Ammonite, - Agree whole heartedly with you - "anthropology - study of human culture and nature", has definitely got to be the way to go - is much more comprehensive and inclusive than cultural studies per se.

Squeers, Ogg, Ammonite, et al,

One thing I am absolutely adamant about (even more so than Dan S about Creation, by a factor of 1,000,000) is that there is no way that Philosophy should be taught in any form below university level. (Unlike ethics, integrity, honesty, responsibility and behavioural law and norms, for example.)

Why? Because, having waded through Squeers' links, and masses of Wikipedia, and worn fingers to the bone with dictionary, I have concluded empirically and logically that Philosophy is such a web of confusion and hair-splitting as to be, for the most part, almost nothing more than self-serving "mind games" and examination and refutation of historical "schools" of thought which have no relevance to contemporary thought and understanding on/of the "questions" posed and addressed - so much of the historical verges almost on absolute "sophistry", being determined to confuse, nit-pick and mislead.
TBC>

Squeers, Ogg, Ammonite, et al (Cont'd),

I propose one absolute and irrefutable postulation - "Monism is correct, stating absolutely that mind and body are inseparable, and that consciousness is a function of both mind and body (maybe as a "dualism" - but who needs such debatable extra terms?); and Cosmology is correct, stating that all in the universe is subject to laws, and no element is absolutely inseparable from its (or the) environment."

Nit-pick as you like, Physicalism (in both reductive and non-reductive forms) is wrong, and even, in more recent "postulation", actually contradicts earlier-held positions; Functionalism is wrong - as all mental states are NOT "solely" constituted by their functional role (consider "enjoying" the sensation of consuming a favourite or a novel food or drink, or contemplating a sunset); Materialism has such a broad definition as to be totally useless (= a non-term); Behaviorism is just plain BS - as if behaviours of any sort, let alone complex behaviours (such as judging accuracy and intent of evidence, or proposition as to intent, as a member of a jury in a trial) could EVER be described scientifically.

I rest my case.

Sqeers, I think you meant, ".. nothing to proffer..", in your last post to Ogg.

Ogg, The "Epimenides Paradox", is not in fact a paradox - it only becomes a paradox by the interpretation of "liar" to mean "always lies" - as, we know what Epimenides meant (that Cretans were denying the immortality of Zeus, and nothing more than that!), we also would have to generally agree that all people at some time have lied or will lie (there's that "we" again); Paul was making a religious-based comment or observation, in attempting to confirm the view that some people (Cretans esp) were wrong in rejecting early Christian beliefs (resurrection). This exercise for me has also confirmed my observation and conclusion that so much of Philosophy is just a lot of silly people with a lot of time on their hands, and nothing constructive to offer.

Ammonite,
I agree.

Salpetre,
I absolutely disagree. Philosophy should be taught alongside science as early as possible. Obviously it's horses for courses; we don't teach toddlers quantum mechanics and we wouldn't be teaching them abstruse philosophy. Philosophy is productive of great joy and discovery, but it's better acquired piecemeal from an early and can't be learned all at once or without effort any more than science can. On that basis your position is unreasonable.
I'm sorry that you find so much fault with philosophy, but it is no more difficult or nit-picking than science, or indeed theology. I have the greatest respect for scientists, indeed anyone who's open-mindedly devoted to learning, I'm just wary of exclusionary world-views.
I rest "my" case.

Oh and you said: "Sqeers, I think you meant, ".. nothing to proffer..", in your last post to Ogg.
Wrong, I meant "prefer", which, like most words, has more than one meaning.

Ammonite,
Call me an extremist. Call me a fundamentalist. Call me whatever name you like. It’s no skin off my nose. But such name calling or pigeon holing does not an argument make.

You claim that religion has no place being taught in place of science. Along with Squeers, I also agree. We all agree! (Though I don’t know of anyone, past or present, who has thought otherwise.)

Along with Ammonite, I’m also passionate about children! (Well, I have one, and would like him to be brought up properly.)

But your attempt to oppose science and religion is false opposition.

Good religion and good science go together like hand and glove. At least this is what the founders of modern Western science thought. Most of greatest names that come to mind in the history of the development of Western science were those of Christian commitment (space and word limit does not permit me to print all the most famous of household names.) For one example, Newton spent more time, ink, and paper writing about his theology than his science.

If those such as Pascal, Steno, Maxwell, Faraday, were around today they'd be credited as ‘biblical fundamentalists’ according to their spiritual beliefs. Yet it complimented, not hindered their science.

You say you’re surprised I can use a PC. I am surprised you don’t know your history (I’m not really, considering the efforts that have gone into bumping positive mention of Christianity out of the school classrooms). Don’t know about Charles Babbage? He is credited with inventing the first mechanical computer that eventually led to more complex designs. In 1837 he published his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, 'On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation,' putting forward the thesis that God had the omnipotence and foresight to create as a divine legislator.

Although some of these, such as Babbage and Newton, may not be regarded as biblical literalists (under today’s nomenclature), it is still instructive to note that modern science blossomed in an intellectual framework of belief in a six day Creation about 6,000 years ago.

Ammonite and Saltpetre,
I agree with Squeers that Philosophy can have a legitimate place in schools. In fact, I remember I learned something like that in my state school education as young as year 8 or year 9. Forming one small part of the English subject, it was called ‘clear thinking’. They tried to teach us some of the basic elements of a sound and valid argument.

Philosophy as a subject is something to do with the love of thinking and reasoning. We don’t have to use language as erudite or aloof as Squeers sometimes employs, even if he seems to enjoy it at times.

One doesn’t have to use big words, but that’s better than rudeness and insults. (‘This persistent lying, denying, weaseling, scamming, arrogance of the religiotards…’ Ogg, Monday, 23 May 2011) Why anyone here didn’t chastise Ogg for lowering the tone of the discussion, I don’t know.

The value in studying philosophy is not just the ability to evaluate arguments, but to open your mind to alternative thinking. Then maybe one might be a little more open to seeing something from the other person’s point of view. This may lead to a little less name calling and a bit more understanding.

While I know I bang on a bit too much about my pet subject, the creation/evolution debate, I do so because I know that the creationists have some good arguments, and these are capable of getting under the skin of the materials, and might just provoke them to look at the subject from another point of view. Too often in schools, students are railroaded into a belief that there is only one way to think about a subject. So I throw in an alternative, minority view. Maybe that kind of open thinking, rather than the current militant attitude which prefers banning certain discussions from classrooms, might lead to some lateral, outside the envelope, thinking.

>> I'm just wary of exclusionary world-views. <<

Me too.

For example; science is only now realising that mammals, birds and now even fish have far greater mental capacity than previously thought. Studying behaviour must go beyond mere detached observation. Animals will only reveal and respond in ways if they trust and can relate to the observer. Like the old-style IQ tests which were based upon a particular definition of what constituted intelligence, these test failed to reveal many areas where humans have great abilities. My older cat is far wiser than many people I could name.

Salty.

Re: Philosophy.

One does not start studying neurosurgery without the basics of biology. Same goes for any subject. We start at the beginning, a very good place to start.

P)

For primary school children moral tales WITHOUT inclusion of supreme deity is a good start. No one is suggesting Kant or even AC Grayling for toddlers.

Although a few quotes can get one thinking:

Like this one from Voltaire

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices."