Thanks for the comment. I definitely didn’t intend this as a proposed complete curriculum, but rather, as thoughts on just one possible way that knowledge could be carved up besides the standard one. Making it into something that could be taught effectively would surely require a lot more work.

Thanks for the comment!

Almost all the facts that we learn in school we then forget. So, except for the really important facts (which it makes sense to hammer into us), I think it is reasonable to use the other facts presented mainly as an aid to help us understand important concepts and learn important skills.

Yes! While it has certainly proved useful to split the world of knowledge into categories with decent, though fuzzy, boundaries up until now (chemistry, political science, anthropology), they have also begun to accumulate a great deal of baggage in terms of being dubbed soft or hard, scientific or humanities, liberal or conservative, when all knowledge accumulation should be equally rigorous, even if all knowledge is not equally accessible. It has always astounded me that people consider themselves more interested in biology than physics or anthropology than sociology when it appears that they rely on extremely similar strategies and approaches. Can the content really matter so much? Data is easy; knowing what to do with it is hard.

The question is, if I may be practical for the moment, whether these meta-techniques can actually be taught in any productive manner without an enormous amount of differentiated content learning that the meta-learning can act on. Is it helpful to learn how to create theories if you don’t know the basics of biology? Does that count as observation if its already been observed? We can’t recreate everything other people have figured out; that’s the point of human knowledge. Is there any way to teach all of that without the divisions we have in place?