As we approach the completion of our course, I was re-reading the Jamieson et al. ASEE paper and getting excited about its contents. Reflecting on the structure and flow of the course, I was wondering if a re-ordering of the topics might be beneficial, especially in light of the diversity of the students. Many have never been exposed to educational philosophy (or any philosophy, for that matter), and experienced some confusion when this topic was presented first. I was thinking that it might be better to present some of the material on the history of engineering and engineering education first to establish a context to which the subsequent topics could then refer. With the historical framework studied first, then the philosophical piece could be studied as it has related to that framework and influenced it over time. This type of context could have helped focus better on those philosophies that have influenced this historical development, or that could be applied to future development. I know from my own philosophical studies over the years that the context in which the study takes place is a key element in determining the direction that the study takes.
Showing posts with label markc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label markc. Show all posts
Monday, December 14, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Knowledge from Knowledge from Knowledge ….
Aristotle and Aquinas would agree that all human knowledge of real things starts with sense perception. Observing the learning process of a child demonstrates that this is so. But while it begins there, it does not end there. As Bri observed, there is something else there. The child is not only a receiver of sensory input, but has the uniquely human ability to make sense of it all through the intellect. The external reality is what is perceived, but the human mind can identify things, make connections, classify things (remember Bowker: “To classify is human”.). The human mind can then make judgments about the connections between things. The judgments may be true, if the result conforms to external reality, e.g. if I think that a creature I see at a distance is a dog when it in fact is a dog. But on the other hand my judgment may be false; I believe it is a dog, but on closer examination, I find that it is in fact a fox. This is the basis of Aquinas’s famous definition of truth, that it is the conformance of the understanding to the external reality. In practice, most humans operate this way most of the time. They perceive things and make judgments about their reality, “Seeing is believing.” But there is yet another power of the intellect that goes even further. We can reflect on our knowledge, and even on our own abilities to think and reason. By thinking about thinking, we can imagine possible connections among all kinds of things, and go well beyond what we have already experienced. One thought that occurred to me while writing this, is that this could be a factor in what we call creativity. The imagining of things that never were, leading to an idea of what could be, and culminating in the design of something new.
Aristotle and Aquinas would agree that all human knowledge of real things starts with sense perception. Observing the learning process of a child demonstrates that this is so. But while it begins there, it does not end there. As Bri observed, there is something else there. The child is not only a receiver of sensory input, but has the uniquely human ability to make sense of it all through the intellect. The external reality is what is perceived, but the human mind can identify things, make connections, classify things (remember Bowker: “To classify is human”.). The human mind can then make judgments about the connections between things. The judgments may be true, if the result conforms to external reality, e.g. if I think that a creature I see at a distance is a dog when it in fact is a dog. But on the other hand my judgment may be false; I believe it is a dog, but on closer examination, I find that it is in fact a fox. This is the basis of Aquinas’s famous definition of truth, that it is the conformance of the understanding to the external reality. In practice, most humans operate this way most of the time. They perceive things and make judgments about their reality, “Seeing is believing.” But there is yet another power of the intellect that goes even further. We can reflect on our knowledge, and even on our own abilities to think and reason. By thinking about thinking, we can imagine possible connections among all kinds of things, and go well beyond what we have already experienced. One thought that occurred to me while writing this, is that this could be a factor in what we call creativity. The imagining of things that never were, leading to an idea of what could be, and culminating in the design of something new.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Noddings chapter 2: Dewey’s Rejection of Truth
It seems strange that the author should celebrate Dewey’s rejection of truth as the foundation of his philosophy. She does note, however, that this rejection was an act of the will. That is, he was unwilling to be dependent on unobservable entities outside of himself. But if we look at it objectively, we should be able to see that his willing truth away can not make it so. The traditional philosophers, from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle up through Thomas Aquinas all recognized that the idea of truth is intimately connected to the very idea of existence. Truth is that which really exists, whether any given person recognizes it or not. The purpose of inquiry is to learn what this truth really is, not to create it in our own image. The world existed long before Dewey was born, and it continues to exist without him. To assert that knowledge is bigger than truth is a logical absurdity, since the knowledge of any one person is inherently limited. No one can know all the truth there is to know, and given the ease with which individuals can make mistakes, there is always the chance that what we think we know is wrong. But regardless of how many people know a particular truth, that truth still remains. To base an entire philosophy on rejecting truth, as Dewey and his followers seem to do, can only lead to conclusions that are no longer based on reality.
Noddings tries to illustrate this idea by setting up the false dichotomy of the faulty math rule. But even in doing so, she acknowledges the importance of truth by rejecting the faulty rule because it does not give correct (i.e. true) answers. In fact, that is how the truth is demonstrated. The teacher who believes in truth does not simply tell the student the rule is wrong, but demonstrates that it gives false answers, then rejects it for one that gives true answers. In fact, this was the approach that Aquinas was famous for. He first posed the objections and proved them to be false before demonstrating what the truth had to be. Any philosophy of education (or anything else, for that matter) that is not based on truth can only lead to confusion.
Noddings tries to illustrate this idea by setting up the false dichotomy of the faulty math rule. But even in doing so, she acknowledges the importance of truth by rejecting the faulty rule because it does not give correct (i.e. true) answers. In fact, that is how the truth is demonstrated. The teacher who believes in truth does not simply tell the student the rule is wrong, but demonstrates that it gives false answers, then rejects it for one that gives true answers. In fact, this was the approach that Aquinas was famous for. He first posed the objections and proved them to be false before demonstrating what the truth had to be. Any philosophy of education (or anything else, for that matter) that is not based on truth can only lead to confusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
