Hi
As part of an excellent discussion of basic norms of science and
approaches to teaching such norms,
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, G. Marc Turner wrote:
> For me, the problem comes when we expect them to blindly accept
> these norms. Yes, the norms are needed, and students should be
> expected to learn them. However, if we simply say "these are
> the norms, memorize them, do not question them" then we are
> becoming dogmatic. I fully understand the necessity of them and
> feel that they would stand-up to any challenges students might
> have against them. So, why not allow students to challenge the
> norms and prove to themselves the necessity for them. Perhaps
> this is where I have been unclear. I am not arguing that we do
> not need the norms (although some on the list do seem to hold
> this position). I just feel that we can allow students to
> question the norms, since the necessity of the norms will
> become apparent as soon as they start to question them.
I agree that the norms can and often should be challenged,
perhaps especially in courses devoted specifically to the
development of such norms, but I (a) wonder to what extent it is
practical in every course to go back to first principles and (b)
am extremely skeptical that a sufficient number of students will
arrie at the correct answer left to their own devices.
To elaborate on (b), many extremely bright and knowledgeable
people have, I believe, been misled (or misled themselves) about
the supposedly questionable epistemological foundations of
empiricism (i.e., science as traditionally practiced). I
am not sure whether to attribute the acceptance of these
miisguided views to cognitive (e.g., not thinking deeply or
scientifically enough about the issues and evidence), emotional
(e.g., misguided humility), political (e.g., not wanting to
offend certain groups), or other factors. To expect students to
arrive at the proper answer (which I believe there is) without
adequate guidance is like expecting them to arrive on their own
at some deep and accurate understanding of the human brain
without proper instruction (as opposed to some pop-psychology
view such as left-brain, right-brain or the myth of people only
using 10% of their brains).
> If by privileged position you mean they should not be questioned, then I
> agree that they don't have that position. I think everything should be
> questioned, and if we do not allow our norms to be questioned then how do
> we know they are really necessary? Again, this is not an argument to get
> rid of the norms or to put other "norms" on an equal footing. It is simply
> a suggestion that we allow our norms to prove themselves rather than
> expecting them to be accepted without challenged.
>
> I do agree that within our community these norms must remain. And I feel
> that the way to have them remain, is to let them prove themselves to be a
> necessity rather than presenting them as something that has to be.
>
> >Such responses by (apparently) trained scientists suggest to me that the
> >cultural norms of our discipline are now on a very shaky foundation. Perhaps
> >some places to look for reasons for this situation are the emergence of
> >postmodernist thought in psychology (e.g., the thinking of psychologists such
> >as Gergen and Cushman) and the "democratization" of higher education
> (which has
> >led to a large number of people from many different cultural backgrounds
> >entering academia).
> >
> >I am becoming more concerned about this situation after seeing the apparently
> >easy acceptance of such ideas by people on this list.
>
> I admit I am concerned as well, though perhaps for a different reason. It
> almost seems like some are not sure that the norms would stand up if
> challenged, so we shouldn't challenge them. And I must admit, that I am
> equally concerned by those that feel the norms aren't necessary. I think
> the difference between myself and the position Jeff takes is on whether or
> not we should be allowed to challenge the norms of our culture. In essence
Certainly the people Jeff and others (like me) are concerned
about do not fall in your camp (i.e., do not challenge the
beliefs). Gergen and the like believe (wrongly) that the
foundations have been challenged and found wanting, and that it
is time to move on to a post-empiricist constructivist era. It
is because of the example of such misguided individuals that I
would not expect students to arrive at a mature conclusion on the
basis of unguided reflection on these issues.
> I see there being 3 camps:
>
> 1) Accept the norms without challenge
> 2) Accept the norms and allow them to be challenged
> 3) Change or discard the norms
>
> I see myself in group #2. Perhaps my stance is a little clearer now....
I guess my view would be that:
Approach 1) would generally be appropriate in many courses in
which the scientific approach is not the specific topic of study,
but rather a tool by which other knowledge is being uncovered.
Of course, providing information about the productive benefits of
using the scientific approach implicitly buttresses confidence in
that approach.
Approach 2)+ would be appropriate in courses in which the
scientific approach is the specific topic of study. The + refers
to the instructor participating in the production of challenges,
but also in helping the student to reconsider some of the
apparent challenges. This might involve something relatively
didactic (e.g., having them read and memorize Kuhn's sharp
rebuttal of the relativistic interpretations of his ideas), as
well as assistance with basic reasoning (e.g., asking how one
could ever know that all knowledge was culturally relative
without some method of determination that transcended culture). I
still remember fondly a Philosophy of Religion course that I took
many years ago in which the professor spent the term going
through the various arguments for god's existence and then
carefully working through the logical weaknesses of the
arguments. My feeling is we need more of this with respect to
purported challenges to science and reason as ways of knowing.
The challenges simply do not hold water when looked at carefully.
But perhaps that is just my Eurocentric limitations being
revealed (or various other centrisms that might be ascribed to
me).
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9313
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L02A
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
