest.

Sukhia's father pointed out that each race is the 'cleverest' in using its own language.

Margaret Mackie, Armidale

©TalentEd is located at the School of Education, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.

This page updated: 23 January 2006 Webmaker: Howard Smith. hsmith4@une.edu.au