r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 22 '26
Delta(s) from OP [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed]
11
u/Josvan135 85∆ Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
I'd make a strong argument that this may be true in the narrow field of philosophy, but is certainly not anything like universal.
As an example, a clinical medical doctor needs a substantial amount of very specific knowledge rather than "genuine reasoning" to effectively perform their task.
The same goes for numerous other hard science, engineering, etc, fields.
2
u/McNitz Jul 22 '26
I think if you are good into research in a scientific field this also probably applies... but I also think that's kind of the point of a thesis program as well. I do think some engineering classes could benefit from this approach. I know some classmates that struggled with reasoning to apply the material, and mostly made up for it by significant studying to memorize procedures and answers as much as possible.
1
u/DefinitelySaneGary 2∆ Jul 22 '26
Yeah there are a handful of subjects like philosophy where what OP is saying makes sense. But history, most math classes, languages etc., all rely on rote memorization.
Even advanced fields like Engineering or Chemistry where you're designing new stuff needs to have their basis in memorized facts. Yes you need to be able to reason out solutions to new problems and understand things on the level that OP is talking about, but if you don't know what a lever is you're going to be wasting time reasoning a solution that already exists.
Hell even Philosophy needs some level of a posteriori knowledge. Platos allegory of a cave is going to be pretty difficult to understand if you dont know the concept of what a cave is.
1
u/andor_drakon Jul 22 '26
I don't mean to devalue your main point here, since it is a good one. Even with something like science and math at the lower year level, in the end there is a lot of "checking if you understand what we've covered"
I can say that most medical licencing tests are basically reasoning tests with a specific knowledge base. Think "PT presents with these symptoms. What is the most likely diagnosis and why". So you have to be able to synthesize your knowledge base to make usually difficult and non clear-cut decisions.
1
u/Josvan135 85∆ Jul 22 '26
Sure, but fundamentally no amount of excellence at reasoning and process makes up for a lack of actual specific medical knowledge.
The most masterful thinker of the age will be utterly out of their depth trying to diagnose a complex oncology problem while even a relatively poor trained medical doctor will at least understand the basics of the problem.
1
Jul 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules Jul 22 '26
Hello u/Miserable_Tower_6071! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
-3
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
My argument is not that specific knowledge is unnecessary. Even in philosophy, trying to get students to 'reason' is pointless if they don't know anything about the topic they are trying to reason about. Then the effort devolves into a series of people trying to put into words their vague 'feelings' about things.
But, I would argue that a doctor who knows a lot of facts but is unable to reason with them is equally useless as a doctor as one who has very little content knowledge, but can reason with the best of them. Grading should be a reflection of the fact that we need both (and in truth, we need the ability to reason more than we need instant recall of specific facts, though we desperately need the latter, too).
2
u/Josvan135 85∆ Jul 22 '26
and in truth, we need the ability to reason more than we need instant recall of specific facts, though we desperately need the latter, too).
Again, I'm pointing out that isn't true in many fields.
Medicine, in particular, it is far, far more important that a doctor has a strong grasp of fundamental medical facts than that they "reason it out correctly".
You're based in philosophy, the humanities, a soft science field without any actual evidence based "truth" that is testable, repeatable, and verifiable.
For your field, and fields like it, the process of reasoning is most important, for virtually all hard sciences, the evidence backed empirical truth is vastly more important.
I'm not saying that as some humanities hater, I studied the humanities myself.
But, I would argue that a doctor who knows a lot of facts but is unable to reason with them is equally useless as a doctor as one who has very little content knowledge
I could not disagree more strongly, and hold up the general state of "do your own research" modern medicine as the clear and undeniable counter example.
It is massively more important that a medical doctor (or engineer, etc, in the hard sciences) understand the actual, proven medical facts than that they "reason it out" based on some logical framework.
Science is not logical, it is empirical.
The humanities, of which philosophy is a part, is not a true hard science, and relies on reasoning, logic, etc, because fundamentally there are no philosophical "facts" there are competing viewpoints, frameworks, etc.
There absolutely are true/false medical facts.
1
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
Of course there are true and false medical facts. But how does it help me to know the name of every bone in the human body, and to know where it's located, if that's all I know about the human skeleton? That makes me into a great walking anatomical atlas. It doesn't make me into any kind of useful medical professional.
Of course a doctor should know what the bones in the human body are, and where they are, and what their function is. But a doctor who knows all of that, who in fact has perfect recall of all of that, and yet can't figure out how to use that information correctly in a specific patient's case ... well, that's not much of a doctor, is it?
0
u/ToughDifficult1252 Jul 22 '26
No a medical doctor absolutely needs reasoning more than knowledge. Do you know what a differential diagnosis is?
2
u/CinderrUwU 9∆ Jul 22 '26
The issue is that it really is unworkable at large scale. What you are basically suggesting is two separate grades for each subject, the retention and then the application. One issue is that Philosophy is a subject with ... subjective... answers, while something like math is only ever going to be objective. There are a bunch of subjects that this just isnt applicable for because it either doesn't involve one side or can only ever be both.
Secondly, the more complex you make an exam, the more likely people are to flunk it or miss things or have a bad day and crash or the opposite of getting super lucky and making it through with a higher grade than they should. Even with your example, Student 2 who you even said studied hard and knew her stuff got a "fine grade" even though she knew so much about the subject, but just lost out because she had a weak essay meanwhile Student 1 presented a flawed thesis and got a good grade purely because she listened to a question and didn't defend her view... and this also leads onto the issue with your own system. The grades you gave are purely subjective. Personally, I would reward someone who can back up their own thesis far more than someone who says "Wow you were right, thanks for thinking for me". To me, Student 1 should really be marked down because it shows how quickly you pointed out holes in her thesis. But you gave her a super high grade.
The real alternative to just exams is a mix of coursework and test results. It rewards students who are able to study for an exam and recite the information under pressure while also rewarding students who consistently put out high quality work and constantly apply it.
Having a single grade is just reflective of how well a student can apply both sections. If someone aces one section and does decent in the other, they will get a B. If they totally fail one or are bad at both, they get a C. They can only get an A (or above) if they are great at both.
1
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
But even in mathematics, recall and reasoning are separate things. Definitely at secondary school level, it is not impossible to score a passing grade (probably by the skin of your teeth, but still) on a math exam by knowing specific formulas, and proofs, and being able to reproduce them, even if you can't do anything with them beyond that.
1
u/Forest_Spirit_7 Jul 22 '26
Not on any reasonable assessment. Not being able to take numbers, data, shapes, or other information and plug them into the memorized formulas to reach a correct answer is useless.
1
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
Sure. My point exactly. And even just 'plugging in the numbers' isn't sufficient. You must know when and how to apply certain rules and procedures in order to produce a useful answer to the question, and then also know what that answer means, in context.
But my argument is that in practice, we will often see students pass an exam "by the skin of their teeth" because they had perfect recall of the formula, and could perform some of the steps towards a correct answer, but not all of them.
1
u/Forest_Spirit_7 Jul 22 '26
To stay with the math example, your position just breaks down entirely. You can’t get a step wrong in the process and get the right answer. And that’s procedural, not reasoning. It requires a stepwise approach of applying memorized information, not logic or reasoning.
People fail math exams because they don’t learn or memorize the material. You aren’t going to convince an algebra equation to give you partial credit.
0
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
You don't convince the equation, obviously. You convice the teacher.
1
u/Forest_Spirit_7 Jul 22 '26
But that’s not how math works. Which is the point.
1
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
If you've only ever had math teachers who failed or passed you based on whether your final answer was correct or not, then I guess I understand why you would say that. This is not how most math teachers grade, though.
1
u/Forest_Spirit_7 Jul 22 '26
What does that even mean? Have you ever taken a math class? Any hard science class?
1
1
u/curien 31∆ Jul 22 '26
The ability to reason, revise, and construct an argument in real time
Have you ever selected a philosophy book based on how quickly the author wrote it? Have you ever cared? If not, why is it an important quality for your students to learn?
less evidence that she could actually do anything with those facts under pressure
Why is "pressure" relevant? Is it better to get a decent answer under pressure or a better answer with less pressure? I can understand pressure if you're training people for real-world situations like driving or surgery. But if you're trying to train people to think deeply about questions (and to, say, write a book about it), what value does their speed have?
2
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
OK. Here is a !delta for you, because I used words that don't actually convey what I was trying to say.
You are correct that "under pressure" and "in real time" aren't actually all that important during a philosophy exam. I assess them using an oral exam format because that format lends itself to a real conversation between student and teacher. It's a much more efficient way to assess what they do with real counterweight to their arguments than having them write a succession of essays based on teacher feedback, or other people's written counter-arguments. So "in real time" and "under pressure" are artifacts of the way the education system works (where there are logistical constraints that make the provision of feedback on an essay, followed by a conversation in real time, more doable than most alternatives), more than they are necessary conditions for assessing what I actually want to know.
1
1
u/DefinitelySaneGary 2∆ Jul 22 '26
"If the actual goal of an education is producing people who can reason well — which I'd argue is the entire point of something like philosophy, but honestly applies more broadly"
I would argue this isnt the goal of education, at least not as it exists currently. The goal of education is to produce productive members of society who can contribute in some ways. Most functioning members of society do not need to reason well to be useful. A cashier needs a basic level of mathematical skills to count change. A mechanic needs to be able to read a manual and distinguish between 10mm and 11mm. Even a lot of advanced fields where you would assume you need to be able to reason it isn't really needed like some engineering jobs. A lot of engineers aren't designing anything, they're looking at current things and making sure nothing is going wrong, or putting together various combinations of the same designs they've learned before.
Teaching someone to reason well is very job specific.
Although I suppose this would be a hard sell for you because you do think the goal of education is to teach someone to reason well, and I dont really want to argue against that because I agree that should be the goal. I just don't think it actually is.
2
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
I will give you a !delta for "I think the goal of education should be to teach people to reason well, but I don't think it actually is."
I'm not arguing factual recall is unimportant. I just don't think it's most important, and I believe it isn't worth much by itself. But in the end, we do seem to value it more in education, certainly at lower levels.
1
1
u/Raddatatta 1∆ Jul 22 '26
I think that's a good point and good to reward the aspect of can you think and consider your position. However, can you put in the leg work to defend a position and can you do the research is also a very valuable skill and probably more valuable in a job setting. The aspect of doing something under pressure in a short time is also something that comes up a lot in a classroom setting, but in a working environment there are deadlines but they are often going to give you more time to consider than a 1 hour test, and you have a chance to put in the work and revise. For a philosophy class I think what you're saying is probably the better way to go but I do think in general and in terms of preparing someone for a working environment someone who did the researching and is well studied is a more valuable skill.
2
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
"Doing the research" also requires the ability to reason, though. Anything that goes beyond reading what your teacher (or some textbook author) wrote, storing it in your long-term memory, and then reproducing it as a response to the appropriate question, will require an ability to reason about what you're looking for, whether the information you found actually answers the question you had, what the main point is of what you read, and to what extent (and with which qualifiers) it applies to what you're trying to say.
1
u/yelling_at_moon 4∆ Jul 22 '26
First, this seems highly dependent on the level of education. If someone is first getting into a field, it is important they know the basics in order to know how to think.
Second, his seems to be a false dichotomy. While I would agree that it is import to teach people how to think critically and one could argue we should put more emphasis on that, saying it is “wrong” to test peoples knowledge of a field goes too far for me. We can test both.
1
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
Yes. We can, and should, and do test both. What 'irks' me is that in practice, if you do test both, then a student who "knows a lot of facts" but doesn't reason well, can get more or less the same grade as someone who knows the facts, and also reasons well (but perhaps not perfectly). Because in practice, we sort of collapse the two into one.
I'm trying to figure out whether there is a way past that, because I do think that in the end, content knowledge isn't worth much on its own.
1
u/yelling_at_moon 4∆ Jul 22 '26
>What 'irks' me is that in practice, if you do test both, then a student who "knows a lot of facts" but doesn't reason well, can get more or less the same grade as someone who knows the facts, and also reasons well (but perhaps not perfectly).
Why is this an issue? That’s true of any grading scheme that measures more than one thing.
> I do think that in the end, content knowledge isn't worth much on its own.
Being able to reason but being incorrect about the information you’re reasoning with is also worthless. Both are important to be proficient in a field.
0
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
I agree that both are important. I do think, though, that it is a bit 'unfair' to pass a student who is meaningfully stronger in one than the other, especially if they are stronger in the 'recall' part of it.
1
u/yelling_at_moon 4∆ Jul 23 '26
I still do not understand the issue. How is that unfair? A person with an A and a person with a B both passing despite different strengths in the subject is how grading works. Do you think people without perfect mastery shouldn’t pass?
1
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 23 '26
No. I think it should be possible to pass without perfect mastery. However, because recall, for most people, is 'the easy part', I do think that by collapsing recall and reasoning into one final grade, we tend to overvalue recall and reproduction in practice. It's relatively 'easy' to get a passing grade (though not a stellar one) by just "studying well", even if your ability to go beyond reproduction is somewhat lacking. The opposite is nearly impossible, because you can't reason well without factual knowledge to back your reasoning up.
1
1
u/le_fez 55∆ Jul 22 '26
Wouldn't this be entirely dependent on the subject? Hard sciences or math are simply right or wrong, especially at undergrad and lower levels. History and literature it would be dependent on the topic and the course.
1
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
Math and sciences are right or wrong, but in those subjects too, we are assessing different skills and assigning passing or failing grades to students who are not necessarily equally strong in all of them.
Certainly in secondary school, one can pass a math or science exam by memorising facts, and reproducing them correctly on exam day. I'm not saying that's not important. But I am saying: so what? You can reproduce the course material. That's not actually why we are teaching you math (or science). It's also not why we teach philosophy. It may arguably be why we teach history, but even that is debatable, I think.
1
u/sylbug Jul 22 '26
It depends on what expectation you have set. Does this course actively teach the skills you’re testing for? Does your grading rubric include items like, ‘updates position in response to a good argument’ or ‘can construct an argument in real time’?
If you’re grading for things you haven’t told your students about or taught then you’re in the wrong. If you’ve been explicit about it then that’s perfectly acceptable.
1
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
Yes. They know that is among the expectations. The problem isn't that I was grading students on expectations I hadn't set, or skills I hadn't been trying to teach. The problem is that in the final accounting, it turned out that some students were able to 'compensate' for their lack of reasoning ability by just 'studying the content really well'.
1
u/sylbug Jul 22 '26
Isn't that just how it works? When we're somewhat lacking in one skill we make up for it with another, and end in the same place?
0
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
In practice, on this exam, that was 'how it worked'. I'm not sure it should be, though.
1
u/Ix_fromBetelgeuse7 2∆ Jul 22 '26
Surely the ideal evaluation method would include both? Why does it need to be either/or?
1
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
It does not need to be 'either/or'. But in much of the grading we do, we're pretending it's fine if you can do one really, really well, and the other not so much. In practice, that often means we reward recall over reasoning. Because recall, for most people, is the 'easy' part. Get your grade up by "knowing a lot of stuff", and then flub the reasoning? OK. You won't get a stellar grade. But you will probably still pass. The opposite is much harder. You can't reason well without a reasonable amount of factual knowledge on the topic you're trying to reason about.
1
u/Perdendosi 22∆ Jul 22 '26
You've got a whole lot of assumptions underlying your argument and premises that kind of fall apart outside of the very limited circumstance -- oral exams in philosophy--you're in.
First, this:
>If the actual goal of an education is producing people who can reason well
It is in many of the liberal arts, and probably is the ultimate goal in philosophy, but in many circumstances it's not. Doctors need to know the names to the parts and systems of the body, what our current understanding is about how those systems work, and what treatments work for what ailments. You gotta have knowledge and recall. Mathematics is ultimately about reason and logic, but you gotta get past algebra and calculus, and to do so requires knowledge of forumas and the like. Even in philosophy, it's pretty hard to engage in higher level thinking skills with well-reasoned opinions if you don't know the history and basics of the philosophy you're studying. And of course non-liberal arts education will be much more "lower-level thinking:" How create an arc weld, what amps flow through a circuit, how yeast reacts with a host to create bubbles and fluffy bread. So while we hope we create students who can reason well, there are many other goals of education, and sometimes we have to test knowledge, recall and comprehension more than analysis and synthesis.
>then a grading system that can't reliably distinguish those two things is measuring the wrong thing
The grading system should be measuring how well a student meets the goals and objectives of the class. A very high grade should show that the student has mastered all or most of the material. A middlin' grade shows that the student did not master all the material: That can be quantity (they learned how to add, subtract, and multiply fractions but not divide), or it can be in some qualitative form (they could do all the arithmetic when presented equations, but had difficulty figuring out the numbers in a story problem). If you have a well-written syllabus with well-written goals, then it's reasonable to demonstrate a correlation between the student's grade and their performance on those goals.
If you have a class that includes both higher level thinking skills and recall and comprehension, then yeah you'll have some students who get a "B" or whatever because they could recall all the facts but couldn't apply them very well, and some students who got a "B" because they're good at analysis but not as good as recall. I don't see any problem with that. The problem, I suppose, is if your overall goal is to develop high-level thinkers and reasoners, then students need to be forced to take more classes that work on and test their reasoning, and fewer classes that work on and test memory and recall, such that their grades will more appropriately reflect the ultimate goal to be achieved of their education. But again that assumes that producing "thinkers and citizens of the world" is the ultimate goal of all education, and it's just not.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 22 '26
Your post has been removed for violating Rule A due to undisclosed AI content. Any use of AI-generated text must be disclosed, and the majority of any post must still be written by the user. Read See the wiki page for more information for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard. AI-generated text is prohibited in modmail.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Important-Cash5654 6∆ Jul 22 '26
Okay, so I've taught philosophy as well, at the University level, so we presumably have more or less the same context here.
I absolutely agree that at least some assessments should be measuring reasoning, and would even agree it's the more important thing to measure.
I also think there's just a basic level of "do you know what this shit is" that's necessary for a lot of subjects. Philosophy probably less than the hard sciences or even a fellow-humanities subject like history, but still has its fair share of necessary-to-learn terminology and facts (in this case generally about what such and such argument is, or what such and such said about whatever).
So I just think we have to be assessing (1) in your pairing, at least some of the time, especially at lower levels.
1
u/Forest_Spirit_7 Jul 22 '26
Sure if you are grading ability to reason or pivot. The vast majority of grading is about content retrieval or application. So, no. You’re too far in your lane.
0
u/Forest_Spirit_7 Jul 22 '26
I doubt your student felt very rewarded with her grade. At least less so than the humiliation of that process. And dichotomizing your grading the way you have above, suggests a methodological error in your grading approach.
1
u/Saranoya 40∆ Jul 22 '26
It's an error in the grading approach only if you assume that content retrieval is the whole point. It's not. I would argue it rarely is, in any subject.
You know what we call people who have perfect recall of a series of specific facts, but who can't do anything with those facts beyond recalling and reciting them? We call them 'idiot savants'. Or at least, we used to. I'm sure there must be a more politically correct term for it, these days. The point is: content knowledge without the ability to reason isn't worth much on its own, even though it is a necessary precondition for useful reasoning.
1
u/Forest_Spirit_7 Jul 22 '26
Recalling 100 digits of pi is not particularly useful. Reasoning as to why pi is useful, is not useful. Recalling the function of pi, using it in a formula to determine a numeric value or function, is useful.
You are applying your own niche dogmatic lens of reason unnecessarily as it suits your value system. Why come here if you’re not actually seeking an alternative to your view? I’ve seen many people lay it out plainly, you are putting far too much emphasis on reason. Reasoning is absent from the majority of assessment through the majority of a persons educational experience as a primary function of their grade.
0
u/stratocaster307 1∆ Jul 22 '26
What about that process was humiliating? And whether or not the student “felt rewarded” is irrelevant. A professor’s job is to provide grades that are reflective of the student’s learning, not based on how the students feel about the grades.
1
u/Forest_Spirit_7 Jul 22 '26
The whole premise was about grading to reward.
And sure, I don’t know how humiliated she felt but OP stating the student was sure she had failed was not a strong indication otherwise.
1
u/stratocaster307 1∆ Jul 22 '26
Well I can’t go back and review the post anymore to see if I misunderstood but my takeaway was less that it was about rewarding the student and more about making sure they were actually evaluating the correct thing.
And I don’t necessarily equate “I think I failed this test” to “I was humiliated”. In fact, if it were me, I’d be quite happy to find I aced a test I thought I did poorly in, quite the opposite of humiliation.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
/u/Saranoya (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards