Because Stupid Question Do In Fact Exist
So, yesterday morning, as I’m rising out from behind my desk, already two sentences along with starting the day’s lecture, I see a hand go up in the back of the room. A question in class, even before class formally began? Absent of any awkward gesturing and prompting on my part to the usually still half-asleep faces staring wearily up at me? Why, for a teacher what greater prove could there ever be that a heaven does indeed exist?
“Yes, what can I do for you?” I ask the prospectively inquisitive young man.
“Yeah,” he began before pausing.
“Yeah?” I parroted in suspense to what I hoped wasn’t going to be another restroom break interruption that morning. (I mean seriously people, at your age you should have enough foresight to know how much your bladder can hold prior to chugging down that liter of Pepsi right before class.) Fortunately, it didn’t turn out to be another late onset of the pandemic high school urination affliction. Unfortunately, it turned out to be this:
Student: “Okay. I know there is the 20th Century, right?”
Me: “I believe I’ve heard of it once or twice.”
Student: “Okay, so I don’t…um…what I don’t get is…you have the 1900s, and you have the 2000s. I know one of them is it.”
Me (blinking very slowly): “Is what?”
Student: “The 20th Century.”
Me: “It’s the 1900s.”
Student: “Maybe.”
Me: “No. No, maybe. It’s not a subjective answer I’m giving you. The 1900s and the 20th Century are objectively, factually, irrefutably synonymous.”
Student: “Does that mean they’re the same thing?”
There are times when I’m honestly left amazed by the great insights and intellectual rigor demonstrated by my students (so much so that I’ll proudly praise it for months after the fact, and on the posts of this here blog). Then there are times when one of them will say something that leaves me wondering whether or not I’m the mark on one of those godawful hidden camera shows. For the sake of our collective future, I admit I was really hoping this case would turn out to be the latter. Alas, no such luck. And this painfully baffling exchange went on longer than I even want to admit. I can see now why the school won’t let us keep liquor in the teacher’s lounge fridge; it would be gone by the sound of the first bell.
Despite what the Constitution may say, not all men are created equal.
Ain’t that the truth.
Yup.
Hahaha lol! OMG that was hilarious! I almost cried, that’s kinda the trend now, they just don’t make smart men anymore, I think the mold broke lol. I think it is a generational thing.
Well in his difference, I never understood why a century does not correspond to the same 100 years, care to elaborate why we chose to say 20th century and we’re talking about the 1900s? or 15th century and we talk about the 1400s???
It’s just they my teachers never explained to me all that. Another peculiar thing is that BCE uses the correct century with the 1000 year period, why the flip after Jesus? Or was Jesus used as a pawn to flip the whole measuring of centuries and such???
Believe it or not, I can actually answer all your questions. [Puts on lecturer hat...]
The reason the 1900s are called the 20th Century (and the 1400s are called the 15th) has to do with mathematical and linguistic expression. Both in math and linguistics, a sequence of numbers can be divided into two groups (amongst many others) called cardinal numbers (one, two three,…,ten, twenty, etc.) and ordinal numbers (first, second, third,…,tenth, twentieth, etc.). Ordinal numbers are used in chronological sequences like dates (14th Century, 19th Century, etc.), and map out the point in time where a given date (usually year) falls within each sequence, without going over the number point. Meaning that the reason the years like 1914, 1958, and even 1900 itself fall within the 20th century mark is because they have by definition surpassed the boundaries of 19th (century) point. Think of it as a container that can only hold a specific quantity (in the case of centuries it would be 100 years), and once that quantity is reached, the remainders must be filled into the next container in the sequence.
“Another peculiar thing is that BCE uses the correct century with the 1000 year period, why the flip after Jesus?”
I think you’re confused on account that the BCE timeline is read backwards instead of forwards (sort of like a countdown), but there is essentially no difference in the way dates are stated in the BCE and CE timelines. For example, the 3rd century BCE covers the time period 299-200 BCE, not 399-300 as would be the case if the timeline followed your reasoning; the years still only go up to the ordinal number in question (in this case 3rd), and then go into the next sequence. So the 200s are still in the 3rd century, and the 1400s are still in the 15th century, whether looked at from the BCE or CE timeline.
“Or was Jesus used as a pawn to flip the whole measuring of centuries and such???”
There actually is an interesting history behind the development and application of the current BCE/CE (or BC/AD, to put it in more ecclesiastical terms) timeline. Without boring you with more details than you probably are looking for, the BC/AD (BCE/CE) calendar system wasn’t devised until the 6th century, and didn’t come into standard use until well into the 9th Century. The original motivation for its inspection was to serve as replacement for Christians to have a calendar era by which to enumerate the dates of Easter without having to use the calendar system set up by the Pagan emperor Diocletian. Additionally, it also served as a means by which to universalize all the various dating systems (many regions still resorted to the archaic method of numbering years on behalf of the reigning king, i.e. “The fifth year in the reign of King [whatever]“, this can cause confusion for later biographers and historians as years would often overlap as they reset a new sequence with the advent of every new king).
OK, I hope you took notes as there is going to be quiz on all of this.
Thank you for such a detailed explanation. Who would have thought what I didn’t learn in school was going to be taught to me here on wordpress?
Either way, I do not like the division BC/AD, it always made it sound like old and new, like the old world, old times, old religions, old civilizations, and oh…here comes enlightenment after Christianity is born (BS).
If this system was so much better then why do christian religions still follow pagan calendars of festivities such as Christmas and Easter? They follow the moon’s position every year and they try to explain what is absolutely absurd (like Jesus born in December) and such. Alas this is more a religious dogma question then the one I asked in the first place.
Once again, thank you for your detailed explanation
No problem.
Isn’t this more of a demonstration of ignorance than stupidity? It is a rather arbitrary fact that must be taught. I find it encouraging that a student felt a compulsion to clarify his understanding with you. He actually values you as a source of knowledge.
I sincerely hope the young man did not detect any of the sentiment expressed here, lest he be discouraged from asking questions in the future. Do you not enjoy teaching high school?
I respect your candor and concern, so let me assure you that the tone I express to the students in my classroom are a lot more gentle than the candid reflections I post on this blog (after all, if I can take the time to explain the issue to a commenter above, there is no reason for me not to do the same to one of my own students face-to-face). Furthermore, the misunderstanding I see readers making with this post (which means I probably should have taken the effort to better clarify), is the mistake of linking the title with the initial question about the 20th Century, rather than the quasi-relativistic follow-up response of “Maybe” which I was actually taking issue with. Granted, perhaps putting “Stupid Response” instead of “Stupid Question” in the title would have done a better job of conveying this, however, I believe I’m due the privilege of a certain level of writer’s licensing when picking a relevant title post.
So, in summary, no I didn’t call the student’s ignorance about what is/isn’t the 20th Century stupid, or suggest he was anything close to it in class. However, yes, I do consider his relativistic attitude upon receiving an answer to his question somewhat dense (to say the least). Nevertheless, I really do appreciate your feedback. It’s always fun to be challenged a bit, and be called out on my own sour tone.