TalentEd No. 52, Summer 1996

Ewan (10) said that work is 'stuff you do at school'. Play is 'doing a puzzle'. If nobody worked 'Nobody would learn much'. He replied to 'Is it good to work hard, and bad to be lazy?' by 'Sometimes it is good to work hard. It is not bad to be lazy'.

Sukhia (11) said that work is 'something you do for a living, or chores'. Play is 'something fun to do'. If nobody worked 'There wouldn't be any money in the family'. It is bad to be lazy 'because you could endanger other peoples' and your life'.

A visiting Fijian child, Litiana (13), said that play 'is when you use your hands and legs and it is fun. You will feel happy'. Everybody should work 'because if we don't work we never eat'.

Emma (8) answered 'Can the same thing be both work and play?' by the example 'reading a book'. Her reply to 'What would happen if nobody worked?' was 'the world would probably fall apart'.

Peter (14) commented on a set of questions about ownership that 'We really don't own anything. We're just occupying it'.

Kathryn (11) replied to a question about the ownership of an invaded country by 'If there is a mutiny on a ship who owns the ship?'

Kim (6) sent from Queensland his answers to two sets of questions, some of which he prepared earlier in the year. He thinks it wrong to steal 'because you're hurting someone'. Goannas steal meat and bowerbirds steal blue things 'but they don't know they are stealing'. Telling lies is wrong because it is 'being silly, and might be hurting other people'. It is always right to tell the truth 'if you know what it is, but sometimes two or more things can be true at the same time'.

Kim said that a swear word is 'a word that, if you said it, may hurt people'. To 'Who decides that a 'swear word' is a 'swear word'?' (his own question) he answered 'Themselves. Although partly how you say the word'. He thinks it is bad to swear - 'I don't like hurting people'. He believes, however, that 'it's O.K. to say nasty things to people if you are having a fight with them'. A good joke is one 'that is happy - not sad or mean - may be funny'. It is not a good joke if it hurts someone.

Three Year 9 girls have spent two sessions on questions about the nature of truth. They requested a second discussion after taking home their question papers for further consideration, and have now taken them home again. They say the questions are good. They have not asked how I would answer 'What does "Is it true?" mean?' None of the philosophy children do in fact ask for my answers. Sometimes they tell one another what they have written, but I do not remember anyone actually asking for help. I tell them to proceed to the next question if there is one they cannot attempt.

Two teachers from a local school are to use my questions with their classes (Kindergarten and Year 6). A child, aged 8, from their report, who comes to my lessons, told me she would like to be doing questions like these for school homework. And two children who are leaving Armidale are to do the questions, at their request, by post.

 

 

Talent Ed No. 53, Autumn 1996

Three girls from a local high school have been coming to philosophy for about six months now, having contacted me through their school principal. They are now in Year 10 and work hard for three-quarters of an hour each week discussing the questions and writing answers. They do the same questions as the younger children and do not find them too easy. They give more detailed answers.

The high school girls had some difficulty with 'What is music?' One of them said 'Music is too broad a topic.' I have written 'What is a broad topic?' as a future philosophy question. When one of the girls went to get the dictionary to help her answer I commented that the dictionary tells us only how the word 'music' is used, not what it is. One of the girls said that the way the word is used is in fact what the thing is. I think there is a further philosophical question there.

I suggested that music might be simply a pattern of sound. The girls doubted whether a monotone sound pattern is music. I had asked 'Who invented music?' The girls thought that music (and art) were not invented - they just happened. '"Discovered" or "occurred" maybe, but not invented. Also I don't think it was one particular person.'

An answer to 'Can you tell by listening to music what were the feelings of the composer?' was 'Sometimes, although in every piece of music performed the "atmosphere" is different even if it's the same piece. It's left to the performer to entwine a mood into the piece of music.' A reply to 'Do babies like music? How do you know?' was 'If they respond to music does this mean they like it?' And to 'Does everyone like music?' was 'Has everyone heard music?'

Kathleen (13) declined to do the questions but talked freely and sensibly about a sheet she brought from school. This described seven types of 'intelligences' and suggested appropriate 'ways to teach' them. Kathleen suggested that as children developed they may go through several stages, thus having different 'intelligences' at different times. She commented on having noticed, when much younger, that her brother's reactions to new experiences differed from her own 'because I'd been to school and he hadn't.' She thought she herself belonged to the 'wanting solitude ...' category, 'intrapersonal', but did not think she would best respond to the suggested way of 'teaching' such people. She prefers the 'visual' approach. The 'constant movement' category seemed to be her brother's, she said, but again the 'way to teach' such people was not that to which he best responds. She suggested that the difference between children's thinking and that of adults is that children 'don't have perspective'.

Peter (14) wrote answers to a lot of questions on language. He did not think it would be better if everyone in the world spoke the same language 'because there would be no privacy between nations'. He thought that dogs recognise our language but do not understand it. To questions on colour which I gave him at the end of last term Peter replied that the things we see do not have colours. 'We just interpret things to have colour. It is really just light in different wavelengths.' He said we could not invent a new colour, because all colours exist already, but we could discover a new one. Then he changed his mind and said that since no colours really exist, but only different wavelengths, the answer is 'Yes and No. It depends on how you look at it.'

Paula (9) wrote that people can be taught to think of different things, e.g., coming to philosophy you have to discipline your mind into thinking about the questions. People cannot, she thought, be taught to invent things. 'Inventions just come into the mind, by something you have done recently, are doing or just starting from scratch.' Their answer to 'Could two people write the same original story?' was 'No. "Original" means just you did it. It is unique.'

Alison (10) said that thinking 'comes naturally'. Her reply to 'Can people be taught to invent things?' was 'Yes and No. They can by listening to music or reading books but you can't be taught to make a specific thing.' She thought two people could write the same original story. 'They might never have met each other and they would have written the same story from thinking the same ideas.' She said that thinking always has a purpose. 'When you move you're actually thinking but you don't know it.'

Meaghan (12) thought that school 'helps us to get more intelligent'. She said that philosophy and lateral thinking teach people to think originally. And 'if you couldn't think you'd just be a slumped figure: Almost a nobody'.

Kathleen (13) thought that the reason we like colour is that colour originally was a survival skill in primitive man. She suggested that our colour preferences are based on association.

Nonie (11), a new pupil, pointed out that shadows have no colour. She said that not everything we think of has a colour because 'sometimes we think of things in words'. Her answer to 'How many colours are there?' was 'you could say three colours or you could say thousands'. She did not think it would be possible to invent a new colour: 'All colours have been created, on a plant or a piece of cloth, from thousands of years ago. There might be a different colour on a planet which has not been discovered yet, but the colour is already created.' She said that 'A bare tree is beautiful. It is like a dream and it is like the tree has hands and they seem to grab at you and attract your attention. Bare trees remind me of the night.'

I asked 'Do some colours look better together than others?' Nonie answered 'Depends on what is round the colour ... If you are told when you are young that certain colours do not go together, then for the rest of your life you worry about putting those colours together and most colours look wonderful if you have a theme.'

I gave some harder questions to the group of high school girls. I asked 'Does "I think therefore I am" imply "I am, therefore I think"?' They decided that reaching that conclusion involves thinking. In reply to 'If black is not a colour, does that mean that we can see the absence of colour?' Rebecca (15) said that 'If black is the absence of colour (not saying that I believe that) we would be able to see the absence of colour.' Allyson's (15) answer to 'Are some greens greener than others?' was 'To be called green, the colour in question must be "green" in the viewer's mind.' The girls did not commit themselves to answers to 'Does absolute black, or absolute white, exist?' or to 'Does absolute red exist?'

Peter (14) has been doing card and conjuring tricks, justifying this by 'you'll have to think to work out how I do them. And thinking is philosophy'. He was interested to know that 'atom' comes from the Greek atomos (a means 'not' and tomos 'cut'), and that the atom was believed by the Greeks to be the smallest particle, mathematically but not physically divisible. I have been explaining that the ancient Greeks worked out by philosophy (reasoning), that things are made of small particles moving in space.

Alexandra (9) had all ten answers correct in a set of logic questions in which the children were asked about the validity of the arguments presented, as distinct from their truth. These included: 'All men are unfeathered bipeds. All men are liars. Therefore, all unfeathered bipeds are liars' (Invalid) and 'Some reptiles are not dangerous animals. Therefore, some dangerous animals are not reptiles' (Invalid). Alexandra's work in this lesson was better than that of some of the high school students.

Madeline (12) and Eden (8) are doing the questions by correspondence, at their own request. They came to me when they lived in Armidale.

Answering 'Could two people independently write the same poem?' Madeleine said 'Yes, but the chance of them doing it is one in a billion.' She gave the same answer to 'Could musicians in France or Africa compose the same music, working independently?' She said she did not understand the question 'Could two mathematicians in different cultures produce the same proof?'

Eden, by this time aged nine, said that people invent things 'because they want to' and discover things 'because they look hard'. His answer to 'Is the equator an invention or a discovery?' was 'the name is an invention and the actual thing is a discovery'. I had asked why Aborigines did not invent houses. Eden replied that 'they did invent houses, except they weren't quite as big or cosy'.

I asked 'If you travel towards the north pole the east is on your right. If you continue past the north pole on which side of you is the east? Why?' The question confuses adults as well as children. They know that the east is now on the left, but cannot explain why it has 'moved'.

Eden's answer to 'Why is there no east pole or west pole?' was 'because the world keeps going around and if they did sometimes the east pole would be the west pole'.

Kim (now 6 - he came to philosophy when he was 4) has been requested by his new school to enter the Tournament of Minds. He answered my question: 'Which rules are necessary for living in groups?' by 'To stop people being naughty, to elect a leader and follow him. To prevent people getting hurt.' I was interested in the last answer here as the Sydney Morning Herald quoted recently 'The safety of the people is the highest law' ( a Roman principle).

'Are some Australian laws absolutely necessary? If so, give examples.' produced 'Killing people.' He thought people should be punished if they rob or injure others - 'to stop it'. I asked whether people invent, or discover, right and wrong in human behaviour'. Kim replied that most wrong is discovered, eg, killing, but some invented, eg, apartheid.

I asked Peter (14) whether there are some people who are incapable of logical thinking. He replied that it is obvious that this is so. He said it depends on upbringing. People brought up in violent homes do not learn to think. Children need stimulation to learn to think.

I mentioned that in some cultures children are discouraged from asking questions. Peter thought this very bad as it would produce adults who could only accept what they are told.

Kim (6) replied to 'Who invented music?' by 'It wasn't invented. It developed.' He explained that music five hundred years ago was different from modern music in that it was more simple - fewer instruments. 'It was different because they didn't have the choices.' His definition of music was 'Feeling sound'.

Peter (14) replied to 'Is it wrong to disobey your mother?' by 'Sometimes. Some mothers are filled with good intentions, but others are bad.' Paula (9), when I suggested that some mothers told their children to do bad things, pointed out that the question asked was 'Is it wrong to disobey your mother?', and that her mother was not likely to tell her to do bad things.

Peter thought it is not wrong to disobey his teacher. 'As far as I am concerned my school teacher has no rights over me.' He said that the rightness and wrongness of disobeying another adult 'depends on their intentions.' He did not think it wrong to forget to do something he was told by his mother or teacher to do. 'Forgetfulness can't be helped. It is not bad.' The question 'If it is wrong to do certain things, why is it wrong?' produced the answer, 'Because you are hurting or depriving someone else for your own sake, which is greed. And that is bad.'

Jenny (14) answered 'If it is wrong to do certain things, why is it wrong?' by 'To prevent total anarchy, to keep the system flowing smoothly.'

Rebecca ('16 next Sunday') wrote 'Society has very set views on what is "right" and "wrong". You as an individual really don't get much say in the matter at all.' She answered 'Is it wrong to disobey your teacher?' by 'It may be plain stupid to disobey your teacher, but if they are treating you unfairly, for example, you may have to disobey them to voice your problem.' Her reply to 'Is it wrong to disobey your mother?' was 'It depends what you're doing to disobey her. If it means life or death, of course it's not wrong to disobey her (or it may be considered wrong but you value your life too much).' She said that in most cases revenge 'just makes the situation worse. It would be better to forget about it, or talk it over with the person against whom you are seeking revenge.'

David (11) replied to 'If you thought doing some of these things is wrong, explain why they are wrong' by 'If this was to happen, society would die.' I think he meant that ethical behaviour is necessary if society is to cohere.

 

 

TalentEd No. 54, Winter 1996

Robin (10) defined music as 'a line of notes or just something from your heart'. Her sister, Emma (9) wrote that 'Music doesn't have to sound nice. Even a wooden spoon banging on a wall is a type of music to me and other people.' None of those who replied said that some music is better than other music. They insist that 'it depends on your opinion'. They are similarly cautious about pictorial art. I think they are taught in their schools that certain preference is subjective.

Daniel (12) in reply to 'Make up a bad argument' wrote: 'My Mum's weird. That means all mums are weird.'

Kathleen (13) in answering questions about education, suggested that because she can understand things readily at school and grasp them by herself, she is less 'educated' than the students who pay more attention to the teacher's explanations. She wrote that education is 'learning beyond its one's own world. Recognising truth.' She indicated that people could be educated through any kind of learning (e.g., about football and women's fashions in clothing) if they knew enough about it. I think she meant that inquiry can begin anywhere. She thought there can be 'an educated horse', and spoke at length on the learning process of a particular intelligent horse on her father's property. She explained that horses and dogs learn from one another.

Peter (14) answered 'No' to each item on a list following 'Are people well educated if they know a great deal about: ...' He explained that to be educated requires knowledge in a combination of subjects. He defined 'education' as 'general knowledge and skills'. He said that 'knowledge is different from thinking and understanding.'

Robin (10) wrote that education is 'learning and listening about things you don't know or already know and want to know more about.' She said that people begin to be educated 'when they are first born'.

Jonathan (9) said that people like music 'because it sounds good and relaxing.' He thought babies like music 'because they usually go to the place the music is coming from or they try to sing along.' He said that 'the cave men' invented music, by singing and whistling. Some music, he thought, is better than other music. It has 'more expression and better tone'.

Jonathan's sister, Oi Ling (5) wrote that people like music because it 'sounds good'. She thought babies like music. 'When I was a baby I did it.' She thought that music expresses feelings, and her reply to 'What is music?' was 'Violin.' Jonathan and Oi Ling are Chinese, bilingual, and play the violin.

Alison (15) replied to 'Is it true that all numbers are numbers of something?' by 'You could always say that all numbers are actually numbers of numbers.' Her answer to 'Do natural objects really come in numbers or do people make up numbers?' was 'I'm not sure of this but things in nature do seem to come in patterns, e.g., flowers which always have five petals, but I think people need to label things in numbers.' She did not attempt 'Could we do mathematics by reasoning in our minds, without other experience?'

Jenny (14) thought that all mathematics is useful 'if it is taught to us correctly in the first place.' Her answer to 'Can you be sure that any particular fact will never be useful?' was 'Can you really be sure about anything? As with all of these questions, I'm not really sure, but here goes. I've often thought things that I have learnt useless, only to find that they come in handy only a few days later. Unless you could see into the future I don't think you can say definitely class something as useless as you learn it.'

Allison (10) replied to 'Are people well educated if they know a great deal about literature?' was 'Yes. Because in poems and books it tells things about life. French literature would only be good if you wanted to go there.' She answered 'No' to a similar question on knowing about 'their next door neighbour's doings'. She explained her answer by saying 'because you shouldn't impose on people's privacy.' Then she added 'Yes. Because they might want to assassinate someone.' She thought the age at which people can be said to be educated is 'When they start to talk.' The children seem to have interpreted the question about when people can be said to be educated as one about the age at which 'education' begins. They thought of it as a process rather than as a state.

Peter (14) answered 'Is it true that all numbers must be numbers of something?' by 'In my opinion, yes. Numbers are just ideas and purely theoretical. They must be applied to something, for example, potatoes. You can't have just "six".' To 'Do natural objects really come in numbers or do people make up numbers?' he answered, 'No natural objects are the same one and so they are all numbered "one" (in our minds). However, we perceive two pine trees as that, two pine trees and not as one pine tree and another slightly different pine tree.'

Kathleen (13) defined stories as 'responding images'. She asked in the course of conversation whether man's existence benefits animals.

Oi Ling (5) said that the difference between plants and animals is that animals are short and plants tall. People, she thought, are cleverer than animals (this being the difference between them). 'What makes us decide to do something?' 'Think.' 'What makes you change your mind?' 'Something hard.' Her brother, Jonathan (9), wrote that 'animals run around but plants stay where they are.' 'Living thing grow but non-living things don't.' Thinking is 'using your brain'. It is the brain that makes us decide to do something. 'What makes you change your mind?' 'Usually another person.'

Peter (14) said there is no contradiction in 'I am not writing this' because the statement has already been written. His reply to 'Can people believe contradictory things at the same time?' was 'Yes I'm sure we all do but don't realise it. E.g., no one wants to pay tax but everyone wants criminals in jail. But to do this we must pay tax for keeping them in jails.'

Paula (9) answered 'Would you be contradicting yourself if you said 'I know that I don't know anything?' by 'Yes, because if you don't know anything then how could you know that you don't know anything?'

Jonathon (9), a Chinese boy, answered some questions on Fijian language, without help or discussion. 'The Fijians call a train a 'Sitimer ni vanua', why?' 'Because it is so loud and lets out steam.' 'The Fijians do not have separate words for "green" and "blue". Why?' 'Because they think it's similar.' 'The Fijian word for "sheep" is "sipi" and for "cat" is "vusi" (pussy). Why do they use our words? They have their own word for "fish" (ika).' 'They learned it from the white man.' He realised that sheep and cats were introduced to Fiji by Europeans. 'What would happen if nobody could use words?' 'It would be more difficult to contact.'

Daniel (12) replied 'There may be parts of the penguin that are not appetising' to the question 'In the Antarctic there are leopard seals and penguins. Leopard seals are carnivorous. Why don't the leopard seals eat the penguins?' His answer to 'If someone took a colony of polar bears to the Antarctic, what would happen to the penguins?' was 'The numbers may diminish, depending on other food sources.' The question 'If somebody took a colony of penguins to the Arctic, what would happen to them?' produced the answer 'Die, for this is not their habitat.' He explained to me that the Arctic is not a continent, and that food supplies there are different from those of Antarctica. He replied 'Their eggs are laid in another continent' for 'Why do people in Fiji never find a plover's egg, though they sometimes see plovers there?' He said that people invented writing 'as a method of recording and communicating' and told me about the development of writing in 'old countries' (in the middle east). He referred to Egypt and hieroglyphics.

The Year 10 girls had difficulty about determining the validity of 'Some Chinese are not Buddhist. Therefore some Buddhists are not Chinese.' (This argument is not valid. 'Some X are not Y' does not imply 'Some Y are not X'). I suspect that even the Year 10 people try to do the logic questions by relying on their knowledge of the subject matter. They had difficulty, in the absence of prior knowledge of the terms, with the validity of 'All Singhs are Sikhs. Therefore all Sikhs are Singhs.' One girl '15 for three more days' wrote that it is valid, despite trying to draw a circle diagram.

Kathleen (13) looked at a book in my room referring to 'empiricism' and asked for an explanation of this term. I said that empiricists believe that knowledge comes through the senses, whereas idealists (idea-ists) like Plato think that some knowledge is attained by mental activity alone. I mentioned 'God made the natural numbers. All else [in mathematics] is the work of man.' Kathleen questioned this, saying that if God made man with the ability to reason mathematically, then God in effect made the mathematics.

Kathryn (12) wrote that a good book is one 'that feels real. It could make you laugh or cry and you should feel that it is really happening.' She said that 'good weather depends on where the person is who is asking the question. For instance, I would say that today has good weather - sunshine and a small wind. But an Eskimo might say "A day that doesn't have much snow, but enough ice for me to build on".' She gave as the meaning of 'good' 'enjoyable, fun, nice'.

Peter (14) said that a good book is 'one that conveys a message well even if it isn't enjoyable. E.g., 1984 conveys political messages very well although it is very grim.' He said 'good weather' is 'weather that suits our needs. It differs from time to time and place to place.' He defined 'good' as '(a) Not sinful or bad or (b) to suit our needs.'

I asked 'Which of the following words are "relative terms": red, beautiful, fascinating, ridiculous, mountainous, urban?' Peter said that 'red' is 'something that is the same for all' but the other words 'can be defined differently and at different scales.'

Matthew (9) said that people invented writing 'so they could talk to each other without speaking.' His reply to 'How did people invent writing?' was 'with a great deal of difficulty.'

Alexandra (9) thought that pictures, music and mathematical calculation can be 'better than better'. (I think she meant there is no limit to the possible 'goodness' of these productions.

Rachel (12) said that some people are more powerful than others: 'E.g., John Howard compared with a hot dog seller.'

Peter (14) said that it is not wrong to want to own a great deal of money 'as long as you don't use it for selfish purposes if you get it'. He answered 'Why were silver and gold used as money?' by 'because they were rare and therefore valuable'. He said that whales' teeth were used as money in Fiji 'because they were rare and couldn't be forged'. He explained that we use money because 'it is more convenient than carrying food and clothing around everywhere as a form of trade.'

All the children who answered a set of questions on the meaning of "good" predicted that a "good book" and "good weather" are relative to the person making the judgement. They did, however give a non-relative definition of a "good friend", the usual answer being that it is one whom 'you can trust'. I asked 'If I say a certain program is interesting, am I telling you something about the program, or something about myself?' Allison (10) wrote 'Something about yourself' but some thought 'Both.'

I asked 'Which of the following words are "relative terms": Red, beautiful, fascinating, ridiculous, mountainous, urban?' One child said that even "red" can be variously interpreted. Several pointed out that what people regard as a mountain could depend on where they lived, and one (aged 12) said that an Armidale resident might think Armidale urban whereas someone who knew Mexico City would not.

One of my questions was 'A father says his twelve-year-old son is badly dressed. The son says he is well dressed. Which of them is right?' I followed this with 'What is the son wearing?' The children all said that both were right. Richard (12) replied to the second question '... the father was brought up to wear suits and the boy obviously doesn't like them, and seeing that the fashion today is torn jeans and T-shirts the boy is likely to be wearing them.' Paula (10) wrote 'It's up to your imagination for that. If you are on the father's side you would think of something that looks terrible. If you are on the son's side then you would think of something respectable.'

Peter (14) said that we can teach children 'logic and knowledge but not intelligence'. Kathleen (14), discussing 'Can you control what you think?' commented that 'time gives you you. You're a different mixture from one moment to the next.' We don't have 'complete random control'. Kathleen, in the course of the conversation, asked 'If you were a kind of ghost and had never had sense-data would you know anything?' She also asked what philosophy 'actually is'. In answering the question 'Can we teach children how to think?' she said that 'part of the children is part of us' and that the difference between animals and humans is that we can be 'more than what our parents gave us'.

Matthew (9) was the only child who said it is wrong to want to own a great deal of money. He wrote 'It's greedy unless you work for it.' Kathryn (12) said 'It depends on what you want if for. Eg, if you wanted to adopt a child it would be all right, but if you wanted it to hire an assassin then it would be wrong.'

Robin (10) and her sister Amy (8) both replied to the question about the possibility of social equality by saying it would be possible if people were 'equal in different ways'.

Kim (7), sending his answers by post, replied to 'Are civilised people better than uncivilised people?' by 'No, civilised people have destroyed a lot of the earth and people.' His answer to 'What is civilisation?' was 'Is there really such a thing?' He thought people became civilised 'By thinking they were'. Laws began when 'some people tried to stop others being hurt'. We 'need some sort' of government. People become more powerful than others 'because they are respected and because they think about community things - like keeping the tribe safe' and because 'people believe in them'. It would not be possible to have a society in which everyone was equal 'because they couldn't remove existing structures like government. 'Social equality' he defined as 'having the same amount of power as others'.

Robin (11) wrote that some people can know the future 'like magic people and wizards'. They do this 'by special powers'. She thought we cannot teach children to think: 'They think by instinct.'

Amy (8) replied to 'What is a good book?' by 'Dr Seuss books'. Good weather is 'When the weather suits what you are doing' and good rain 'when you need it'. Her answer to 'What is a good friend?' was 'A mum.' The question 'A father says his twelve-year-old son is badly dressed. The son says he is well dressed. Which of them is right?' she answered by 'The son is. He likes what he is wearing.' Her reply to 'What is the son wearing?' was 'What his friends are wearing.' She said that if I say a certain program is interesting I am telling something about myself, not something about the program.

 

 

TalentEd No. 55, Spring 1996

Robin (11) defined communication as 'a way of passing feelings'.

Kathleen (14) solved the Lewis Carroll logic puzzle: 'What conclusion follows from these statements:

(a) Babies are illogical;

(b) Nobody is despised who can manage crocodiles;

(c) Illogical persons are despised?'

The expected conclusion is 'Babies can't manage crocodiles.' Meaghan (12) suggested 'People who can manage crocodiles are not illogical', which, I think, is correct.

Kathleen (14) said that right and wrong are determined by (in order of importance): (1) each person by himself or herself; (2) custom; (3) parents; (4) religion; (5) law. She did not classify the other item in my lists, schools, on the ground that schools derived their standards from parents and religion. She said it is right to disobey parents if their instructions infringe 'natural law'.

Peter (14) said it is wrong to murder, steal, lie, because all of these harm others. Anything that does not hurt others, or that helps others, is good. He said that all major religions 'give the same type of requests'. He thought that most schools teach what is right and wrong, 'but some military schools teach otherwise'.

Paula (10) did not commit herself on 'How do you know what things are right and wrong?' because 'some people think that some things are right and some people might disagree.' To the question about whether she would believe the teacher or a boy if they disagreed about whether something is right she answered: 'I wouldn't believe either one of them unless I really know what the argument was all about.' It might be right to disobey the law - 'it might be totally unreasonable.'

Rachael (12) would believe the teacher rather than the boy because 'they're more rational and are more experienced, whereas the boy was probably just angry and embarrassed.' Law should be obeyed because 'Law-making goes through a long process and lots of wise people read the law before it actually becomes one, so it is usually fair.' Her answer to 'How did people come to believe some things on right and other wrong?' was 'By people not liking things, and others not liking things too, so it gradually becomes wrong, or right if they do like it.'

Meaghan (12) said, in answer to 'Is it ever right to disobey parents?', 'I'd personally never disobey my parents on purpose, but I suppose it would depend on what type of parents I had. Some parents aren't very nice. They might come home drunk and ask you to get them a bottle of pills that might kill them if they had too many.' She said 'It would be right for Mum to smack me, but it wouldn't be right for me to smack Mum!!!'

Alison (10) said people come to believe some things are right and others wrong through 'Legends, parents, and just knowing things.'

Millicent (15) answered 'Should everyone in the world be educated?' by 'Yes. I think if everyone in the world knew what drift-net fishing could do, or what it is like inside a mental asylum, they would be a lot more sympathetic and less hypocritical.'

Several of the high school students pointed out that people learn all the time. 'You can't help learning new things everyday.' They all replied 'Yes' to 'If everyone had the same amount of education would there be any expert eye doctors?' 'Education may be in the same amount but it may be specialised in different fields.'

Kathleen (14) said 'We know time exists because Nature is not completely chaotic. And because the earth moves around the sun ... it is any regular or regulating part of the world or nature (eg, a life span).' Memory is 'when a living being takes a piece of his world and collects it in his brain, so that it can influence the future.' She thought that 'we know without memory that we exist.'

Peter (14) thought that perhaps time can go backwards 'because it can be distorted'. He explained that this is a reference to Einstein and relativity. Space is 'the medium in which time exists and things change.'

Meaghan (12) thought that 'memory is something that captures times from the past inside your brain, so that you can think of them.'

Kathryn (12) replied to 'Who is the most powerful person in an aeroplane?' by 'The captain (or the hijacker!).' She thought that rich people are more powerful than poor people, and that clever people are powerful.

Kathleen (14) said that rich people are more powerful than poor people and that 'poor people are poor because money is powerful.' She replied to 'Who is the most powerful person in Armidale?' by 'In the process of Armidale all energy flows through the mayor.'

Peter (14) said 'Power is the ability to have one's own way without doing it oneself, but rather have others do it for you.' He thought that girls have more power at school than boys: 'Teachers fancy girls more and so they get away with things that the boys would not. This gives them more freedom and power.'

Millicent's (15) answer to 'Who is the most powerful person in a school?' was 'In terms of decisions the principal of the school is responsible for a lot and may be considered powerful. But the principals wouldn't be worth anything if they didn't have a school and students.' 'In a hospital everyone is reliant on someone else, right down to the people who produce the cotton for the sheets.' 'In most (sporting) team situations a game can only be won if each member accepts that they are all of equal power - no-one has more power than anyone else.'

'In a school, are boys more powerful than girls?' 'No - a boy may be able to hurt a girl more because he is stereotypically stronger but that is in a situation that only includes two people. If there were three girls and one boy in a conflicting situation who would overcome who? If we are talking about a classroom situation the teacher's position and bias has a lot to do with whether it is the female or male who is more powerful.'

Jenny (15) said that power is 'the ability to influence other people and have your opinion heard in either a good or a bad way.'

Robin (11) thought that we know that time exists 'because we are in time and are carried along by it.' Time is 'a form of present or past. You can feel when time passes.' If we had no memory we would not know anything - 'we would be like stone statues.' Animals have memory - 'they are similar to us.'

Emma (9) said we know time exists 'by things changing.' Time is 'the thing that makes things move and have life.'

Robin (11) answered 'Do we think when we are asleep?' by 'Yes. Our unconscious thinks and churns away while we are asleep so we have dreams.' She thought it impossible to stop thinking while we are awake: 'Sometimes thinking that we are not thinking.' She said it is possible to think of 'impossible things': 'It is impossible to count all the numbers in the universe'.

Ross (7), working unaided for the first time, replied to 'Is it possible to stop thinking while we are awake?' by 'Yes, because we could die.' His example of an 'impossible thing' was 'Your teacher sending you home.'

Jenny (15) said it is possible to imagine impossible things, such as 'standing on the moon looking for a public phone box.' Her answer to 'Is it possible for a clock to strike less than once?' was 'Short of owning a clock that doesn't strike at all, I don't think so. Just out of interest, though, if you were to place a clock in front of the mirror and let it chime once, would it be chiming -1 times on the other side of the glass (since it would be a mirror image)?'

Allyson (10) wrote 'I think minds and thoughts are pretty much intertwined - however a brain is another thing.' She said we think when we are asleep because 'I think, therefore I am - if we did not think while we are asleep we would cease to exist.' (This argument is invalid.)

Peter (15) said that 'Your mind generates your thoughts which your brain perceives. Your brain is like the chips in a computer and your mind is what goes into and comes out of the chips. It is not an object as such, but rather your consciousness and thoughts and perceptions.'

©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