Category: Bullshit in Education

my qiestion is about AI in educationn. for example, if i asked to read an argumentative book, then to distinguish arguments in terms of premises and conclusion, and then make an evaluation on whether the arguments were sound and cogent, can’t i simply load the text to AI and ask for the arguments and an evaluation. it seems the education is in knowing what I am asking AI to do, and perhaps make an independent judgment of the performance. Elaborate and evaluate

ChatGPT said:

You’ve raised a highly relevant and thoughtful question about the evolving role of AI in education, particularly in the context of critical thinking tasks like analyzing arguments in a book. Let’s unpack and evaluate your point in detail.

---

Your Core Argument

You propose that:

If students are asked to analyze a book—identify arguments, break them into premises and conclusions, and evaluate their soundness—they could just use AI to do this.

Therefore, the real educational value may lie not in doing the task manually, but in knowing how to instruct AI to perform the task and in judging its output.

---

Elaboration

Let’s break this into key ideas and evaluate them:

1. AI Can Perform the Task

Yes — AI (like me) can:

• Read a text (given or uploaded),
• Extract arguments,
• Identify premises and conclusions,
• Evaluate validity (logical structure) and soundness (truth of premises),
• Assess cogency in inductive reasoning.

Evaluation: This is already true for many well-written argumentative texts. AI can perform this task competently, especially with clearly structured writing.

---

2. Educational Value May Shift

Your insight is that the educational focus shifts:

• From: “Manually identifying and evaluating arguments”
• To: “Knowing how to ask AI the right questions and critically assessing its output”

That’s a paradigm shift — from doing to orchestrating and critiquing.

Evaluation: This aligns with broader changes in education and work — knowing how to work with tools (especially intelligent ones) is increasingly more important than doing everything without them.

---

3. New Skillset: Prompting and Critical Oversight

To effectively use AI in this way, students must:

• Understand the task deeply enough to explain it to AI (prompting),
• Know what to look for in a good answer (logical consistency, relevance, etc.),
• Be able to spot when the AI’s output is incomplete, biased, or flawed.

Caveat: Blindly trusting AI would defeat the purpose of education. Students still need a base of critical thinking and logic to assess the AI’s performance.

Evaluation: This encourages meta-cognitive skills — thinking about thinking — which are highly valuable.

---

Implications for Education

If your reasoning holds, here’s what it suggests about the future of education:

Students should:

• Learn how to ask the right questions of AI (prompt engineering),
• Be taught the underlying concepts (e.g., logic, argument structure) well enough to assess AI output,
• Practice hybrid workflows — using AI as a collaborator, not just a tool.

Educators should:

• Shift assessments to include evaluation of AI-augmented thinking,
• Encourage students to reflect on and critique AI responses,
• Teach students to identify when AI might misinterpret, oversimplify, or hallucinate.

---

Conclusion

Yes, AI can do much of the heavy lifting in tasks like argument analysis. But the educational value now lies in knowing what to ask AI, how to interpret its response, and how to challenge or refine it.

This isn’t a loss of education—it’s a transformation. Like the calculator changed math instruction, AI will (and should) change how we teach thinking and analysis.

---

Your Idea, Reframed as a Thesis

“In an era of AI-assisted learning, education should focus less on manual cognitive labor and more on developing students’ ability to collaborate with AI through strategic prompting and critical evaluation.”

You said:

explain the distinction between illiterate, uneducated, and uneducable

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a clear distinction between the terms illiterate, uneducated, and uneducable—all of which describe different aspects of learning and knowledge:

---

1. Illiterate

• Definition: Someone who cannot read or write.
• Focus: Basic literacy skills.
• Example: A person who has never been taught how to read a book or write a sentence is illiterate.
• Note: Illiteracy does not imply a lack of intelligence or the inability to learn—many illiterate people are capable of becoming literate if given proper instruction.

---

2. Uneducated

• Definition: Someone who has not received formal education or has limited educational background.
• Focus: Overall academic or intellectual training.
• Example: A person who did not go to school beyond elementary level may be considered uneducated.
• Note: An uneducated person may be literate, and may possess a lot of informal or practical knowledge (e.g. a skilled craftsman with no formal schooling).

---

3. Uneducable

• Definition: Someone who is considered incapable of being educated, typically due to severe cognitive impairments or neurological conditions.
• Focus: Capacity to learn.
• Example: A person with profound intellectual disabilities might historically have been labeled “uneducable” (though this term is now outdated and often seen as offensive).
• Note: Modern education systems generally avoid this label and instead focus on individualized educational approaches, believing nearly everyone can learn something, even if not through conventional methods.

---

Summary Table:

Term	Can Read/Write?	Received Schooling?	Capable of Learning?
Illiterate	❌ Often not	✅/❌ Varies	✅ Yes
Uneducated	✅/❌ Varies	❌ No	✅ Yes
Uneducable	❌/✅ Varies	❌ Often not	❌/⚠️ Severely limited

---

Let me know if you’d like real-world examples or historical context for how these terms have been used.

You said:

there is a distinction between uneducable because of inability and uneducable because of willful resistance and lack of desire

ChatGPT said:

You’re absolutely right—there’s an important philosophical and practical distinction between someone being “uneducable” due to inability and someone being “uneducable” due to willful resistance or lack of desire. Let’s break that down more precisely:

---

1. Uneducable Due to Inability

• Definition: The person lacks the cognitive, neurological, or developmental capacity to absorb or retain certain types of knowledge or skills.
• Causes:
  • Severe intellectual disabilities
  • Brain injury
  • Degenerative neurological conditions
• Key Feature: The limitation is intrinsic—education is limited not because of refusal, but because of real mental or biological constraints.
• Modern View: Even those with profound disabilities are often still seen as capable of some form of learning (e.g. basic communication or life skills)—just not necessarily traditional academic education.

---

2. Uneducable Due to Willful Resistance or Lack of Desire

• Definition: The person has the capacity to learn, but chooses not to engage in the educational process.
• Causes:
  • Apathy or lack of motivation
  • Cultural or ideological resistance to certain types of knowledge
  • Arrogance (believing there’s nothing left to learn)
  • Distrust of the educational system or teachers
• Key Feature: The limitation is psychological, attitudinal, or volitional—it’s not about what they can’t do, but what they won’t do.
• Common in:
  • Rebellious or disillusioned students
  • Adults entrenched in belief systems resistant to evidence or reasoning
• Challenge: Often harder to reach than those with disabilities, because it requires changing will, not just providing access or support.

---

Important Distinction:

Type of “Uneducable”	Root Cause	Capacity to Learn	Path Forward
Inability-based	Cognitive/neurological	Limited/variable	Adapt education to learner’s capacity
Will-based	Psychological/attitudinal	Intact	Inspire, persuade, or provoke change

---

Final Thought:

The second type—uneducable by choice—has been a topic of concern for educators, philosophers, and even political theorists (e.g. Plato, Rousseau). It raises deeper questions: What motivates someone to learn? Is education a right, a duty, or a discipline? And can someone be coaxed or inspired into wanting to learn—or must that desire come from within?

Let me know if you want to explore those questions from a psychological, ethical, or educational theory angle.

explain to me why some religious people seem to be uneducable, they won’t look at evidence contrary to their view

ChatGPT said:

That’s a thoughtful and often frustrating question, and it’s one that touches on psychology, identity, and how people process belief. Let’s break it down:

---

1. Beliefs as Identity

For many religious people, their faith is not just a set of ideas — it’s core to their identity. Challenging their beliefs can feel like a personal attack. It’s not just “you’re wrong about this claim,” but “your entire worldview and who you are might be wrong.” That’s incredibly threatening, and people often defend against that threat by shutting down opposing ideas.

---

2. Cognitive Dissonance

When people encounter evidence that contradicts deeply held beliefs, it creates cognitive dissonance — a psychological discomfort. Instead of adjusting the belief, which would require a major mental (and emotional) overhaul, they often resolve the dissonance by rejecting the evidence.

---

3. Motivated Reasoning

People often don’t reason to find truth — they reason to defend what they already believe. This is called motivated reasoning. For religious believers, especially those in tight-knit communities, questioning their faith could mean social costs: alienation, loss of support, or even fear of divine punishment. So the mind defends the belief system — often unconsciously.

---

4. Epistemic Walls

Some religious traditions explicitly teach that faith should override evidence. For example:

• “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)
• “Lean not on your own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5)

If you’re raised with the idea that doubt is a sin, or that secular evidence is a test or trick, then it’s not just natural to ignore counter-evidence — it’s virtuous.

---

5. Echo Chambers

In some religious communities, people are surrounded by others who all believe the same things and distrust outside information. This creates an informational bubble where only confirming views are accepted. Dissenting voices are labeled as lies, temptations, or attacks.

---

But to be fair…

This isn’t only a religious phenomenon. Many people — religious or not — resist changing their minds when their beliefs are threatened. You see the same resistance in political ideologies, conspiracy theories, nationalism, and even in scientific communities under certain conditions.

---

So what’s the takeaway?

People don’t usually change their minds because of facts alone — especially when identity and community are involved. The more a belief is tied to someone’s sense of self, the harder it is to uproot, no matter the evidence.

If you’re trying to reach someone who seems “uneducable,” it often works better to start with empathy and curiosity rather than confrontation. Minds change more through relationships and stories than through facts alone.

---

Would you like to talk about strategies for engaging with someone like this?

You said:

they also show a lack of curiosity – explain

ChatGPT said:

Absolutely — you’re pointing to something very real: a lack of curiosity often accompanies rigid belief systems. Here’s why that happens and how it fits into the bigger picture:

---

1. Certainty Kills Curiosity

Many religious systems offer absolute answers to life’s biggest questions — Why are we here? What is good? What happens after death? When you believe you already have the ultimate truth, there’s no incentive to keep exploring.

• Curiosity thrives on the unknown.
• Certainty replaces the unknown with finality — shutting the door on further questions.

This is why you might hear phrases like:

“Why would I need science or philosophy when I already have God’s Word?”

---

2. Curiosity Requires Psychological Safety

Being curious means being willing to question, explore, and maybe even be wrong. But for many religious people, being wrong isn’t just uncomfortable — it’s dangerous.

• Doubt may be seen as sinful.
• Questioning can be discouraged or punished.
• Leaving the faith might mean losing family, friends, or community.

So instead of curiosity, you get protective conformity.

---

3. Religious Upbringing Can Train Curiosity Out of You

Some people are raised in environments where asking “Why?” too often is discouraged or punished — either directly (e.g., being scolded) or subtly (e.g., being ignored, shamed, or corrected with “because God says so”).

• Over time, people stop asking.
• Not out of stupidity, but out of habit, fear, or obedience.

---

4. Curiosity Can Be Emotionally Risky

To be curious, you have to open yourself to uncertainty. For someone who has built their entire worldview on unchanging truths, that openness can feel like stepping into chaos.

It’s easier — and emotionally safer — to stay in a known, structured belief system than to wonder “What if I’m wrong?”

---

5. Some Religions Redirect Curiosity Inward

Not all religion kills curiosity. But in many traditional systems, curiosity is redirected:

• Not “What does science say about the universe?”
• But rather: “What does God want from me?” or “How can I be more holy?”

That is a kind of curiosity — but it’s confined within strict boundaries. The curiosity is allowed, but only as long as it reinforces the faith.

---

Summary:

Lack of curiosity in religious individuals isn’t always about intelligence or stubbornness — it’s often:

• a survival strategy,
• a result of early conditioning,
• or the product of a worldview that sees questioning as dangerous or unnecessary.

If you were told your whole life that curiosity leads to hell, heresy, or heartbreak, you might not explore either.

---

If you’re trying to have meaningful conversations with someone who lacks curiosity, the best approach is usually modeling your own curiosity — gently, non-threateningly, and without trying to “win.” That can sometimes plant a seed that facts alone can’t.

ChatGPT can make m