Althouse: "As it turns out, the Common Core standards used by a majority of K-12 programs in the country require that students be able to 'distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a text.'"

March 4, 2015

"As it turns out, the Common Core standards used by a majority of K-12 programs in the country require that students be able to 'distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a text.'"

"And the Common Core institute provides a helpful page full of links to definitions, lesson plans and quizzes to ensure that students can tell the difference between facts and opinions."

See the problem? Well, this NYT op-ed writer does, in "Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts." One of the top-rated comments over there begins "I find this entire argument specious from the start. The phrase 'moral facts' is deliberately provocative...." I agree.

The op-ed writer, by the way, is named Justin P. McBrayer. I've got to say the name is just perfect, like a name in a satirical novel about politics.

McBrayer is associate professor at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado, where he teaches ethics and philosophy of religion. That's a nice gig! (Fact or opinion?)

54 comments:

Michael P said...: What about "moral facts" is provocative, much less deliberately so? This country has a common moral system that informs its laws, regulations and other customs. What word or phrase would you use to name tenets in that shared system?; 3/4/15, 6:28 AM
Mark said...: "Moral facts" isn't provocative, only confusing. Moral truth is a better way of phrasing it.

But many people have trouble with truth. Many deny that there is such a thing as truth. They even go so far as to assert as truth that there is no truth. But of course, if there is no truth, then the truth that there is no truth is itself untrue.

But then again, relativists, when it comes to truth, moral or otherwise, are really not much concerned with logic or reasoning. To them, it is all about power.; 3/4/15, 6:41 AM
dbp said...: Not to thread jack but what happened to the post on the evil/threatening commenter from an Obamacare article in (IIRC) the NYT?; 3/4/15, 6:41 AM
Quayle said...: What word or phrase would you use to name tenets in that shared system?

I would use the words "The rules of the majority mob."

(or if you are a Darwinist, I would use the words "The rules of the lion enforced on the zebras.')

Or in the case of the U.S.A., I would use the words "The rules of at least 5 justices of the SCOTUS which, for the time being, the majority mob has been willing to voluntarily follow in order to preserve the inherited procedures which that mob feels still have value."

In my personal case, I'd look to Joseph Smith: “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.”; 3/4/15, 6:43 AM
Phil 314 said...: "Can't we all just get along."
R. King; 3/4/15, 6:47 AM
Heartless Aztec said...: William Faulkner phone home...; 3/4/15, 6:49 AM
Michael P said...: To clarify the last question in my previous comment: Which of the three categories (fact, opinion, or reasoned judgment) would one of our shared moral tenets fall into?

"Female genital mutilation/circumcision is bad": Fact, opinion or reasoned judgment? If McBrayer is right, Common Core teaches it isn't the first. Does it depend on the culture or country you are talking about?

Newton's law of universal gravitation: Fact, opinion or reasoned judgment? It certainly cannot be the first: The motion of planets and artificial satellites are not described with sufficient accuracy by Newtonian dynamics.

Just like Newtonian gravity, the trichotomy in question might be a good start to describe things, and might be useful for many pursuits, but it also must not be taken (or taught) as an unqualified "fact".; 3/4/15, 6:50 AM
Moneyrunner said...: Is Althouse a fact or an opinion?; 3/4/15, 6:58 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Concept confusion is widespread.

Take the concept/term: 'racist'.

Most folks don't fully appreciate that something can be both 'racist' and 'true' or it can be both 'racist' and 'false'.

Calling something 'racist' has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is true or false.

Yet Progressives (mainly) try to conflate 'racist' with 'false', in order to close off a debate.; 3/4/15, 6:59 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: I should have added this to my previous comment.

Fact and opinion are like 'racist' and veracity. 'Opinion' has nothing to do with the fact or falsity of something.

To mix them is to fog.; 3/4/15, 7:03 AM
Paco Wové said...: "What about "moral facts" is provocative"

Sounds kind of oxymoronic to me.; 3/4/15, 7:05 AM
Anonymous said...: You say "provocative" like it's a bad thing. When did you start believing that?

I suppose taking a position either way on the existence of moral facts is provocative. Teaching K-12 students to assume without argument that they don't exist is bad teaching. But if you want to fault McBrayer for something, a better target would be his assumption that abstract meta-ethical belief is necessarily reflected in concrete moral behavior: he himself presents several examples of how these nominally relativist tykes manage to hold and act on moral beliefs all the same.; 3/4/15, 7:22 AM
Mary Beth said...: "Moral facts" isn't provocative, only confusing. Moral truth is a better way of phrasing it.

He does eventually call them moral truths: In summary, our public schools teach students that all claims are either facts or opinions and that all value and moral claims fall into the latter camp. The punchline: there are no moral facts. And if there are no moral facts, then there are no moral truths.

He started with "facts" because the schools are using the terms "facts" and "opinions" and they way they are teaching it, there are no moral truths because all morality judgements are opinions.; 3/4/15, 7:37 AM
James Pawlak said...: It is too bad that most in the "Lame Street Media" (And many in academia) have already failed that test item.; 3/4/15, 7:52 AM
Michael P said...: Paul Zrimsek, the tykes in question have been previously raised by others, and have only been in the public school system for a few years -- not through the full primary and secondary curricula. They haven't been fully brainwashed into moral relativism yet. Do you fault him for complaining about brainwashing because the brainwashing is imperfect, when it is also unfinished?; 3/4/15, 7:56 AM
n.n said...: There is only choice, unless there is an independent arbiter, or a social consensus.

That said, fact, opinion, and reason intersect. The best, but not conclusive, standards are scientific and multiple, independent confirmation, where the former holds in a highly constrained domain, and the latter holds by virtue of a consensus.

I wonder how Common Core describes human evolution from conception to a natural, accidental, or premeditated death. The consensus fact (a la Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that human life is a commodity that is selectively interchangeable (e.g. diversity) or disposable (e.g. pro-choice).; 3/4/15, 8:03 AM
Jane the Actuary said...: The concept of learning about "fact vs. opinion" isn't a new thing, a Common Core thing. Who among us hasn't had worksheets in which we had to mark the type of statement for "the dress is red" vs. "the dress is ugly"?

But statements about morality simply don't belong in the "fact vs. opinion" framework. If CC standards, or teachers interpreting them, are bringing this in, then this is wrong, and their understanding of morality faulty.

And, yes, fact vs. opinion doesn't say anything about whether a statement is accurate, just that the nature of the statement is that it's classified as fact-related.

What's trickier are statements that are drawing conclusions about the past, and cause and effect. For instance, is "Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War" a fact or opinion?; 3/4/15, 8:20 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: My biggest problem is making a distinction between opinion and reasoned judgment.

Reasoned judgment is simply an opinion that I agree with and therefore give more weight to.; 3/4/15, 8:22 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: I have no problem with the idea that there are no moral facts.

The real question is, how much do you value God's opinion on moral matters?; 3/4/15, 8:23 AM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/4/15, 8:26 AM
jr565 said...: Is "raping women is wrong" a moral fact or a moral opinion?; 3/4/15, 8:27 AM
n.n said...: Actually, there is another standard for distinguishing between fact, opinion, and reason. The statements should be internally, externally, and mutually consistent. Anything selective automatically fails this standard.

For example, the denial of scientific and, in fact, self-evident facts in pro-choice religions, including selective normalization of psychoses (e.g. homosexual and other trans orientations), is a cause for creation of moral hazards or irreconcilable principles. Another is the conflation or idolization of any one logical domain, typically unacknowledged faith (i.e. affirmative statements about events and constructs outside the scientific domain), but also fantasy (e.g. spontaneous conception).

I'll guess that Common Core indulges in both fantasy and faith, with some interposition of philosophy, and liberal doses of pseudo science thrown in for good measure. Perhaps this is why our education system is the most expensive in the world, with a product that is not even in the top 10. For one, it does not encourage critical thinking, but rather obeisance to a prevailing orthodoxy.; 3/4/15, 8:30 AM
SJ said...: For some reason, I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis and The Abolition of Man.

Lewis was hunting less-important game with that essay.

But he was still focusing heavily on the distinction between fact, opinion, informed-opinion, and emotion. And he noticed an intent (on the part of textbook authors and publishers) to push opinion and informed-opinion into the realm of emotion and internal states of consciousness.

There's another essay by Lewis which touches on morality, opinion, and reasoned judgement.

The first half of Why I Am Not a Pacifist is a carefully-worked discussion of the distinction between moral intuition and moral reasoning.

That first half of the essay on pacifism is almost entirely independent of the second half, which uses the moral-intuition/moral-reasoning to study pacifism in the abstract. (The essay was first delivered as a speech to a society of pacifists in England in 1940. Even though the practical application to the international problems of 1940 are mentioned, the core argument is not altered by removing those references.); 3/4/15, 8:30 AM
jr565 said...: Mary Beth wrote:

"He does eventually call them moral truths: In summary, our public schools teach students that all claims are either facts or opinions and that all value and moral claims fall into the latter camp. The punchline: there are no moral facts. And if there are no moral facts, then there are no moral truths"

this reminds me so much of the following quote:
"Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself–what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself–that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring–the strength of character–to throw off its shackles…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others?’ Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure that I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me–after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited."

I didn't know Common Core was around when Ted Bundy was out raping and killing the ladies. I'm sure he'd give this pronouncement two thumbs up!.; 3/4/15, 8:32 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Jane the Actuary said...

What's trickier are statements that are drawing conclusions about the past, and cause and effect. For instance, is "Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War" a fact or opinion?

That example doesn't seem tricky to me. It is clearly opinion/belief, which I define as something that cannot (by you or anyone), by its nature, be proved/verified.

In this case, the 'end of the cold war' is much too nebulous and multi-faceted to say there was a single cause, as implied in your example assertion.

The phrase 'Reagan's actions helped put an end to the cold war', would be more amenable to a reasoned discussion, though still not able to labeled as fact.; 3/4/15, 8:32 AM
Big Mike said...: My impression is that Common Core pushes left-of-center opinions as facts or "reasoned judgments."

My main objections however, has to do with the Common Core approach to math. As a mathematician, I'd push for every alleged "educator" involved with Common Core mathematics to be lobotomized, except there's no feasible explanation for Common Core math other than the likelihood that they already were lobotomized.; 3/4/15, 8:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Paul Zrimsek, the tykes in question have been previously raised by others, and have only been in the public school system for a few years -- not through the full primary and secondary curricula.

Yet McBrayer begins (second paragraph) by talking about college students, who come to him with the same relativism, wherever they picked it up from. Does it stop them from moralizing? If only!; 3/4/15, 8:38 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: By the way, and in case you are interested, Ayn Rand has probably come as close as anyone ever has, in providing a reasoned code of morality.

Personally, I believe she is as correct as anyone can be in this subject area, since to reject her premise (and I can find no flaws post-premise) means that you essentially do not believe that Man has a right to exist as a species on planet earth, and should let itself just die out.

And if you believe that Man should die out, have you considered perhaps leading by example? Yeah, I thought not.; 3/4/15, 8:40 AM
n.n said...: Ignorance is Bliss:

God's philosophy of morality, or his religion, can be judged by its principles; and whether there will be a post-mortem judgment.

jr565:

It depends on the meaning of "is". For example, was it rape or rape-rape?

Jane the Actuary:

Technically, "Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War" is an opinion. The Cold War ended with a unilateral choice. Actually, ended may also be an opinion, since it seems to have been merely on hiatus. I think the best answer can be determined within the scientific domain. Reagan contributed to the end of the Cold War within a limited context of time.; 3/4/15, 8:44 AM
Sebastian said...: "Is Althouse a fact or an opinion?"

Althouse is fact, Ann opinion.; 3/4/15, 8:44 AM
jr565 said...: "Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes."

as he points out with his George Washington example this that are true are also things we believe. Or rather, if we prove something to be true (a fact) then we also beleive thwt fact to be true (or proven). But then thst would make it an opinion.

So you could never beleive things you proved were true without turning said fact into an opinion.; 3/4/15, 8:52 AM
jr565 said...: I notice a lot of kids who are moral relativists also say things like "we need to practice toleration of all views"

As Tom Beauchamp, bioethicist, said:
If we interpret normative relativism as requiring tolerance of other views, the whole theory is imperiled by inconsistency. The proposition that we ought to tolerate the views of others, or that it is right not to interfere with others, is precluded by the very strictures of the theory. Such a proposition bears all the marks of a non-relative account of moral rightness, one based on, but not reducible to, the cross-cultural findings of anthropologists…But if this moral principle [of tolerance] is recognized as valid, it can of course be employed as an instrument for criticizing such cultural practices as the denial of human rights to minorities and such beliefs as that of racial superiority. A moral commitment to tolerance of other practices and beliefs thus leads inexorably to the abandonment of normative relativism."
So the secular humanist moral relativist atheists are not even consistent in their moral relativism. If moral relativism were in fact true, you couldn't argue against sexism, or rape, or bigotry. So what if someone was bigoted, or a murderer. Who would you be to say it's wrong?; 3/4/15, 8:56 AM
Sebastian said...: "So the secular humanist moral relativist atheists are not even consistent in their moral relativism."

Right. But why strive for foolish consistency when you can deploy relativism and tolerance strategically to beat your opponents?

It's a moral fact that displays of tolerance can make you look good with all the right people, build up social capital, discredit absolutist troglodytes, and serve to promote your pet causes.; 3/4/15, 9:07 AM
Robert Cook said...: My impression is that Common Core pushes left-of-center opinions as facts or "reasoned judgments."

Well...is it factual this is what Common Core does...or is it just your impression?; 3/4/15, 9:07 AM
Michael K said...: "My main objections however, has to do with the Common Core approach to math."

I agree. My grandson's teacher told his mother that she cannot work the problems using the CC methods and that his mother should just go ahead and teach him traditional methods, like "times tables."

The math units are OK for grad students looking at number theory but not for 10 year olds trying to learn to calculate.; 3/4/15, 9:26 AM
jr565 said...: I like to apply the test of morality when you are on a deserted island with one other person. If it's you and a woman, and no one else is around raping her ok?
Women say we should teach men not to rape, but here we'd have a situation where raping a woman would provide the rapist satisfaction. What woild the argument be against it? That the woman doesn't want to be raped? Well the man wants to rape. Who wins? The person who's stronger.; 3/4/15, 9:29 AM
jr565 said...: If we get into an ought situation, where we are supposed to behave a certain way I,d hope it was based on an objective truth and not simply someone else's value judgements. We ought to be tolerant. Why? Because you say so?
Your rights to throw a punch extends as far as my nose. Who made up Thet rule? I can provide logical basses for the argument that punching you in the nose benefits me immensely. Suddenly we have to respect others rights to not be punched in the face? Why? Because our founding fathers had an opinion about what rights should be respected? Who are they? And why should there opinion override my desire to punch you in the nose?; 3/4/15, 9:35 AM
jr565 said...: If my creator imbued me with natural rights, then those rights are absolute. But if my rights are only there because some guy in a wig said they were, then I'd question not just my rights, but your rights. Because you woulsnt have any if my desires outweighed your desire to have your rights respected. You have a right to life. Unless I think taking your life benefits me more than respecting your right to life. Pro choicers make that argument all the time.; 3/4/15, 9:40 AM
kcom said...: Here's another desert island test.

You are stranded with one other person. According to some, you as a human being have an inherent right to health care. Is the other person required to provide for you and, if so, what about their right to be free from slavery?; 3/4/15, 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: McBrayer is associate professor at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado, where he teaches ethics and philosophy of religion. That's a nice gig! (Fact or opinion?)

"gig" is fact, "nice" is opinion;

"associate professor" is fact, "teaches" is opinion;

"ethics" is opinion;

"religion" is fact, "philosophy of religion" is opinion.; 3/4/15, 10:10 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Hey! I live in Durango! I am going to Fort Lewis!; 3/4/15, 10:18 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Being an adjunct at FLC doesn't pay well. But Durango is a great place to live. Althouse has been here. I missed seeing her on Main Ave. by three blocks.; 3/4/15, 10:20 AM
Robert Cook said...: jr565:

"Rights" and "morals" derive from our nature as social animals. (Not all animals are social animals.)

As social animals, we must live and work together simply to insure the survival of ourselves and our progeny. Social animals develop behaviors--that may be adaptive behaviors innate in the creatures or learned behaviors that are taught and passed on within the species from mother to brood, or a combination of innate and learned--that allows for cooperative effort for the common good, (i.e., survival), and for a means to resolve disputes in a contained manner so the entire pack is not endangered by uncontrollable violence by pack members toward other pack members.

Everything we call "morality" or "rights" is an elaboration on this, on the behavior one might see in a dog-pack or a community of chimpanzees. (And we do see human-like immoral behavior--such as murder--in chimpanzee communities.)

In short, we create our own system of rights and morals; they do not descend from heaven.; 3/4/15, 11:01 AM
Rusty said...: In short, we create our own system of rights and morals; they do not descend from heaven.

"You were born a slave. You will die a slave."; 3/4/15, 11:14 AM
mccullough said...: The main function of schools is day care.; 3/4/15, 11:16 AM
cold pizza said...: Insty linked obliquely to this question just the other day: "If you’re interested in the question of whether morality can exist without God, you might enjoy Arthur Allen Leff’s discussion in Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law. Or, in shorter and more pungent form, his treatment in Memorandum From The Devil. Also, these — especially the latter — are two of the best-written law review articles ever."

Fascinating to read and relevant to the question of who gets to define what is "moral?" -CP; 3/4/15, 12:22 PM
Jaq said...: Wow, a post from Robert Cook with which I agree almost entirely!

-that allows for cooperative effort for the common good, (i.e., survival),

Of course Robert completely elides the expression of human freedom, which is an integral part of evolution. What if somebody comes up with some new behavior of which the group disapproves, but which improves survival of those who practice it?

Genes have no morals and evolution is never a "solved" problem. Socialists seem to think that it is. And to think that technology, medicine, etc, are also solved problems, and so incentives to innovation are dismissed as unnecessary.

Like the recent socialist grab for the internet. "It has developed far enough thank you.."; 3/4/15, 12:53 PM
Gahrie said...: In short, we create our own system of rights and morals; they do not descend from heaven.

Is anybody shocked that Bolshie Bob rejects the basic premise of our republic?; 3/4/15, 1:11 PM
Rusty said...: Gahrie said...
In short, we create our own system of rights and morals; they do not descend from heaven.

Is anybody shocked that Bolshie Bob rejects the basic premise of our republic?

No.
It doesn't surprise me at all that he would conflate natural rights with the collective rights of the community.; 3/4/15, 1:18 PM
Jaq said...: The first multi-celled creature had an immoral advantage over the single celled versions on which it preyed and which it out competed.; 3/4/15, 2:03 PM
Todd said...: Robert Cook said...
In short, we create our own system of rights and morals; they do not descend from heaven.

3/4/15, 11:01 AM

Technically, that is call an opinion.

Just as I can not prove the existence of God, you can not prove God does not exist.; 3/4/15, 3:46 PM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Todd said...
Just as I can not prove the existence of God, you can not prove God does not exist.

Oh, we see what you did there.

Not "just as". Not at all.

You assert the existence of something, creating your burden of proof, and yet you cannot at all produce even a shred of evidence in favor of that thing actually existing.

One who posits that a nothing is, in fact, a nothing, has nothing to prove, and thus no burden of proof.

If you can't see that simple difference, you are firmly in the clutches of mysticism. Good luck with that.; 3/4/15, 4:13 PM
Rusty said...: tim in vermont said...
The first multi-celled creature had an immoral advantage over the single celled versions on which it preyed and which it out competed.

I watched a program on television about a group of men in Siberia that trapped furs for the former Soviet Union an still do today. Cevry spring, while there is still ice on the rivers, they head out into the wilderness. When aasked why they chose that life, to a man, they said. "Because only out there-the wilderness-am I truly free. There are no laws, no rules, no bosses."; 3/5/15, 6:12 AM
Todd said...: SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
Todd said...
Just as I can not prove the existence of God, you can not prove God does not exist.

Oh, we see what you did there.

Not "just as". Not at all.

You assert the existence of something, creating your burden of proof, and yet you cannot at all produce even a shred of evidence in favor of that thing actually existing.

One who posits that a nothing is, in fact, a nothing, has nothing to prove, and thus no burden of proof.

If you can't see that simple difference, you are firmly in the clutches of mysticism. Good luck with that.

3/4/15, 4:13 PM

Well actually, what I was doing was assuming that there is nothing I could show him that he would accept as proof of God (and that our natural rights are derived from Him) just as he would be unable to show proof of his position. In both cases that is called faith, the belief in something even when it can not be proved.

I choose to put my faith in God. Apparently he (and maybe you?) choose to put his faith in man.; 3/5/15, 8:37 AM