TalentEd No. 49, Autumn 1995

Opinion was divided about whether frogs remember what they did when they were tadpoles. There was little doubt however on 'Do frogs remember anything?' Kathryn (11) said, Yes, how to croak. Peter (13) 'Probably. Because they have brains'. Francisco (14) said that rabbits remember how to dig holes. Peter pointed out that 'You can train animals, which means that they remember. Kathryn said that goats remember how to eat glue off tin cans. The earliest thing Kathryn remembered was the bicentenary celebration when she was four. Matthew (7) misunderstood the question and wrote 'Being born' as his earliest recollection, later explaining that he 'remembers' that this is the first thing that could have happened to him. Kathleen (12) wrote that we remember 'everything we know'.

Francisco raised the matter of reincarnation, saying that he 'almost believes in it' and hence in knowledge recollected from a previous existence. Kathleen suggested that our bodies store race memories and quoted her grandfather's dying statement about the soul as 'existing between thoughts'.

A former 'Philosophy for Children' pupil, Patrick, who read Plato by his own choice when eleven, and entered UNSW at fifteen, has completed his honours year with the university medal in Pure Maths. He has written thanking me for the philosophy lessons (ages 11 - 15).

Madeleine (11), a new pupil, said that frogs might not know the names of things. Another child said, and her friends agreed, that frogs have a 'language'. They said, also, that dogs 'have their own language'. Robin (9) said that 'seals remember their mother's call' (for identification). Madeleine remembered that when she was three she could not hold the pram 'on a 110° slope', and the baby was injured - she could easily have been killed.' Madeleine, Robin (9), Eden (8) and Emma (7) agreed that we could not learn without memory. Madeleine asked, 'What about walking?' meaning "Does walking require memory?'

Kathleen (11) said that people write poems 'for fun or for a living', Matthew : 'to read', Francisco (14): 'either for enjoyment or for a job'; Peter (12): 'to express feelings'. Peter said that a poem is 'a story that gets told to a rhythm'. Kathryn mentioned that 'it's difficult to tell the difference between a rhyme and a poem'. Francisco wrote 'a poem is a series of words, like a story, only shorter, but they use the best sounding or the most appropriate words to describe the author's emotions'. When he was six Francisco said he was not sure what a poem is, 'but I think it's between a song and a story'.

Peter (12) said people like music 'because it soothes the mind and brings certain moods'. He answered 'How did poetry begin?' with 'By people telling stories while they sang'.

Matthew (7) said that a poem is 'a story that rhymes'. Kathleen (12) commented about all the questions that 'nobody is ever sure'. She mentioned that she is not the same person after school as the one who arrived at school in the morning. 'The difference is more than you could comprehend. You could only symbolise it'. I think 'you' here meant 'one'. Commenting on the question sheet she suggested that 'Maybe a question is an answer'. I suggested that she might try to answer 'How did poetry begin?' She said, 'When first winds entwined'.

It is possible that Kathleen's 'a question is an answer' comment refers to my having deliberately asked obvious things ('Did Aborigines sing and dance?') in order to suggest an answer to 'How did poetry begin?' I in fact had in mind that poetry may have developed from primitive song-dance ceremonies.

Sunil, a Fiji Indian adult, sent answers from Suva. He said that frogs know they need dark, damp places. Dogs know something, 'They don't dirty (toilet) anywhere. Dogs remember their friends. In reply to 'Do other animals remember anything?' Sunil wrote, 'The horse. Some horses wouldn't allow anyone else to put the saddle on.' His answers to 'What kinds of things do people remember?' was 'The good I do no one remembers. The bad I do no one forgets'.

Madeleine (11) said people write poems because 'it helps them to explain their feelings without talking.' People dance 'because it makes them feel freer.' Babies sing, 'but in their own language.'

The question was: 'True crabs have five pairs of legs (the nippers are one pair). If their animal does not have five pairs of legs does this prove that their animal is not a true crab?' Kathleen (12) said 'No. Some legs could have been bashed off.' Francisco (14) said, 'Yes and if it is deformed or is missing one or two legs.' Similarly, Peter answered a question about identifying crabs with large nippers by 'It depends what you define small as.' Peter, who did some logic in another group two years ago, drew circles to determine the answer to such questions as: 'All crabs are Arthropods and all ants are Arthropods. Does this tell us that ants are crabs?'

Francisco commented on the beautiful patterns made by moving liquids in an Australian Geographical toy. I asked him what things are 'beautiful'. He replied that something 'appeals to the human brain in a way that you like'. I asked Kathleen how she had reacted to school when she first attended one. She replied that as her mother is a teacher she has always been at school. She then indicated that she did not like school 'because I know it [the work] so well' and 'I didn't like the insignificance of it.' Then, with reference to schooling in general, she said she does not understand 'how one [person] can have so much power over so many'. With reference to making up poems, she said 'Nobody ever really makes anything up, Miss Mackie. They make up themselves.'

Kim (5) said that 'You can't step twice into the same river' means 'You can't step into a river if you're already in it.' Change, he said never stops, but one thing that does not change is 'My love for my Mum'. In reply to the question about an irreversible process he said 'Mummy getting old. Her skin is getting old.' In reply to 'What is the difference between a magic change and a non magic one?' he said 'A magic change is one you can't see or [that] surprises you'. Magic, he said, exists, because 'Musicians make magic.' Kim later rang me to say he is now doing Class 3 maths at school.

Francisco (14) defined a good person as 'a person that does what they think morally right' and Peter (13) 'It depends in what context you are speaking but I think that an overall good person must do the right thing as much as possible.'

Kathleen (12) did not attempt the questions, but added one of her own: 'How can you live in a world where living is nothing more than a constant fear of dying?'

Kim (5) does his questions in Queensland now. His mother sends his answers. Question: 'The sky is atmosphere. Atmosphere is air. We can touch the air. Does this mean that we can touch the sky?' Answers: 'No, the sky is too high up.' Question (2): 'Cows are mammals. Horses are mammals. Does this mean that cows are horses? Answers: 'No! (Laugh).' Question 3: 'If all x are y and all y are z does this tell us '(a) that all x are z?' Answer: 'Yes' '(b) that all z are x?' Answer: 'Yes', then 'No' (worked out by himself). '(c) that some z are x?' Answer: 'Yes.'

Question 4: 'No ducks are mammals. No hens are mammals. Does this tell us that some hens are ducks?' Answer: 'No! (Laugh)' 'Does it tell us that no hens are ducks?' Answer: 'No-Yes.'

Question 5: 'Tom's father said he would give Tom a bicycle if Tom passed his exams. Tom now has his bicycle. (a) Does this tell us that Tom passed his exam?' Answer: 'No.' '(b) If Tom does not have a bicycle does this tell us that either he did not pass the exam or his father has broken his promise?' Answer: 'Yes.'

Question 6: 'If Tom has won a scholarship he will go to T.A.S. Tom's mother says Tom will go to T.A.S. (a) Does this tell us that Tom has won a scholarship?' Answer: 'No.' '(b) If Tom does not go to T.A.S. does this tell us that he has not won a scholarship?' Answer: 'No.'

All answers except that to the second part of question 4 are correct. I had marked the x, y, z question as harder, indicating that it was optional.

I gave the question: 'The largest kind of grass is bamboo. Does this tell us that all bamboo is grass?' Matthew H (8) said 'No' and explained that there might be another kind of bamboo that isn't grass. Francisco (14) replied 'No' to 'Does this tell us that some grass is not bamboo?' He explained that the statement does not tell us that there are other kinds of grass. He could be both the largest and the smallest boy in the room. And the average one. Peter (13) took a similar view. Matthew P (8) correctly answered 'No' to the 'harder question' which was 'If some fungi are not yellow does this tell us that some yellow things are not fungi?' Adults often make mistakes with arguments of this form. (Some A are not B, therefore some B are not A.)

The children had difficulty with the question asking whether 'The largest kind of bamboo was grass' tells us that 'Since cows eat grass they can eat bamboo.' Madeleine (11) wrote 'Yes and No, because it depends on the cow breed.' Eden (8) wrote 'Maybe'. Both girls were considering not the data but their independent knowledge of cows. Eden had the 'harder question' correct. Robin (9), depending on her interpretation of logic, said that if bamboo is grass that means that if cows eat grass they can eat bamboo. This is an example of a common difficulty with the 'undistributed middle term' as in: 'All x are y. All y are z. Therefore all z are x.' This argument is invalid.

I asked: 'Yeast is a yellow gooey fungus. It is used to make cakes and bread. A mushroom is a fungus. Does this tell us that '(a) mushrooms are used to make bread' and '(b) some fungi are not used to make bread?' Everyone correctly answered 'No' to (a) and incorrectly 'Yes' to (b). There is nothing in the data to indicate whether mushrooms are used to make bread or not.

Kathleen (12) is no longer interested in the questions. She talks of other things. A teacher, she said, had read a wonderful poem saying our minds are made of fragments from past people's minds. I managed to identify this as Tennyson's 'Bugle': 'Our echoes roll from soul to soul and grow for ever and for ever.' She had (validly) reversed the argument, taking it that we contain echoes from the past. She asked 'Is hope manufactured?' and then said, 'We can't expect to be more than leaves flickering in the wind.' She commented, on human relationships, 'There is more than a river between us. And I can't swim that far. She produced a mathematics competition practice question which I was unable to solve for her. She commented that doing the competition will be 'good training for what I don't know'. She did attempt my question 'Does change ever stop?' to the extent of asking whether it ever began.

Peter (13), too, who excels in maths and computers made some unexpected comments. To 'Does magic exist?' He replied 'Yes. If magic didn't exist then we wouldn't be here. Nobody can explain how we're here.' He said that 'Just because something is unimaginable to the human mind it doesn't mean it's impossible. He gave as an example 'that time started with the big bang.'

 

 

TalentEd No. 50, Winter 1995

Kathleen (12) attempted very successfully a question which baffled most of the younger children, 'How did laws begin?' She said, 'We are laws - laws are restrictions - they stop us imposing on one another. There always have been laws. Other animals have laws - they aren't themselves without them. We wouldn't exist as we do now without them. Laws give us a place to hide - entombed under centuries of rock.' She commented that our present laws 'might be right for the people behind us [in the past] but not for those who came after.'

Robin (9) wrote that breaking the law means 'disobeying the rules of the town, city or country'. She thought that sometimes you really 'have to' break a law and, when questioned, gave the example of on addict who could not refrain from smoking. Her answer to 'What would happen if there were no laws?' was 'The world would be a destructive place.'

Robin (9) wrote that animals and babies should not be punished. 'They really don't know what the rules are so why punish them.' She said that children and adults should be punished 'Only if the person who is punishing them has seen what they did wrong.' She did not think it wrong to disobey parents or teachers. Robin took a long time to answer the questions, giving them a lot of thought. Her sister, Emma (7), also said it is not wrong to disobey parents. She thought it wrong to punish animals, babies and children, but right to punish teenagers.

Madeleine (11) wrote 'Not always, but when they do something continuously when they have been told not to.' Animals and babies 'do not understand' and should not be punished. Adults should be punished for law breaking 'if they know that it is against the law.' With teenagers, she recommended 'let them off the first time. The second time punish them. But give them a criminal record the first time.' It is wrong to disobey parents 'if they explain to you what not to do.' It is wrong to disobey teachers 'if it is something that is wrong but if the teacher's rule is unreasonable it is all right.'

Eden's mother told me that Eden (8) had commented in the car on the way to our lesson that 'unless you know maths in your head before the teacher told you that two and two are four you wouldn't remember it.' I think she meant that if we could not understand the logic of mathematical facts we would have to memorise each separately, and this would be impossible. In other words, Eden was making the same point as Socrates in the Meno: that we have an innate 'knowledge' of logic.

This conversation followed our previous week's logic lesson where I had asked the children to make up logic questions. This was the 'harder question' following nine logic questions of mine. Robin (9)'s answer was: 'If I gave you a rock that someone gave me it would be your rock but if I stole it back again would it still be your rock?' Eden wrote: 'If dogs have ears and cats have ears does this tell us: a) cats are dogs? b) some cats are dogs? c) no cats are dogs?'. Madeleine (11) asked: 'If 17+13=30 does 12+18=30?' and 'The leaves of trees usually fall in Autumn. If leaves fall in the spring are they late or early?' Eden is Madeleine's sister, and Madeleine's 18+12 question seems to contain Eden's principle of our knowing maths 'in our heads'.

The two mothers concerned were present at this lesson and were surprised when the children produced their questions, having had first to ask what logic is. I said that the reasoning questions they had just answered were logic, and I gave an example of a question which did not involve logic. During this explanation Madeleine commented that 'Maths questions are logic questions.'

Francisco (14) later answered this 'Make up some logic questions' request, and produced: 'If all trees have leaves and this plant has leaves, is this a tree?' and 'If some plants are green and some vegetables are plants, does this tell us that some vegetables are green?'

My adult Samoan pupil tells me that contradictory things can both be true if they work. According to Samoan thought a statement is false if it doesn't work. I think my informant was supporting this view, not merely telling me that it is current in Samoa. In discussion he was trying to determine, through truth and falsity, how Samoa should be governed (democracy or rule of chiefs).

The questions for the younger children were too easy, I thought, for Francisco (14), so I gave him a sheet originally prepared for tertiary Education students. It contains a short quotation from Dickens's Hard Times, with related questions. The passage contained Mr Gradgrind's assertion that 'facts' alone should be taught to children. I asked what, other than facts, can we teach. Francisco wrote, 'We can teach scruples, morals, how to think for yourself.' He commented, 'Which is what philosophy is all about, really.'

In reply to a quotation on reasoning, Francisco remarked that 'there are different levels of reasoning.' His reply to 'is it uneducative to teach children "silly jingles" (such as "Twinkle twinkle little star")' was 'it doesn't have to have a 'purpose'.' He thought the jingles 'good practice in remembering.' He thought children should have fairy stories read to them 'very much' because 'it forms the basis of their subconscious - those Grimm's fairy stories are very deep in our culture.' Francisco's answer to 'Which facts are useful? was 'If the chaos theory is true, then any facts are useful.'

Francisco had spent a day at sessions with skilled musicians. I suggested that after this and his questions he might not want to do some puzzles I offered (Junior Mensa Puzzle Book). He replied that he did want to tackle puzzles, as be felt 'very creative' after all that music. The puzzle book, however, he pronounced 'too easy'.

Ewan (10) believed, as did most of the children, that 'plants have leaves and animals don't.' His reply to the question about the difference between living things and a stone was: 'Some people reckon stones do live.' He said that thinking is 'talking in your mind to yourself.' He attempted the 'Hard question': Does your thinking depend on the society in which you grow up? He wrote: 'Yes, you would think differently if you were rich or from a different country.' Eden (8) said we change our minds 'when you think it is a bad idea you change your mind.'

Madeleine (11) wrote that 'an animal can move around and decide when it goes but a plant doesn't have much choice.' The difference between a person and an (other) animal is that 'people have their own language and we are moving ahead in technology and thinking, and inventing ways of living.' To 'What makes us decide something?' she replied 'Our mind decides from the information we have that it is right or wrong and we may be pressured into an idea by peers or because we think it the fashion.'

Ewan checked that his mother has a copy of the questions. He had been using last week's with friends in the car on a school excursion.

Francisco (14) came to philosophy 'because I feel I might learn or discover something.' His answer to 'Do we always know what causes something to happen?' was 'No. Like life on Earth.' He replied to 'Do your thoughts have causes or do they just come to you?' was 'Maybe seeing things reminds you of a path in your mind and that reminds you of another.' He explained orally that an incident in early childhood could result in a decision now without our being aware of the connection. He is interested in chaos theory.

Kim (5) sent me questions from Queensland: 'If you steal something you need (like food) is it as bad as if you steal something you don't need? Then what if you think you need something? Can animals steal? What is a lie? Can animals tell lies?'

Eden's (8) answer to 'Can you draw a pattern not copied from natural things?' was 'Writing'. She commented 'No natural thing invented writing', and explained that this answer had occurred to her while looking at the question paper.

Kathryn (11) wrote that 'flags on a ship' are communication, and that some pictures and words are. She pointed out a landscape picture on the wall as a communication but added that not all pictures or music have a message. Kathleen (12) said that animals, plants and babies do not communicate: 'They respond.'

Kathryn (11) defined a bad illustration as 'boring or gross.' 'Scribbly gum trees' were her example of natural things with patterns.

Madeleine (11) wrote that all natural things have patterns 'but sometimes you can't see the actual pattern.' Her example of natural things with patterns were 'dappled sun through the leaves of trees, grass, leaves, water, animal fur.'

 

 

TalentEd No. 51, Spring 1995

Joseph's (3) mother asked me to try the questions with him. He has been coming to play while his brother and sister have their lessons. I had to change 'What is a swear word?' to 'What is a naughty word?' on his sister's (11) advice, as they do not swear in their family. He defined a swear word as 'something rude'. His reply to 'Who decides what is a naughty word?' was 'The Three Bears and One Hundred and One Dalmations'. I later asked his sister how he arrived at this answer. She said she thought it was because in each of these someone is judged to be naughty. Joseph's answer to 'Why is it bad to say naughty words?' was 'You might get a smack.' I asked if it would be bad if his baby sister said a naughty word. He said 'Yes but she can't talk.' The other children said that swearing is not bad if the child is too young to understand.

Peter (13) said that it is a purely arbitrary decision that a word is a swear word. He said it is considered bad to swear because some people find it offensive. He agreed that it is bad 'because it is socially unacceptable'. He thought it better to say nice things than to say nasty or rude things, 'because that is what makes people happy and that is what you want in return.'

Robin (10) thought it is not bad to swear 'because it is only a word.' She thought it better to say nice things 'because if you say something mean to a person they're most likely going to say something mean back and this will turn into a fight.' Leon (6) said it is bad to swear 'because you get your mouth washed out with soap.' His brother (9), however, replied to 'what is a swear word?' by writing several of them. Kathryn (11), Joseph's sister, wrote that 'anybody' might decide that a word is a swear word, 'but they might be being silly.' Her brother, Matthew (8), wrote that swearing is 'bad manners'.

I gave the children these questions:

(1) You have been shipwrecked on an uninhabited island, with about 200 people of various ages. The island has materials for food and shelter, and the climate is very warm. It is unlikely that you will be rescued soon, if at all. The people have elected you as one of a council to make laws for the group. Write three laws you would propose.

(2) You are asked to give advice to parents of young children on the island. What would you suggest as the three most important things for the children to learn?

(3) What would you suggest should be done if people on the island break the rules?

Leon's (6) suggestion for question (3) was 'get young men who can stop arguments - real toughies'. Madeleine's (11) rules were: Everyone to work together, nobody to leave the island without permission from the council, and find food and water for everyone not just supplies for yourself. Her recommendations for children were (1) survival points (2) self defence (3) how to help without annoying other people.

Ewan's (10) three rules were: (1) anyone sighting a ship must tell everyone they saw it, (2) Only go out of the village with friends, (3) treat each other nicely. Amy (7) recommended a rule against stealing. Eden's (8) rules related to safety. She replied to the question about rule breakers by 'It may not matter because they might all be killed'. Mathew P (9) recommended that children be taught to hunt. His punishment included 'Sleep in the rocks' and 'eat coconut and drink lemon juice.' Matthew H (8) said rule breakers should be hung. He added 'They get hung in Singapore if they sell drugs.' Kathryn's (11) punishment was 'Make them do everybody's dirty washing for a week.'

Leon (6) attempted the optional harder question, 'Is competition wrong?' He replied 'Yes, it could put other people down.' Leon's brother Mathew P (9) wrote 'No' in reply to 'Is competition wrong?' and explained that he likes being in competitions and that he 'always wins'. Kathryn (11) thought competition is not wrong 'if there is no fighting'.

Kathleen (12) gave an unusual reply to 'Is it wrong to steal something like food?' She said it is necessary to consider the effect on the poor. If there is only enough food for a couple of people's survival the food should go to those who have a better chance - group survival is the criterion. She went on to talk about life as a care system in which the forms of living things support each other's right to live 'and I don't mean it scientifically.'

©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