Illiterate Reading and Argumentation

**py3ak** · #1 (**permalink**) 08-24-2009, 08:35 PM

Dorothy Sayers, The Mind of the Maker (Preface)

Quote:

It is common knowledge among school-teachers that a high percentage of examination failures results from "not reading the question." The candidate presumably applies his eyes to the paper, but his answer shows that he is incapable of discovering by that process what the question is. This means that he is not only slovenly-minded but, in all except the most superficial sense, illiterate. Teachers further complain that they have no to spend a great deal of time and energy in teaching University students what questions to ask. This indicates that the young mind experiences great difficulty in disentangling the essence of a subject from its accidents; and it is disconcertingly evident, in discussions on the platform and in the press, that the majority of people never learn to overcome this difficulty. A third distressing phenomenon is the extreme unwillingness of the average questioner to listen to the answer—a phenomenon exhibited in exaggerated form by professional interviewers on the staffs of popular journals. It is a plain fact that ninety-nine interviews out of a hundred contain more or less subtle distortions of the answers given to questions, the questions being, moreover, in many cases, wrongly conceived for the purpose of eliciting the truth. The distortions are not confined to distortions of opinion but are frequently also distortions of fact, and not merely stupid misunderstandings at that, but deliberate falsifications. The journalist is, indeed, not interested in the facts. For this he is to some extent excusable, seeing that, even if he published the facts, his public would inevitably distort them in the reading. What is quite inexcusable is that when the victim of misrepresentation writes to protest and correct the statements attributed to him, his protest is often ignored and his correction suppressed. Nor has he any redress, since to misrepresent a man's statements is no offense, unless the misrepresentation happens to fall within the narrow limits of the law of libel. The Press and the Law are in this condition because the public do not care whether they are being told the truth or not.
The education that we have so far succeeded in giving to the bulk of the citizens has produced a generation of mental slatterns. They are literate in the merely formal sense—that is, they are capable of putting the symbols C, A, T together to produce the word CAT. But they are not literate in the sense of deriving from those letters any clear mental concept of the animal. Literacy in the formal sense is dangerous, since it lays the mind open to receive any mischievous nonsense about cats that an irresponsible writer may choose to print—nonsense which could never have entered the heads of plain illiterates who were familiar with an actual cat, even if unable to spell its name. And particularly in the matter of Christian doctrine, a great part of the nation subsists in an ignorance more barbarous than that of the dark ages, owing to this slatternly habit of illiterate reading. Words are understood in a wholly mistaken sense, statements of fact and opinion are misread and distorted in repetition, arguments founded in misapprehension are accepted without examination, expressions of individual preference are construed as oecumenical doctrine, disciplinary regulations founded on consent are confused with claims to interpret universal law, and vice versa; with the result that the logical and historical structure of Christian philosophy is transformed in the popular mind to a confused jumble of mythological and pathological absurdity.

Most of us, I think, will rejoice in this clear exposition of facts. We may also be inclined to think that if this was true of the educational system of Britain during World War II, that in our time and place it must be rather worse - and that may be true. But given that almost all our interaction on this board depends on reading, and constructive discussions depend upon reading well and answering carefully, it will also be profitable for each one to ask, not so much whether he has spotted other people making these mistakes, but rather whether he himself has been guilty. Ironically, Dorothy Sayers herself once misread, misunderstood, misreprented and consequently misreplied (rather hostilely) to a letter C.S. Lewis sent her.

Tim · #2 (**permalink**) 08-25-2009, 07:54 AM

This is my 9th year of university. I am currently reading a book called, How to Read a Book, by Mortimer J. Adler. I expect to be challenged.

-----Added 8/25/2009 at 07:53:46 EST-----

And think about this. I will be able to receive a doctoral degree in science without ever being required to take a course in logic.

-----Added 8/25/2009 at 07:54:22 EST-----

Ridiculous.

shaungreen · #3 (**permalink**) 08-25-2009, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

And think about this. I will be able to receive a doctoral degree in science without ever being required to take a course in logic.

fortunately these miserable requirements don't need to stop you

discipulo · #4 (**permalink**) 08-25-2009, 08:09 AM

Frightening to realize how true that is.

I was wondering how much the blinded mind of 2 Corinthians 4:4

has to do with it, and how much mind renewing Romans 12:2 we all need to

do.

***Semper Fidelis*** · #5 (**permalink**) 08-25-2009, 09:44 AM

Great quote.

When we put this together with the recent article by Trueman then it explains one of the reasons why people are unwilling to hear others when they are told that their reading of a topic is very sloppy.

Too many take personal offense to being told that they are thinking in a sloppy or lazy way instead of looking at their arguments and ensuring they are as convincing as they believe. I find this particularly hard to deal with here when "Sacred Cows" are being discussed and the party spirit arises. When one of the party is arguing a point, for most, anything goes for the sake of protecting turf.

LawrenceU · #6 (**permalink**) 08-25-2009, 09:53 AM

That is a great quote, and far too applicable to the educational system that has been put in place in this nation. The vast majority of schools, public and private, do no more than teach students to parrot information for tests. And, they don't do a very good job of that any longer. Rhetoric and rhetorical skill is dying in this nation.

Tim, I'm surprised that you have made it to the level you have achieved in academia without encountering Adler's book. It used to be a standard read. I believe that the first time I was required to read it was in ninth grade. It is an excellent work. At the University I attended it was required reading in the first semester of the freshman year, with a test to follow, for all students regardless of discipline.

Tim · #7 (**permalink**) 08-25-2009, 02:13 PM

I have never taken a university English course either! I got away with the undergrad writing requirement by taking two German classes. That was a decade ago; I would do things radically differently now.

As far as encountering Adler's book, the only way I have come across such authors as Adler, Sayers, and the like was through my own self-study and pursuit of these basic skills/tools of academics. My education at public school and university included none of this material. I could complain, but I have decided to take personal responsibility for my education rather than expecting someone else to ensure that I am properly prepared to read and write at the highest level.

I still have a long way to go, I think.

Wayne · #8 (**permalink**) 08-25-2009, 03:00 PM

I always appreciated the introduction to Adler's book, where it is recounted that, shortly after the book was first published, some wag published an article in a magazine titled

"How to Read Two Books."

Baptist-1689er · #9 (**permalink**) 08-25-2009, 04:14 PM

Baptist-1689er · #10 (**permalink**) 08-25-2009, 05:59 PM

-----Added 8/25/2009 at 05:30:06 EST-----

-----Added 8/25/2009 at 05:59:39 EST-----

Indeed!

**py3ak** · #11 (**permalink**) 08-25-2009, 06:00 PM

Words are understood in a wholly mistaken sense, statements of fact and opinion are misread and distorted in repetition, arguments founded in misapprehension are accepted without examination, expressions of individual preference are construed as oecumenical doctrine, disciplinary regulations founded on consent are confused with claims to interpret universal law, and vice versa; with the result that the logical and historical structure of Christian philosophy is transformed in the popular mind to a confused jumble of mythological and pathological absurdity.

So taking it for granted that this, especially the first part that I've italicised, is a problem in the world, in the church, among the Reformed, and here on the board: how can we improve ourselves and help others to improve? I'll toss out two suggestions, but hope there will be more:
1. Don't read or listen to analysis of statements in the media.
2. Read unfamiliar types of things.

Baptist-1689er · #12 (**permalink**) 08-25-2009, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Words are understood in a wholly mistaken sense, statements of fact and opinion are misread and distorted in repetition, arguments founded in misapprehension are accepted without examination, expressions of individual preference are construed as oecumenical doctrine, disciplinary regulations founded on consent are confused with claims to interpret universal law, and vice versa; with the result that the logical and historical structure of Christian philosophy is transformed in the popular mind to a confused jumble of mythological and pathological absurdity.

So taking it for granted that this, especially the first part that I've italicised, is a problem in the world, in the church, among the Reformed, and here on the board: how can we improve ourselves and help others to improve? I'll toss out two suggestions, but hope there will be more:
1. Don't read or listen to analysis of statements in the media.
2. Read unfamiliar types of things.

Thank you for these wise words of encouragement.

cih1355 · #13 (**permalink**) 09-22-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

I have never taken a university English course either! I got away with the undergrad writing requirement by taking two German classes. That was a decade ago; I would do things radically differently now.

As far as encountering Adler's book, the only way I have come across such authors as Adler, Sayers, and the like was through my own self-study and pursuit of these basic skills/tools of academics. My education at public school and university included none of this material. I could complain, but I have decided to take personal responsibility for my education rather than expecting someone else to ensure that I am properly prepared to read and write at the highest level.

I still have a long way to go, I think.

When I was a university student, I was required to take an English composition class. After I graduated, my university started to require its students to take at least two English composition classes.

MMasztal · #14 (**permalink**) 09-22-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

This is my 9th year of university. I am currently reading a book called, How to Read a Book, by Mortimer J. Adler. I expect to be challenged..

And think about this. I will be able to receive a doctoral degree in science without ever being required to take a course in logic.

That IS a good book! Adler was quite a fellow. You might be able to Google up some interviews of Adler with William F Buckley on Buckley's PBS series called "Firing Line".

RE: your second point. I was able to convince the principal of my school to offer a course on Logic/Critical Thinking/Apologetics for the 11/12 grade students. They should be able to handle the unbelievers they will likely encounter in the university.