(I haven't bitten in a long time). Michael, since when is science rigid? It seems to me that dogma, appeal to authority, are far more rigid. The only thing science really demands is that phenomena be replicable, to ensure they are not unique to one observer - though thoughtout our history even that is open to debate. Some europeans (you know, those rigid people) have advocated for a phenonomenological approach. All in the search for GENERAL laws/descriptions/functions, casting the widest empirical net with the fewest and simplest of explanations.
----------------------------- John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Director, Psychology Honors Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 ----------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Michael Scoles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 1:05 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: What I teach/what I think "Going by the text" does not require critical thinking. Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology & Counseling University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR 72035 >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/26/06 10:05 AM >>> Tipsters:Please note that the ideas I post do not reflect my classroom teaching.In the classroom I go y the text requiring critical thinking processes and rigid scientific approaches to content and conclusions.After all I am PhD in Experimental. Avoid committing the fundamental Eurocentric error.What you see is not what they will get. Michael Sylvester,PhD ________________________________________________________________ Sent via FalconMail e-mail system at falconmail.dbcc.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
