I am willing to argue public education has ruined this country...

[Anonymous]

If you're interested in an alternate perspective of public education from the eyes of a 30-year veteran of public school teaching and having won 3 Teacher of the Year Awards, I direct you to this:

http://www.amazon.com/Underground-History-American-Education-Taylor/dp/B000A4IX46

[AyeYo]

Free market rule #2: The people's desires will be met. If people want sound safe products, they will be provided. If they don't like murder, there will not be murder.

Now the whiner pops out of his hidey hole.  How about defending the topic at hand eh? 

If you recall.  I was asking where you provide something resembling a cogent argument for your position.  i.e. A set of premises that force your conclusion.

All I have to provide is the history of our species. We have thrived, grown and built upon foundations built in times with no monopolies on education nor through any structured education period.

In addition, the current American system of learning  were made by leaders of the new American industrialist class. People who wanted to create factory workers. Not thriving individuals.

Naive.

If your conclusion is: "Public Education has had and will continue to have a negative effect on your country."

Then clearly the premise that "people have advanced without structured education" does not force it.  (Failure #1). Likewise the premise that "current educational system was historically intended to have a particular outcome" also does not force it.  Failure #2.

That all you got?

I am not here to prove anything. I am just here to share and observe. If you have little to offer in counters to my claims, I'm done.

No one can disprove an argument you never made.  You made a BASELESS STATEMENT.  You need to back the statement up so that people have something to refute.

[Anonymous]

Free market rule #2: The people's desires will be met. If people want sound safe products, they will be provided. If they don't like murder, there will not be murder.

Now the whiner pops out of his hidey hole.  How about defending the topic at hand eh?  

If you recall.  I was asking where you provide something resembling a cogent argument for your position.  i.e. A set of premises that force your conclusion.

All I have to provide is the history of our species. We have thrived, grown and built upon foundations built in times with no monopolies on education nor through any structured education period.

In addition, the current American system of learning  were made by leaders of the new American industrialist class. People who wanted to create factory workers. Not thriving individuals.

Naive.

If your conclusion is: "Public Education has had and will continue to have a negative effect on your country."

Then clearly the premise that "people have advanced without structured education" does not force it.  (Failure #1). Likewise the premise that "current educational system was historically intended to have a particular outcome" also does not force it.  Failure #2.

That all you got?

I am not here to prove anything. I am just here to share and observe. If you have little to offer in counters to my claims, I'm done.

No one can disprove an argument you never made.  You made a BASELESS STATEMENT.  You need to back the statement up so that people have something to refute.

I am ignorant. I don't feel I have sufficient knowledge and justification to back my arguments. I am here only to learn further.

[AyeYo]

Free market rule #2: The people's desires will be met. If people want sound safe products, they will be provided. If they don't like murder, there will not be murder.

Now the whiner pops out of his hidey hole.  How about defending the topic at hand eh?  

If you recall.  I was asking where you provide something resembling a cogent argument for your position.  i.e. A set of premises that force your conclusion.

All I have to provide is the history of our species. We have thrived, grown and built upon foundations built in times with no monopolies on education nor through any structured education period.

In addition, the current American system of learning  were made by leaders of the new American industrialist class. People who wanted to create factory workers. Not thriving individuals.

Naive.

If your conclusion is: "Public Education has had and will continue to have a negative effect on your country."

Then clearly the premise that "people have advanced without structured education" does not force it.  (Failure #1). Likewise the premise that "current educational system was historically intended to have a particular outcome" also does not force it.  Failure #2.

That all you got?

I am not here to prove anything. I am just here to share and observe. If you have little to offer in counters to my claims, I'm done.

No one can disprove an argument you never made.  You made a BASELESS STATEMENT.  You need to back the statement up so that people have something to refute.

I am ignorant. I don't feel I have sufficient knowledge and justification to back my arguments. I am here only to learn further.

Then what's with the thread title and all the bold statements made to sound like fact?

[Anonymous]

Free market rule #2: The people's desires will be met. If people want sound safe products, they will be provided. If they don't like murder, there will not be murder.

Now the whiner pops out of his hidey hole.  How about defending the topic at hand eh?  

If you recall.  I was asking where you provide something resembling a cogent argument for your position.  i.e. A set of premises that force your conclusion.

All I have to provide is the history of our species. We have thrived, grown and built upon foundations built in times with no monopolies on education nor through any structured education period.

In addition, the current American system of learning  were made by leaders of the new American industrialist class. People who wanted to create factory workers. Not thriving individuals.

Naive.

If your conclusion is: "Public Education has had and will continue to have a negative effect on your country."

Then clearly the premise that "people have advanced without structured education" does not force it.  (Failure #1). Likewise the premise that "current educational system was historically intended to have a particular outcome" also does not force it.  Failure #2.

That all you got?

I am not here to prove anything. I am just here to share and observe. If you have little to offer in counters to my claims, I'm done.

No one can disprove an argument you never made.  You made a BASELESS STATEMENT.  You need to back the statement up so that people have something to refute.

I am ignorant. I don't feel I have sufficient knowledge and justification to back my arguments. I am here only to learn further.

Then what's with the thread title and all the bold statements made to sound like fact?

So, people can counter them and I can hear an alternate view.

[jgraham]

Free market rule #2: The people's desires will be met. If people want sound safe products, they will be provided. If they don't like murder, there will not be murder.

Now the whiner pops out of his hidey hole.  How about defending the topic at hand eh? 

If you recall.  I was asking where you provide something resembling a cogent argument for your position.  i.e. A set of premises that force your conclusion.

All I have to provide is the history of our species. We have thrived, grown and built upon foundations built in times with no monopolies on education nor through any structured education period.

In addition, the current American system of learning  were made by leaders of the new American industrialist class. People who wanted to create factory workers. Not thriving individuals.

Naive.

If your conclusion is: "Public Education has had and will continue to have a negative effect on your country."

Then clearly the premise that "people have advanced without structured education" does not force it.  (Failure #1). Likewise the premise that "current educational system was historically intended to have a particular outcome" also does not force it.  Failure #2.

That all you got?

I am not here to prove anything. I am just here to share and observe. If you have little to offer in counters to my claims, I'm done.

Sorry now you're a lying objectivist.

You said: "I am willing to argue public education has ruined this country..."

Now you are saying: "If you have little to offer in counters to my claims, I'm done."

Again the objectivist principle of semantic realism bites you in your butt.  Argument and claim are not mutually interchangeable ergo you either lied.  Saying that you had an argument (a series of premises or facts that force your conclusion) OR you only had a claim which makes you no different than any other person here and since your claim lacks an argument your point is no more valid.

If you spent half as much time thinking as you did shooting off your mouth then running away.  You might well become a decent human being.

[Anonymous]

I am not an objectivist. Frankly, the philosophy is very poor.

In addition, a forum is a poor place to judge human decency. I apologize if you feel your time has been wasted.

[jgraham]

If you're interested in an alternate perspective of public education from the eyes of a 30-year veteran of public school teaching and having won 3 Teacher of the Year Awards, I direct you to this:

http://www.amazon.com/Underground-History-American-Education-Taylor/dp/B000A4IX46

I already addressed one of Gato's points.   That it was mathematically retarded.   Do you actually need it spelled out how monumentally, egregiously moronic Gato is being from a statistical POV.   That is his argument about comparing the sales of "Common Sense" was? (and while I'm sure that's not his only argument it's tradition to put ones best foot forward rather than ones worst if they are actually trying to make a point. :-) )

[Anonymous]

It's a poor point; however, it's only one rust stain.

[jgraham]

It's a poor point; however, it's only one rust stain.

Then how about instead of just saying "read a book that happens to represent my well-supported POV but I sure won't tell you how".

You provide those parts of the book that actually form a cogent argument.  
Edit:Unless of course you haven't read this book either but you sure have implied otherwise

If you're not willing to provide a cogent argument and deliberately provided a stupid point wouldn't you say, in your own opinion that you are wasting peoples time?  Especially when you said you would argue the point.

[the joint]

In my opinion, the problems stemming from public education occur because of the following two (although, there are others) reasons.

1.)  Curriculum is influenced by media
2.)  It is compulsory

Hence, creativity in thinking is lacking.

The most popular subjects taught and most popular jobs attained are related to fields popularized by the media.  Ultimately, the importance and validity of any discipline taught in school is rooted in philosophy and an understanding of logical syntax.  How popular are philosophers in the media?  Not very.  How important is the sound application of logic in other fields?  Even scientists, who are supposed to strictly adhere to the limits of the scientific method and the laws of probability, carelessly make faulty assumptions in the classroom (or even worse, in scientific journals) on a daily basis -- if any scientist EVER tells me he proved something because of inductive reasoning, I'm gonna smack him.  And I'll challenge E=mc^2 all day any day.

On a side note, give the Christians and other religious people a little leeway.  Faith is underestimated when it comes to 'knowing.'

[Anonymous]

It's a poor point; however, it's only one rust stain.

Then how about instead of just saying "read a book that happens to represent my well-supported POV but I sure won't tell you how".

You provide those parts of the book that actually form a cogent argument.  
Edit:Unless of course you haven't read this book either but you sure have implied otherwise

If you're not willing to provide a cogent argument and deliberately provided a stupid point wouldn't you say, in your own opinion that you are wasting peoples time?  Especially when you said you would argue the point.

I'll stop wasting our time.

[the joint]

I am not an objectivist. Frankly, the philosophy is very poor.

In addition, a forum is a poor place to judge human decency. I apologize if you feel your time has been wasted.

object = subject AND object does not = subject

Just sayin'...so you can be rich while you're poor.

[jgraham]

In my opinion, the problems stemming from public education occur because of the following two (although, there are others) reasons.

1.)  Curriculum is influenced by media
2.)  It is compulsory

Hence, creativity in thinking is lacking.

Help me out here.  Your argument is essentially that 'creativity' which IMHO is pretty hard define is lacking in...what? Education?  People?  How did we measure this?  Is media influence intrinsically at odds with this hard to define idea. Not to mention  what does this have to do with *public* education?  Any evidence that private education is significantly less influenced?  Private schools jumped on the computing bandwagon earlier than any of the public schools.  

Ultimately, the importance and validity of any discipline taught in school is rooted in philosophy and an understanding of logical syntax.  How popular are philosophers in the media? Not very.

Importance defined how?  Sociological importance?  Personal satisfaction?  How are these measured?

How important is the sound application of logic in other fields?  Even scientists, who are supposed to strictly adhere to the limits of the scientific method and the laws of probability, carelessly make faulty assumptions in the classroom (or even worse, in scientific journals) on a daily basis

This definitely happens but as to what degree and what this has to do with public education is unclear.  Private schools are certainly responsible for some of the stupidest ideas in history. As an aside you can't 'strictly adhere to the limits of the scientific method' as the scientific method is not a formally defined entity (except in some very abstract sense).

[3phase]

Guys, does any of you HAVE children going to a public school?

I personally don't need to argue with the OP's statement, I know it to be true ever since Marx advocated free public education for everyone in the Communist Manifesto. Sure he wasn't the first to say so, but what a good way for the ruling class to enslave the people even more, by offering them a part of what their revolutionary thought leader asked for, as a teaser? (they also offered central banking and graduated taxes to make the people happier indeed - again from the above paper)

And I know it (concerning education) to be true because I've seen it happen to MY children. I was too young to realize it when I was going to school, but at least I kept wondering and searching for better ways instead of accepting what is being offered as the only truth.

I would suggest that you bear some children of your own, and send them to a public-funded school (and please - no cheating with any private institution) until they're 18. Then come back and I would be happy to hear and discuss your ACTUAL experience.

You can start by getting a girlfriend. It's good and you will enjoy it more than this forum.

[jgraham]

Guys, does any of you HAVE children going to a public school?

Yeah, two.  Also I tend to find the contrast interesting between say my education (in one of the public schools known for drugs and violence - although frankly much of that was hype) and my wife's education (private - costing more per year than medical school)...and by that I mean the lack of contrast.

I personally don't need to argue with the OP's statement, I know it to be true

Personally I try not to "know anything to be true" rather I try to look at evidence subjected to the rigor of math, logic and reason. Perhaps that was left out of your education?

ever since Marx advocated free public education for everyone in the Communist Manifesto. Sure he wasn't the first to say so, but what a good way for the ruling class to enslave the people even more, by offering them a part of what their revolutionary thought leader asked for, as a teaser? (they also offered central banking and graduated taxes to make the people happier indeed - again from the above paper)

Wait. What?  So anything advocated in the Communist Manifesto is a way of enslaving the hoi palloi? This seems like the "hitler" argument. I'm sure if you asked Marx (or Hitler) he would have also come out in favor of shelter, food and possibly clothing.   Are all those ways of enslaving us too?  If so then tomorrow I'm really going to push the envelope of my workplaces casual dress policy.

And I know it (concerning education) to be true because I've seen it happen to MY children. I was too young to realize it when I was going to school, but at least I kept wondering and searching for better ways instead of accepting what is being offered as the only truth.

Ok, I'd like to take this moment to ask you: "What the heck are you talking about?" The "only truth"? Does this "truth" have anything to do with aliens and the year 2012? If so, are you sure you're all not in some cult or something?  In any case the problem with your example - whatever the heck it's about.   Is that it's an anecdote, it doesn't say anything generally about public education and that's even if you are correct and your childrens' education is poor.

I would suggest that you bear some children of your own, and send them to a public-funded school (and please - no cheating with any private institution) until they're 18. Then come back and I would be happy to hear and discuss your ACTUAL experience.

Well I certainly have children in Public school.  They're not 18 but that seems like an arbitrary standard of evidence.  I have, as of yet no reason to move them to a private institution.  My wife and I have discussed it and our conclusion would be that the only justifiable reason would be if our child had some aptitude that only could be fulfilled at a private institution i.e. My Daughter might want to be involved in particle physics and the School of St. We-Transport-Steel-Bars-Rectally might be the only school with a cyclotron.

Honestly I am highly skeptical of the cost/benefit of private education.  Most private schools have some sort of entrance exam making it difficult to impossible to objectively evaluate their claims.  Which makes them unimpressive either because they belong to the subset of people who suck at math or they are trying to market to that group. 

[3phase]

Guys, does any of you HAVE children going to a public school?

Yeah, two.  Also I tend to find the contrast interesting between say my education (in one of the public schools known for drugs and violence - although frankly much of that was hype) and my wife's education (private - costing more per year than medical school)...and by that I mean the lack of contrast.

I personally don't need to argue with the OP's statement, I know it to be true

Personally I try not to "know anything to be true" rather I try to look at evidence subjected to the rigor of math, logic and reason. Perhaps that was left out of your education?

ever since Marx advocated free public education for everyone in the Communist Manifesto. Sure he wasn't the first to say so, but what a good way for the ruling class to enslave the people even more, by offering them a part of what their revolutionary thought leader asked for, as a teaser? (they also offered central banking and graduated taxes to make the people happier indeed - again from the above paper)

Wait. What?  So anything advocated in the Communist Manifesto is a way of enslaving the hoi palloi? This seems like the "hitler" argument. I'm sure if you asked Marx (or Hitler) he would have also come out in favor of shelter, food and possibly clothing.   Are all those ways of enslaving us too?  If so then tomorrow I'm really going to push the envelope of my workplaces casual dress policy.

And I know it (concerning education) to be true because I've seen it happen to MY children. I was too young to realize it when I was going to school, but at least I kept wondering and searching for better ways instead of accepting what is being offered as the only truth.

Ok, I'd like to take this moment to ask you: "What the heck are you talking about?" The "only truth"? Does this "truth" have anything to do with aliens and the year 2012? If so, are you sure you're all not in some cult or something?  In any case the problem with your example - whatever the heck it's about.   Is that it's an anecdote, it doesn't say anything generally about public education and that's even if you are correct and your childrens' education is poor.

I would suggest that you bear some children of your own, and send them to a public-funded school (and please - no cheating with any private institution) until they're 18. Then come back and I would be happy to hear and discuss your ACTUAL experience.

Well I certainly have children in Public school.  They're not 18 but that seems like an arbitrary standard of evidence.  I have, as of yet no reason to move them to a private institution.  My wife and I have discussed it and our conclusion would be that the only justifiable reason would be if our child had some aptitude that only could be fulfilled at a private institution i.e. My Daughter might want to be involved in particle physics and the School of St. We-Transport-Steel-Bars-Rectally might be the only school with a cyclotron.

Honestly I am highly skeptical of the cost/benefit of private education.  Most private schools have some sort of entrance exam making it difficult to impossible to objectively evaluate their claims.  Which makes them unimpressive either because they belong to the subset of people who suck at math or they are trying to market to that group. 

Since you are raising children, I am certainly wiling to exchange views.

The word "know" as you are probably aware, comes from education or experience. I said "I know" based on experience of many years raising my own children. You can argue with it, but it doesn't change the facts which I have witnessed. If I witness in the future facts contradicting to my knowledge, I would reevaluate the issue. I am a scientist, as I suppose from your stance you are as well, and I am always looking for evidence to support any theoretical assumption

The Marx reference meant that his writings have been and still are used in order to justify the actions of the elite. Can you say Socialist Party of (fill in the country that you want)? Free public education is one of the current big avenues of disillusionment in my country at least. Still people demand it, because they cannot see any alternative. I can. I don't understand how Hitler came about in your argument.

Same goes for "the only truth" statement. We are conditioned to think that there is no other way than public-funded schools for everyone except if you have the money to pay for something more. And to be sure, everybody I know (and we are not in a rich circle) pays extras for education simply because public-funded one is in no way enough. Maybe there is another way. Again, I don't understand how cults came about in your argument.

I would pay for a school where I could have a say in the formation of the curriculum, the values and the principles passed to the children and the quality of every aspect of the school, starting from the toilets and going to the chemistry lab. I am actively trying to do this in the public schools where my children attend, volunteering my work and my skills to add something to it, be it in stacking chairs, setting up their wireless network or taking care of the sound system in a school festivity. However, my volunteering (and that of others like me) does not affect the core of things, rather it polishes the surface for a while.

There are others here like minded, and some of us sat down a while ago to do a cost/benefit analysis on Excel for athe possibility of setting up a municipal private funded school in our town. It is too long to discuss here, but I would be happy to share it.

Finally, although you seem to be diligent enough to tackle every sentence of my post, you did not respond to my last sentence. 

[jgraham]

Since you are raising children, I am certainly wiling to exchange views.

Nothing elitist there.

The word "know" as you are probably aware, comes from education or experience. I said "I know" based on experience of many years raising my own children. You can argue with it, but it doesn't change the facts which I have witnessed. If I witness in the future facts contradicting to my knowledge, I would reevaluate the issue. I am a scientist, as I suppose from your stance you are as well, and I am always looking for evidence to support any theoretical assumption

However in case you missed it the OP was making a general argument.  So far you have mentioned witnessing nothing that would support a general argument.  In other words while you may have experienced "bad education" you have apparently not experienced "public education ruining this country". 

The Marx reference meant that his writings have been and still are used in order to justify the actions of the elite. Can you say Socialist Party of (fill in the country that you want)? Free public education is one of the current big avenues of disillusionment in my country at least. Still people demand it, because they cannot see any alternative. I can. I don't understand how Hitler came about in your argument.

So why does Marx or people who use his statements to justify X or Y have any significant merit to the argument that "Public schools have and are ruining this country".  Otherwise your argument appears to be:

i) Person X has some assumed intrinsic problem Y
ii) Person X has done, supported or talked about thing Z
iii) Thing Z has, supports or confers problem Y.

Which is essentially the "Hitler argument".   I can explain it again if you need me to.

Same goes for "the only truth" statement. We are conditioned to think that there is no other way than public-funded schools for everyone except if you have the money to pay for something more. And to be sure, everybody I know (and we are not in a rich circle) pays extras for education simply because public-funded one is in no way enough. Maybe there is another way.

Sorry but while it's conceivable that there is some 'only truth' preached somewhere in some localized population.  Given the number of specialized private schools, attempts at school reform to fully privatized systems and homeschooling fads that have happened over the past few decades it stretches credibility that this is the norm.  Also your argument has nothing to do with public education.   Some places the norm is/was privatized education.  This also doesn't seem to argue anything "bad" sure people accept what they grow up with as the norm this is simply the way people learn.  If public education is "good enough" then it doesn't really matter if there's another way.  Hence you should stick to the argument at hand.

If you need some explanation why the term 'cult' gets associated with a population hearing or espousing a single over-arching truth then I expect you haven't encountered many.

I would pay for a school where I could have a say in the formation of the curriculum, the values and the principles passed to the children and the quality of every aspect of the school, starting from the toilets and going to the chemistry lab.

Not to be contrarian but that's exactly the kind of school I would never pay for.  I'm sure you don't understand but that's half the problem now isn't it?

There are others here like minded, and some of us sat down a while ago to do a cost/benefit analysis on Excel for athe possibility of setting up a municipal private funded school in our town. It is too long to discuss here, but I would be happy to share it.

Go nuts - perhaps literally.  It's worth mentioning though there is some evidence to suggest that private schools actually produce poorer education.   Especially as you mention you are not in a high socio-economic class.   What I expect would be a better idea is a supplemental system.  China and Japan which both have high performing students (as measured by somewhat questionable tests like PISA) regularly participate in 補習班 or 塾 (respectively).   Public school also teaches one thing that's probably impossible to simulate: social mores.  I see this problem all the time when I talk to people who have been extensively privately educated.  It's funny how people on one hand can believe that true Language learning requires immersion and use but socialization is somehow considered distinct and not a language at all.

Finally, although you seem to be diligent enough to tackle every sentence of my post, you did not respond to my last sentence. 

uh...I would but my wife would kill me.

[the joint]

In my opinion, the problems stemming from public education occur because of the following two (although, there are others) reasons.

1.)  Curriculum is influenced by media
2.)  It is compulsory

Hence, creativity in thinking is lacking.

Help me out here.  Your argument is essentially that 'creativity' which IMHO is pretty hard define is lacking in...what? Education?  People?  How did we measure this?  Is media influence intrinsically at odds with this hard to define idea. Not to mention  what does this have to do with *public* education?  Any evidence that private education is significantly less influenced?  Private schools jumped on the computing bandwagon earlier than any of the public schools.  

Ultimately, the importance and validity of any discipline taught in school is rooted in philosophy and an understanding of logical syntax.  How popular are philosophers in the media? Not very.

Importance defined how?  Sociological importance?  Personal satisfaction?  How are these measured?

How important is the sound application of logic in other fields?  Even scientists, who are supposed to strictly adhere to the limits of the scientific method and the laws of probability, carelessly make faulty assumptions in the classroom (or even worse, in scientific journals) on a daily basis

This definitely happens but as to what degree and what this has to do with public education is unclear.  Private schools are certainly responsible for some of the stupidest ideas in history. As an aside you can't 'strictly adhere to the limits of the scientific method' as the scientific method is not a formally defined entity (except in some very abstract sense).

By creativity, I mean the ability to critically challenge, question, and then and only then accept/reject something taught by authority figures as true or false -- or, thinking outside the 'box.'

By importance, I mean owing existence to.  So, quantitative importance.

And by scientific 'method,' it is formally defined as a 'method' and therefore emphasis is placed on process not product.

[jgraham]

In my opinion, the problems stemming from public education occur because of the following two (although, there are others) reasons.

1.)  Curriculum is influenced by media
2.)  It is compulsory

Hence, creativity in thinking is lacking.

Help me out here.  Your argument is essentially that 'creativity' which IMHO is pretty hard define is lacking in...what? Education?  People?  How did we measure this?  Is media influence intrinsically at odds with this hard to define idea. Not to mention  what does this have to do with *public* education?  Any evidence that private education is significantly less influenced?  Private schools jumped on the computing bandwagon earlier than any of the public schools.  

Ultimately, the importance and validity of any discipline taught in school is rooted in philosophy and an understanding of logical syntax.  How popular are philosophers in the media? Not very.

Importance defined how?  Sociological importance?  Personal satisfaction?  How are these measured?

How important is the sound application of logic in other fields?  Even scientists, who are supposed to strictly adhere to the limits of the scientific method and the laws of probability, carelessly make faulty assumptions in the classroom (or even worse, in scientific journals) on a daily basis

This definitely happens but as to what degree and what this has to do with public education is unclear.  Private schools are certainly responsible for some of the stupidest ideas in history. As an aside you can't 'strictly adhere to the limits of the scientific method' as the scientific method is not a formally defined entity (except in some very abstract sense).

By creativity, I mean the ability to critically challenge, question, and then and only then accept/reject something taught by authority figures as true or false -- or, thinking outside the 'box.'

So again, I'm trying to piece together your thesis here.  So you claim that media influences public education (without specifying to what degree or how this fact is established or how the significant effect is isolated to education with public funding).  You then seem to claim that this has an significant effect on the ability to "critically challenge and question things offered by authority figures".

...and while I'm willing to entertain that at least half of one of your premises "the ability to critically challenge and question things" is detrimental to education.  None of your premises seem to force your conclusion here.  Not even touching on the idea of validating the premises.  I'd also say that there seem to be some practical problems with the idea that "then and only then accept/reject something taught by authority figures as true or false".  To me anyway I'd rather give someone the understanding of the tools used to validate hypotheses.  While logic is part of that, it's not exactly a terribly big part.   For example I'd challenge you to construct purely from sets and first-order logic one of my favorite tools "Analysis of Variance" (ANOVA).

By importance, I mean owing existence to.  So, quantitative importance.

What do you mean by that?  Are you implying that logic created say math?

And by scientific 'method,' it is formally defined as a 'method' and therefore emphasis is placed on process not product.

Not really.   It's usage is more an umbrella term for various processes employed in various sciences.  Heck unless you are using the terms "process" or "product" in some needlessly specialized sense.   You could even argue that the emphasis is on a product not process.