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)
