As always, well put. However, "Maybe you realized it was all madness, but I bet you did it anyway. You didn't have a choice, right?" Many students do have a terribly mercenary attitude. But a good number do voluntary study topics with no evident financial incentive.

"...I didn't need to know what the words meant, it would work anyway." That was a stupid thing for them to say. However, a common approach in these circumstances, similar but crucially different is "you don't need to know what the words mean _now_, just read them over and over as you gradually develop your understanding -- it's a good way to learn."

"..classroom time is now spent on preparing for tests..." Is there a better way of teaching, as proven by high-quality studies? (There may well be, but the question must be asked before dismissing the test-based approach.)

Peter de Blanc > No. What other sorts of terminal values [other than moral] did you have in mind?

Well, one could have a terminal value of making themselves happy at all costs, without any regard for whether it harms others. A sadist could have the terminal value of causing pain to others. I wouldn't call those moral. I'm interested in a succinct differentiation between moral and other terminal values.

Peter de Blanc "Huh? Considering only oneself is less general than considering everything."

Certainly. But can you give a succinct way of distinguishing moral terminal values from other terminal values?

What is the difference between moral terminal values and terminal values in general? At first glance, the former considers other beings, whereas the latter may only consider oneself -- can someone make this more precise?

In teaching or lecturing, I notice my own tendency, which I have since tried to correct, to avoid going over anything I had known for a long time and only mention the latest tidbit I'd learned. I attributed that to my own desire to avoid boredom and seek out important new insights. Also, through the well-known cognitive bias of projecting one's own mental state on others, I was subconsciously trying not to bore the students.

I was not displaying ... any ... virtue

Most math teachers would be delighted if a student was able to understand Cantor's proof, think critically enough to search for a counter-proof, think creatively enough to describe a counter-proof (and based on different mathematical constructs at that), even though the proof was wrong at some critical steps.

This would be quite an achievement even for those who do not go on to the crucial last step of thinking self-critically enough to find the mistake in that "proof."

The following does not invalidate the argument in the posting, but:

Subjects thought that accidents caused about as many deaths as disease

I want to eliminate aging and death as much as anyone, but I would say that many deaths from disease in old age should be filed under "old age" rather than "disease." I wonder how the statistics work out if we look at it that way. (Or maybe Lichtenstein et al did so already.)

Perhaps this explains Hofstadter's puzzled reply to the Singularity, as for example at his 2006 Singularity Summit lecture. Although his thinking into the meaning of thought are surely insightful, it seems tinged at the end with a sense of that intelligence and the Singularity are Mysterious Phenomenon in the sense described above.

(However, it can sometimes hard to distinguish whether a speakeris saying "X is a Mysterious Phenomenon (in the sense above)," "X is something that I don't understand for now," and "I understand X, and so am filled with a sense of wonder.")

90% of anything is crud, including schools and perhaps the scholarly motivation of most students, but the better schools don’t teach the better students by rote learning.

The magic words, as you point out at the bottom of your essay, are helpful for getting one’s thoughts into the right part of science. Most people would have a train of thought that is not quite as reflective as what you described, something a bit more confused like: - "Heat conduction?" - Something to do with heat spreading out from hot to cold. - This is strange. The near side should be hotter. - Well, maybe the plate’s made of some weird material or something.

The teacher is posing a trick question, by requiring thought outside physics and in the area of teacherly psychology. This is a good way of reminding the students that all areas of science are connected. But good science works by creating models which are simplifications of the world. In a physics class, the model focuses on physics and not human psychology. Too many trick questions, and students will never learn the laws of thermodynamics, as they spend their brainpower trying to outwit the teacher.

Someone who believes that a Singularity is likely at, say 2030, might save less for retirement than they otherwise would. I wonder if Singularitarians really do so?

(Some believe that the rich will be the first and only ones to afford the technologies of Transcendence. I don't believe that, but one who did might save up after all.)