Only exact sciences should use a common programm: Science, Maths, Language.
Absolutely not. That is exactly why we are where we are today.
None of these things are "truth". In fact they are all lies (as taught).
For example, Math is a language. It begins with axioms and it uses logic to extend itself. Math is exactly the language of logic itself. You don't need a "curriculum" for Math, because it's either math or it's not. That makes it very easy to teach, and there is no "wrong way" to teach math, because it's either math or it's not. However, Math can never make statements of Truth. It is only a useful, and self-consistent language. It is either self consistent (Math) or it is not Math. That single guiding principle is all that is required to teach Math.
Science is the worst offender here, because it is, like math, taught as some form of "truth" when in fact its goal is exactly the opposite of truth. The entire scientific method is designed to prove itself untrue (prove the null hypothesis). When it fails to prove itself false, we call that an advancement. It is the scientific method that is all that needs to be "standard" in the teaching of science. Everything else takes care of itself from there. Even so, my best science teachers were those that went the furthest outside the box in their teaching. A standard curriculum is the worst idea ever for a real education in science.
All you need to know about language is that it is incomplete. Our definitions are not "truth", nor do they encompass the "whole of something." On the contrary they are all not what something is. At best they represent a tiny piece of what something is. At worst they are completely the opposite of what something is (see "racism" e.g.). If you understand that our languages limit Reality, instead of "give it truth" then you understand all there is to know about language. No curriculum required.
Peace is not achieved by all believing the same thing (even if that same thing is achieved through engaged debate). Peace is achieved by learning how to listen (not agree) or by not wanting what someone else has.
In the case of a debate for example, what someone want's most (I assert) is to be heard. It isn't to be believed, but for their words, their thoughts, their feelings, their... "them" to have mattered to someone else. This concept is often stated (not entirely accurately, at least as it is formally defined) as "respect."
In the case of wars on the other hand, what almost always matters is not what someone says, but the resources they possess. This of course doesn't count when wars are started by butt-hurt rulers that happened generally because they felt they weren't heard (i.e. respected). In that case it becomes a "war" because of a misapplication of the concept of sovereignty. That's a whole other can of worms.
Each kid gets a small cabin in the woods. They have to check in once every month. THAT's the kind of American education this generation of crybabies needs now!
You can't just throw maths at someone and expect them to get it. A curriculum is needed. You can't just start with trigonometry without first understanding geometry. And algebra is needed for all variable driven maths.
You also can't teach science without first teaching the scientific method. Without understanding that it's just experimenting for the sake of experimenting.
While there is a logical progression to math, because of it's very nature, a "curriculum" is completely unnecessary. On the contrary, it can disrupt the progression, by forcing certain concepts that a person could achieve an understanding of by another path, their own path.
There are certain concepts that must be understood to understand math. There are infinite paths to achieve that understanding.
You also can't teach science without first teaching the scientific method.
Since you are saying this as if it were in opposition to what I said, I suggest you didn't read what I wrote, since this is almost verbatim what I said.
Once you teach the scientific method (which takes an hour to teach, and a lifetime to master) you have done all the "curriculum" required.
If it is a logical progression, no curriculum is required.
There are many possible logical progressions.
If you force a curriculum, you have to get lucky that you have hit on a "best" one (in an average sense), and that one will almost certainly not be the best for everyone.
Absolutely not. That is exactly why we are where we are today.
None of these things are "truth". In fact they are all lies (as taught).
For example, Math is a language. It begins with axioms and it uses logic to extend itself. Math is exactly the language of logic itself. You don't need a "curriculum" for Math, because it's either math or it's not. That makes it very easy to teach, and there is no "wrong way" to teach math, because it's either math or it's not. However, Math can never make statements of Truth. It is only a useful, and self-consistent language. It is either self consistent (Math) or it is not Math. That single guiding principle is all that is required to teach Math.
Science is the worst offender here, because it is, like math, taught as some form of "truth" when in fact its goal is exactly the opposite of truth. The entire scientific method is designed to prove itself untrue (prove the null hypothesis). When it fails to prove itself false, we call that an advancement. It is the scientific method that is all that needs to be "standard" in the teaching of science. Everything else takes care of itself from there. Even so, my best science teachers were those that went the furthest outside the box in their teaching. A standard curriculum is the worst idea ever for a real education in science.
All you need to know about language is that it is incomplete. Our definitions are not "truth", nor do they encompass the "whole of something." On the contrary they are all not what something is. At best they represent a tiny piece of what something is. At worst they are completely the opposite of what something is (see "racism" e.g.). If you understand that our languages limit Reality, instead of "give it truth" then you understand all there is to know about language. No curriculum required.
I like our disagreement here. I actually love it because what carries us is the need for a common denominator… the basis for universal peace?
Is that a need? Is it even desirable?
Peace is not achieved by all believing the same thing (even if that same thing is achieved through engaged debate). Peace is achieved by learning how to listen (not agree) or by not wanting what someone else has.
In the case of a debate for example, what someone want's most (I assert) is to be heard. It isn't to be believed, but for their words, their thoughts, their feelings, their... "them" to have mattered to someone else. This concept is often stated (not entirely accurately, at least as it is formally defined) as "respect."
In the case of wars on the other hand, what almost always matters is not what someone says, but the resources they possess. This of course doesn't count when wars are started by butt-hurt rulers that happened generally because they felt they weren't heard (i.e. respected). In that case it becomes a "war" because of a misapplication of the concept of sovereignty. That's a whole other can of worms.
Dear Lady, yes a common denominator is required. We have to assert it together.
I don't think I understand what you mean by "common denominator." Do you mean "the ability to speak to each other?"
If you mean we need the ability to speak to each other, I have no idea how you are relating that to a forced path of learning (curriculum).
they should be taught how to be self sufficient ... gee, wonder why they don't teach that
Each kid gets a small cabin in the woods. They have to check in once every month. THAT's the kind of American education this generation of crybabies needs now!
You can't just throw maths at someone and expect them to get it. A curriculum is needed. You can't just start with trigonometry without first understanding geometry. And algebra is needed for all variable driven maths.
You also can't teach science without first teaching the scientific method. Without understanding that it's just experimenting for the sake of experimenting.
While there is a logical progression to math, because of it's very nature, a "curriculum" is completely unnecessary. On the contrary, it can disrupt the progression, by forcing certain concepts that a person could achieve an understanding of by another path, their own path.
There are certain concepts that must be understood to understand math. There are infinite paths to achieve that understanding.
Since you are saying this as if it were in opposition to what I said, I suggest you didn't read what I wrote, since this is almost verbatim what I said.
Once you teach the scientific method (which takes an hour to teach, and a lifetime to master) you have done all the "curriculum" required.
One hour. Done. Now it's time to get creative.
If a curriculum is setup correctly it IS a logical progression.
Disregard the second half of my comment.
If it is a logical progression, no curriculum is required.
There are many possible logical progressions.
If you force a curriculum, you have to get lucky that you have hit on a "best" one (in an average sense), and that one will almost certainly not be the best for everyone.