RE: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric
���Michael Sylvester wrote: One way to look at a non-Eurocentric approach is to consider the example of intelligence. Intelligence to me is the ability to adapt to existing environments and should not be confined to what was deemed as intelligence by a few European based scholars. I agree with Michael that intelligence could well be defined as the ability to adapt to existing environments (though this would then make all manner of creepy crawlies and plants intelligent!). I have long felt that what is described as intelligence in many instances should actually be called cognitive intelligence, or some such. Not that I have much sympathy with Howard Gardner's notions of multiple i ntelligences, aka all shall have prizes. :-) Michael Smith wrote: But 'understanding' other people, cultures, etc? I'm not so sure. Perhaps one of Michael Sylvester's basic points is that in trying to 'understand' another culture one must do so within your own culture and so one can never really 'understand' the other one. Of course on similar grounds one can never 'understand' another person, though one does one's best (well, most people do some of the time :-) ). For example, the penchant of 'Western' culture is to quantify as Michael is pointing out. But this would fly in the face of lets say a culture based on Zen Buddhism which by its nature is on-quantifiable if you are g oing to 'understand' the culture. I think, with an open and questioning mind, it is *possible* to gain quite a lot of understanding of different cultures. The nearest to the kind of culture I think you might have in mind (i.e., one in which certain beliefs and practices having a similarity to Zen Bhuddism pervade the whole society) was Tibet. Of course one can never get 'inside' the culture if one is not born and bred within it, but that doesn't mean that one cannot get a sense of what the culture is like if one is prepared to be open-minded about it (and maybe experiment with their practices, eg, meditation). (It seems to me that two different things are involved here � 80� the propensity for Western 'scientific' psychology to quantify, and the degree to which we can 'understand' other cultures.) I think someone who accepts science-based medicine, as, eg, I'm sure Jon Kabat-Zinn does, can still make use of a well thought out system of meditative practices. I don't regard Kabat-Zinn's work as outside of scientific medicine, any more than a Japanese doctor using antibiotics is practising an alien medical culture. Reference: Jon Kabat-Zinn (1990). *Full Catastrophe Living: How to Cope with Stress, Pain and Illness Using Mindfulness Meditation*. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] Eurocentric?
Except, Stuart, the prevailing European white man's burden view of the time, backed up by the science of the time, did not accord these intelligence faculties to non-Europeans. And, if it did, it did not recognize anything approaching an equality of capacity and potential of non-Europeans to Europeans. Make it a good day. --Louis-- Louis Schmierhttp://www.therandomthoughts.com Department of History http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\ /\ /\ /\ (229-333-5947)/^\\/ \/ \ /\/\__/\ \/\ / \/ \_ \/ / \/ /\/\ /\ //\/\/ /\ \__/__/_/\_\\_/__\ /\If you want to climb mountains,\ /\ _ / \don't practice on mole hills - --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Eurocentric?
And to cover the other european intelligence test, Wechsler defines it as the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment (1939) -- John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 -- - Original Message - From: Stuart McKelvie smcke...@ubishops.ca To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@acsun.frostburg.edu Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:13:39 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [tips] Eurocentric? Dear Tipsters, Michael Sylvester wrote: One way to look at a non-Eurocentric approach is to consider the example of intelligence. Intelligence to me is the ability to adapt to existing environments and should not be confined to what was deemed as intelligence by a few European based scholars. Consider the 1916 definition of intelligence offered by Binet and Simon (who I think might just been qualified as European): It seems to us that there is a fundamental faculty, the alteration o r the lack of which, is of the utmost importance for practical life. This faculty is judgment, otherwise called good sense, practical s ense, initiative, the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances. To judge well, to comprehend well, to reason well, these are the essential activities of intelligence. Sincerely, Stuart ___ __ F loreat L abore Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) Recti cultus pectora roborant Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D ., Phone : 819 822 9600 x 2402 Department of Psychology, Fax : 819 822 9661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy F loreat L abore Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)___ --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] Eurocentric?
Dear Tipsters, Following John K.'s quotation: Yes. Wechsler and Binet/Simon were broad-minded thinkers. Sincerely, Stuart _ Floreat Labore Recti cultus pectora roborant Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402 Department of Psychology, Fax: 819 822 9661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy Floreat Labore ___ -Original Message- From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: August 13, 2009 1:05 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Eurocentric? And to cover the other european intelligence test, Wechsler defines it as the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment (1939) -- John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 -- - Original Message - From: Stuart McKelvie smcke...@ubishops.ca To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@acsun.frostburg.edu Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:13:39 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [tips] Eurocentric? Dear Tipsters, Michael Sylvester wrote: One way to look at a non-Eurocentric approach is to consider the example of intelligence. Intelligence to me is the ability to adapt to existing environments and should not be confined to what was deemed as intelligence by a few European based scholars. Consider the 1916 definition of intelligence offered by Binet and Simon (who I think might just been qualified as European): It seems to us that there is a fundamental faculty, the alteration o r the lack of which, is of the utmost importance for practical life. This faculty is judgment, otherwise called good sense, practical s ense, initiative, the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances. To judge well, to comprehend well, to reason well, these are the essential activities of intelligence. Sincerely, Stuart ___ __ F loreat L abore Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) Recti cultus pectora roborant Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D ., Phone : 819 822 9600 x 2402 Department of Psychology, Fax : 819 822 9661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy F loreat L abore Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)___ --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric
Then why don't you explain it in non-Eurocentric terms? Or are you saying it is not anything that can be put into words? Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org One way to look at a non-Eurocentric approach is to consider the exampe of intelligence.Intelligence to me is the ability to adapt to existing environments and should not be confined to what what was deemed as intelligence by a few European based scholars.Because of the penchant to categorize,analyze,the Eurocentric approach to intelligence has and continues to emphasize performance on paper-pencil tests and other verbal and non-verbal performances with underlying competencies.Competencies are one thing but whether performance on competencies is indicative of a lack of or abundance of intelligence is a different story and subject to debate.This emphasis on quantification has really created the impression that without quantication other forms of intelligence may be suspect.Imteresting enough, there has been the non_Eurocentric of the notion of multiple intelligences de-emphasing quantification and placing more emphasis not how smart are you but how are you smart The London line model of imtelligence still exists and is very limitin,but there are multiple adaptations of the varieties of human intellectual expressions that dispersed throughout the non-Eurocentric world which I name IWB-Intelligence Without Borders. Hope this helps.Btw,check out a work by Hutt and Hutt on possible non-Eurocentric devices. Michael Sylvester,PhD Deep down in Florida --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric
Michael Sylvester writes: This emphasis on quantification has really created the impression that without quantication other forms of intelligence may be suspect. Imteresting enough, there has been the non_Eurocentric of the notion of multiple intelligences de-emphasing quantification and placing more emphasis not how smart are you but how are you smart Since the multiple intelligences notion has been proposed within the context of Western psychology, why do you label it non-Eurocentric? It is by no means the case that Eurocentric science always emphasizes quantification. For instance, Darwinian evolutionary theory has been hailed as one the great accomplishments of scientific endeavour, but it was developed almost entirely without quantification. (Of course later, mathematical methods became part of the theory, but it is a theory that, unlike most of physics, say, can be explained and discussed in non-quantifiable terms.) The point, of course, of the use of quantitative methodology that frequently finds application in so-called Eurocentric science (why has such a supposedly alien methodology been whole-heartedly embraced by nations such as Japan and China?) is that it facilitates either refutation, or (at least tentative) verification, of theoretical notions. Perhaps Michael could point to some well-based notions in what he calls non-Eurocentric scientific fields that have sufficient validation to be widely accepted throughout the world. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric
My friend Michael msylves...@copper.net wrote under the Subject: Re: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric ...the Eurocentric approach to intelligence has and continues to emphasize performance on paper-pencil tests and other verbal and non-verbal performances with underlying competencies.Competencies are one thing but whether performance on competencies is indicative of a lack of or abundance of intelligence is a different story and subject to debate. I'm sure that Sternberg and Gardner would love to argue that with you. Bob Wildblood, PhD, HSPP Lecturer in Psychology Indiana University Kokomo Kokomo, IN 46904-9003 rwild...@iuk.edu - drb...@erols.com 765-236-0583 - 765-776-1727 The soundest argument will produce no more conviction in an empty head than the most superficial declamation; as a feather and a guinea fall with equal velocity in a vacuum. - Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832) Not thinking critically, I assumed that the successful prayers were proof that God answers prayer while the failures were proof that there was something wrong with me. - Dan Barker, former preacher, musician (b. 1949) We have an obligation and a responsibility to be investing in our students and our schools. We must make sure that people who have the grades, the desire and the will, but not the money, can still get the best education possible. - Barack Obama, President of the United States of America --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric
Allen wrote in response to my response of Allen's response to Michael Sylvester (Common sense has a lot going for it) Of course it has – but in terms of understanding the natural world in its widest sense, other people, other cultures, etc, it also has severe limitations Of course we haven't defined 'common sense' (and maybe can't). Probably we might have difficulty defining or at least perhaps disagree on what constitutes 'understanding' as well. As far as some of the results of the physical sciences then I would agree that the principles uncovered go beyond common sense. But 'understanding' other people, cultures, etc? I'm not so sure. Perhaps one of Michael Sylvester's basic points is that in trying to 'understand' another culture one must do so within your own culture and so one can never really 'understand' the other one. For example, the penchant of 'Western' culture is to quantify as Michael is pointing out. But this would fly in the face of lets say a culture based on Zen Buddhism which by its nature is non-quantifiable if you are going to 'understand' the culture. Again it comes down to what we mean when we say that we 'understand' another culture. If all we mean is that we can quantify certain social trends then we probably don't 'understand' that culture. But I didn't (and wouldn't 20for one moment) suggest that there are not other major causes of conflict than religion, True, and I wouldn't suggest that you would. I just highlighted the religion element because that's the one that is constantly being blamed for the world's ills by certain vocal opponents to religion such as that great scientist R. Dawkins. I would suggest that the motivations of the physicists who have lobbied for it go rather beyond just wanting to keep their jobs Said with tongue in cheek but does their motivation come down to much more than this? I'm not so sure that it does. Of course one can wax eloquent about humanity's curiosity and the need to explore and discover, but would that justify spending so much on physics which could be better spent on health care now. We already know enough to improve people's health but don't apply it because of 'economics' etc. Exploring more of space and the sub-atomic world won't help ordinary people with their lives now. I'm not suggesting we don't do science, but when we can't (or won't) apply the results is there much point in aggressive space and physics programs? --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric
- Original Message - From: Bourgeois, Dr. Martin To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: RE: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric I don't believe that I've ever met a scientist who thinks that scientific and experimental methodology are a means to arrive at a certain truth. Michael, where did you get this idea? -- Just because you have not met any is not evidence that none exists. Btw,for your edification,t historically there has been a number of ways to fix beliefs,namely the methods of authority,rationalism,testimonials,and scientific knowledge bases.Please note that scientific methoology does not create new realities but is an elaborative and exhaustive process to view specific relationships among variables. Hope this helps. Michael Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric
I don't believe that I've ever met a scientist who thinks that scientific and experimental methodology are a means to arrive at a certain truth. Michael, where did you get this idea? From: michael sylvester [msylves...@copper.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:36 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric The Eurocentric perspective emphasizes scientific and experimental methodology as the means to arrive ata certain truth.The non-Eurocentric predominates because human culture is much more than the relationships between measurable variables.The Eurocentric perspective remains obstinate and obdurate despite the common sense of culture,religion and other factors that propels human stability. Steven,hope this helps.Please note that it is not possible to explain the non-Eurocentric within a Eurocentric framework. Michael Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric
Non-Eurocentric michael sylvester wrote: Please note that it is not possible to explain the non-Eurocentric within a Eurocentric framework. Reminds me of the Personal Growth days where we were all told, I can't explain it to you, you have to experience it. The difference in this case is that most of us who aren't, can never be truly non-eurocentric. Bob Wildblood, PhD, HSPP Lecturer in Psychology Indiana University Kokomo Kokomo, IN 46904-9003 rwild...@iuk.edu - drb...@erols.com 765-236-0583 - 765-776-1727 The soundest argument will produce no more conviction in an empty head than the most superficial declamation; as a feather and a guinea fall with equal velocity in a vacuum. - Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832) Not thinking critically, I assumed that the successful prayers were proof that God answers prayer while the failures were proof that there was something wrong with me. - Dan Barker, former preacher, musician (b. 1949) We have an obligation and a responsibility to be investing in our students and our schools. We must make sure that people who have the grades, the desire and the will, but not the money, can still get the best education possible. - Barack Obama, President of the United States of America --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric
���Michael Sylvester wrote: The Eurocentric perspective remains obstinate and obdurate despite the common sense of culture, religion and other factors that propels human stability. Looking at human history I see the common sense of culture and religion as much a source of dissension as of human stability. But perhaps Michael means individual human stability, in which case, yes, culture and religion play a strong role in that. But I would say at some cost, e.g., in providing a source of conflict between groups, and in failing to provide the conditions for understanding nature and the universe in scientific terms that (ideally) are modified in the light of fresh reliable information. For example, the small society in this article is no doubt stable (both for individuals and collectively), but at a cost that many of us would rather not experience ourselves (for instance, it hardly allows for divergent thinking!): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6370991.stm There is nothing in principle in the scientific perspective that makes it obstinate and obdurate – one would hope that at its best it is quite the reverse. Though such modes of thought first arose in Europe it is now an essential part of many non-European cultures, the educated classes of which rightly regard it as universal, and not specifically European. In any case, a perspective in psychology (say) that di d not allow for, indeed investigate, factors due to culture and religion (more likely to be a source of common unsense than common sense :-) ) would be lacking an important dimension of human behaviour. I don't think so-called Eurocentric modes of thought necessarily exclude such factors – they certainly shouldn't. But common sense in trying to make sense of the physical world is one of the factors that the scientific perspective has often had to displace to produce consistent (reliable) knowledge. Otherwise we would still be left with imaginative stories about how the natural world works that remain obstinate and obdurate. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Sou thwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric
Looking at human history I see the common sense of culture and religion as much a source of dissension as of human stability. But perhaps Michael means individual human stability, in which case, yes, culture and religion play a strong role in that. But I would say at some cost, e.g., in providing a source of conflict between groups, and in failing to provide the conditions for understanding nature and the universe in scientific terms that (ideally) are modified in the light of fresh reliable information. I think common sense has a lot going for it. E.g. I'm not going to try to jump from this cliff to that one because I probably won't not make it. I think I will call 911 and let the police handle it instead of me trying to intervene on my own. I think I will let the mechanic do my brakes just in case I don't do it right on my own. --- No formal science or experimentation needed. I would also say that politics and money has provided far far more sources of conflict than religion ever has or ever will. And that the positive value of religion for individuals and groups far outweighs any harm caused by such religions. I would also say that a scientific understanding of nature and the universe has got pretty much nothing to do with quelling the sources of human conflict and is indeed incapable of doing so. Arguably, money spent on the space program would be better spent on health care. Do we really need to spend the billions of dollars on yet another particle accelerator and related experiments so physicists can keep their jobs? --Mike On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Allen Esterson allenester...@compuserve.com wrote: ��¨Michael Sylvester wrote: The Eurocentric perspective remains obstinate and obdurate despite the common sense of culture, religion and other factors that propels human stability. Looking at human history I see the common sense of culture and religion as much a source of dissension as of human stability. But perhaps Michael means individual human stability, in which case, yes, culture and religion play a strong role in that. But I would say at some cost, e.g., in providing a source of conflict between groups, and in failing to provide the conditions for understanding nature and the universe in scientific terms that (ideally) are modified in the light of fresh reliable information. For example, the small society in this article is no doubt stable (both for individuals and collectively), but at a cost that many of us would rather not experience ourselves (for instance, it hardly allows for divergent thinking!): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6370991.stm There is nothing in principle in the scientific perspective that makes it obstinate and obdurate – one would hope that at its best it is quite the reverse. Though such modes of thought first arose in Europe it is now an essential part of many non-European cultures, the educated classes of which rightly regard it as universal, and not specifically European. In any case, a perspective in psychology (say) that di d not allow for, indeed investigate, factors due to culture and religion (more likely to be a source of common unsense than common sense :-) ) would be lacking an important dimension of human behaviour. I don't think so-called Eurocentric modes of thought necessarily exclude such factors – they certainly shouldn't. But common sense in trying to make sense of the physical world is one of the factors that the scientific perspective has often had to displace to produce consistent (reliable) knowledge. Otherwise we would still be left with imaginative stories about how the natural world works that remain obstinate and obdurate. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Sou thwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric
���Michael Smith wrote in reply to my posting below: I think common sense has a lot going for it. Of course it has – but in terms of understanding the natural world in its widest sense, other people, other cultures, etc, it also has severe limitations. Mike then provided instances where No formal science or experimentation needed. I don't think anything I wrote conflicts with this. I would say that politics and money has provided far more sources of conflict than religion ever has or ever will. I wrote that culture and religion are as much a source of dissension as of stability. Perhaps I overstated this, perhaps not. But I didn't (and wouldn't 20for one moment) suggest that there are not other major causes of conflict than religion, though in the case of some of these religion may exacerbate the problem – for example in Northern Ireland where what was essentially a political and social conflict arising out of a long-running colonial history also contained within it powerful religious motifs deriving from historic catholic versus protestant conflicts. The religious element was not a cause of the recent conflict, but for many people it was certainly in the forefront of their minds to an extent not seen in the rest of the UK for very many generations. I would also say that a scientific understanding of nature and the universe has got pretty much nothing to do with quelling the sources of human conflict and is indeed incapable of doing so. Arguably, money spent on the space program would be better spent on health care. Much (though by no means all) of the health care on which the money might have been better spent is dependent on a scientific understanding of the nature of disease and other physical disorders. Do we really need to spend the billions of dollars on yet another particle accelerator and related experiments so physicists can keep their jobs? Whether spending billions of dollars on a bigger and better particle accelerator is justified is certainly a discussion wort h having, but I would suggest that the motivations of the physicists who have lobbied for it go rather beyond just wanting to keep their jobs. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org - On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Allen Esterson allenester...@compuserve.com wrote: Michael Sylvester wrote: The Eurocentric perspective remains obstinate and obdurate despite the common sense of culture, religion and other factors that propels human stability. Looking at human history I see the common sense of culture and religion as much a source of dissension as of hum an stability. But perhaps Michael means individual human stability, in which case, yes, culture and religion play a strong role in that. But I would say at some cost, e.g., in providing a source of conflict between groups, and in failing to provide the conditions for understanding nature and the universe in scientific terms that (ideally) are modified in the light of fresh reliable information. For example, the small society in this article is no doubt stable (both for individuals and collectively), but at a cost that many of us would rather not experience ourselves (for instance, it hardly allows for divergent thinking!): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6370991.stm There is nothing in principle in the scientific perspective that makes it obstinate and obdurate – one would hope that at its best it is quite the reverse. Though such modes of thought first arose in Europe it is now an essential part of many non-European cultures, the educated classes of which rightly regard it as universal, and not specifically European. In any case, a perspective in psychology (say) that did not allow for, indeed investigate, factors due to culture and religion (more likely to be a source of common unsense than common sense :-) ) would be lacking an important dimension of human behaviour. I don't think so-called Eurocentric modes of tho ught necessarily exclude such factors – they certainly shouldn't. But common sense in trying to make sense of the physical world is one of the factors that the scientific perspective has often had to displace to produce consistent (reliable) knowledge. Otherwise we would still be left with imaginative stories about how the natural world works that remain obstinate and obdurate. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] Eurocentric/non-Eurocentric
Michael Sylvester wrote The non-Eurocentric predominates because human culture is much more than the relationships between measurable variables. The Eurocentric perspective remains obstinate and obdurate despite the common sense of culture, religion and other factors that propels human stability. Michael, after all your postings along these lines, I still have little idea what you mean by a non-Eurocentric approach (eg, in psychology). Surely you can give some specific examples so we can get to grips with it. Please note that it is not possible to explain the non-Eurocentric within a Eurocentric framework. Then why don't you explain it in non-Eurocentric terms? Or are you saying it is not anything that can be put into words? Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
