It's very interesting to read and hear the different perspectives on what is ethics. I will now share mine:
For me ethics is simple. It is linked to (1) awareness of your own actions and the consequences they have (and might have) --in the other human being, in yourself, and in your surroundings-- and (2) the responsibility for your actions and amendments if necessary. Note that when you act, you have thought before committing the act...
I see the term morality as the particular code of ethics bounded to a certain religion. Thus the word "ethics", without (any other word accompanying it) are more universal aspects to preserve life, harmony, and consensus between people.
And in the context of engineering, ethics has traditionally been linked to the set of codes belonging to, for example, the IEEE or any other engineering professional organization. It should also include the simple ethics I mentioned before.
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-/
Recalling our friend, Nel Noddings --why we don't send her a Christmas card? She will get happy and we'll exercise Utilitarianism-- we see that Noddings use the terms 'moral' and 'ethics' interchangeably (p. 151).
I liked some aspects of Kantianism, but not all. For example, I liked that Kant see ethical agents "constrained not to do things that will interfere with the free agency of other" (p. 159); however I must interfere if I see that the person is trying, for example, to suicide. I must interfere if an infant, child, person with a severe mental illness is being the recipient of harm by other with more strength.
If I do not have the physical conditions to stop the situation, I have the responsibility (ethics) to either call the police, or scream, or notify someone else, or do something to stop that. The other aspect I liked is his approach to do "the right (procedural aspects of ethics) rather that the good (the context or ends sought in ethical action)" (p.158). Of Utilitarianism, I liked the idea of "sensitive thinkers" (p. 160).
Going back to my simplistic definition of ethics, I see that it might fit more with Dewey, because "Dewey put much more emphasis on the responsibility of individuals and institutions than is usual in utilitarianism. For Dewey, the primary criterion of ethical behavior is willingness to accept responsibility for the full range of anticipated outcomes" (p. 163).
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-/
--I cut here to prevent myself from writing an essay --
Showing posts with label noddings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label noddings. Show all posts
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Thoughts and Comments on epistemology and education (Noddings 5-7)
When reading Noddings and other comments on epistemology here, I sort of pondered on this question: How does epistemology relate to Engineering education? I like Noah's comments about the lack of classwork in education or training course in teaching practice in disciplines outside of education (herein specific, the discipline of engineering). I think A decent level of training or background knowledge in epistemology would certainly affect the practice of teaching in engineering.
For professors, understanding about some basic questions in epistemology could influence the teaching of engineering. Say, the definition of true knowledge.Is the knowledge that professors are teaching in class true knowledge or not? How true it is and under what domain or within what kind of limitation it will stay true? This is a basic question in epistemology. A professor in his teaching would potentially omit some premises or biases without a clear understanding or awareness of his own view in epistemology.
For professors, understanding about some basic questions in epistemology could influence the teaching of engineering. Say, the definition of true knowledge.Is the knowledge that professors are teaching in class true knowledge or not? How true it is and under what domain or within what kind of limitation it will stay true? This is a basic question in epistemology. A professor in his teaching would potentially omit some premises or biases without a clear understanding or awareness of his own view in epistemology.
Monday, September 14, 2009
How do historians reason?
I posted on Blackboard a paper by Sam Wineburg (wineburg1998.pdf) - it looks at how expert historians reason. One question you could explore - how does it compare to what engineers do (revisiting Noddings' question from last week). Another question - the study has a domain general / domain specific aspect in that two expert historians are studied - each having different "specific" expertise in a historical content area --> what do you think Wineburg would have to add to the general-specific critical thinking debate?
Remembering Noddings from the first day
These were the questions we posted during the first week of Noddings - I'm reposting them here as a place for reflection and thinking forward on your first synthesis essay.
- Liked - each chapter 20 pages (my gut is that this was intentional)
- Liked - sequence of history - but sometimes the relationship was unclear
- How does philosophy relate to teaching practice? Research practice?
- How to navigate the different educational philosophies - how are they similar / different?
- Wished - there were more examples (check out later chapters!)
- Liked - being open and reflective - seeing her values in the discussion (is it her voice? - yes)
- Liked - choices between a top level view and more details
- Why are they so interested in education?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Noddings 5-7
Chapter 5
Formal Logic is important for developing the skills needed in upper levels of education. When facing the daily problems of life it is also useful; however, in this case I see it more as an additional "tool" in one's "toolbox" for solving life problems. The other "tools" are more abstract; such as intuition, empathy, etc.
Formal logic will always be bound to a context. In order to select the "True" or "False" in a statement, you need to know the context to judge it. And even when you know the context, bias may emerge.
Taking a very simple example, the expression "If I eat hamburgers, then I will get fat". You have to know who is the "I", what type of hamburgers are we talking about, the physical exercise and condition of the person, what it means to be "fat", etc. When you have defined the context, then you can make a decision of the outcome of the expression.
The perspective of Jane Roland Martin, as discussed by Noddings between pages 101-103, was interesting for me: the idea that critical thinking is meant also to connect with others in order to transform the world in a positive way. In addition, I found interesting the discussion of the problems arising when critical theory is applied to critical literacy. When the newly literate starts to read and think critically, they may see his or her true condition and might work to change his or her condition. The discussion ends informing that, as Freire and other philosophers have found, the former oppressed turns to be the actual oppressor.
Chapter 6
Of this chapter, it drew me more the discussion of "what is the truth" and "constructivism". I agreed with the statement of K. Popper that, as quoted by Noddings, truth is a ""regulative ideal" -- something unattainable toward which we nevertheless strive". Meaning that the quest to find the absolute certainty is unreachable; however, you can use probability theory to obtain the degree of certainty. It is like if we were measuring the degree of the truth of something. I did also find interesting Dewey's forward-looking-epistemology, because the weight he places in the consequences of one's beliefs against the justifications made through past conditions.
Constructivism is the philosophy that states that "all knowledge is constructed; knowledge is not the result of passive reception" (Noddings, p.126-127). What I do not agree here is with the view that the construction of knowledge is through a generic cognitive machine, identical in all individuals. My view is that every individual constructs the knowledge based on his or her idiosyncratic way.
About Piaget's work, I did agree with those who point out that, instead of emphasizing in the manipulation of objects, the focus must be the interaction with people. This reminds me of the preference that many people have to ask questions directly to another person; even thou they can search for the answer on the Internet. Web sites such as Yahoo Answers try to address that necessity of direct contact with a person, although the quality of answers rarely is the ideal one. :-p
Chapter 7
Of this chapter I will comment about the discussion of Noddings: the metascience domain and the questions that Kuhn addresses. Some of these are:
1) Which problem do scientist need to resolve with more urgency?
2) Should they need to consider the effects of their research on individuals, communities, and the world?
Noddings (p.138) discusses: "Some scientists argue that they are not responsible for the uses to which their science is put. Science is employed to advance knowledge. Discussions of how its products are used belongs to the domain of politics or moral theory. Can this sharp separation be supported, or can we find difficulties in it?"
I have to admit that when I started the Master's degree and began to be more familiarized with the research labs, research topics nowadays, etc... I told to myself: "this is pointless... for what these [x] researches will serve to alleviate the most important social problems nowadays? Why they are not focusing their energies in solving xyz social problems instead?" That reality made me almost quit Computer Engineering 2 years ago.
Formal Logic is important for developing the skills needed in upper levels of education. When facing the daily problems of life it is also useful; however, in this case I see it more as an additional "tool" in one's "toolbox" for solving life problems. The other "tools" are more abstract; such as intuition, empathy, etc.
Formal logic will always be bound to a context. In order to select the "True" or "False" in a statement, you need to know the context to judge it. And even when you know the context, bias may emerge.
Taking a very simple example, the expression "If I eat hamburgers, then I will get fat". You have to know who is the "I", what type of hamburgers are we talking about, the physical exercise and condition of the person, what it means to be "fat", etc. When you have defined the context, then you can make a decision of the outcome of the expression.
The perspective of Jane Roland Martin, as discussed by Noddings between pages 101-103, was interesting for me: the idea that critical thinking is meant also to connect with others in order to transform the world in a positive way. In addition, I found interesting the discussion of the problems arising when critical theory is applied to critical literacy. When the newly literate starts to read and think critically, they may see his or her true condition and might work to change his or her condition. The discussion ends informing that, as Freire and other philosophers have found, the former oppressed turns to be the actual oppressor.
-----------------
Chapter 6
Of this chapter, it drew me more the discussion of "what is the truth" and "constructivism". I agreed with the statement of K. Popper that, as quoted by Noddings, truth is a ""regulative ideal" -- something unattainable toward which we nevertheless strive". Meaning that the quest to find the absolute certainty is unreachable; however, you can use probability theory to obtain the degree of certainty. It is like if we were measuring the degree of the truth of something. I did also find interesting Dewey's forward-looking-epistemology, because the weight he places in the consequences of one's beliefs against the justifications made through past conditions.
Constructivism is the philosophy that states that "all knowledge is constructed; knowledge is not the result of passive reception" (Noddings, p.126-127). What I do not agree here is with the view that the construction of knowledge is through a generic cognitive machine, identical in all individuals. My view is that every individual constructs the knowledge based on his or her idiosyncratic way.
About Piaget's work, I did agree with those who point out that, instead of emphasizing in the manipulation of objects, the focus must be the interaction with people. This reminds me of the preference that many people have to ask questions directly to another person; even thou they can search for the answer on the Internet. Web sites such as Yahoo Answers try to address that necessity of direct contact with a person, although the quality of answers rarely is the ideal one. :-p
-----------------
Chapter 7
Of this chapter I will comment about the discussion of Noddings: the metascience domain and the questions that Kuhn addresses. Some of these are:
1) Which problem do scientist need to resolve with more urgency?
2) Should they need to consider the effects of their research on individuals, communities, and the world?
Noddings (p.138) discusses: "Some scientists argue that they are not responsible for the uses to which their science is put. Science is employed to advance knowledge. Discussions of how its products are used belongs to the domain of politics or moral theory. Can this sharp separation be supported, or can we find difficulties in it?"
I have to admit that when I started the Master's degree and began to be more familiarized with the research labs, research topics nowadays, etc... I told to myself: "this is pointless... for what these [x] researches will serve to alleviate the most important social problems nowadays? Why they are not focusing their energies in solving xyz social problems instead?" That reality made me almost quit Computer Engineering 2 years ago.
---------------------------
Thoughts on Chap.5-7
About a year ago when I wrote a draft of literature review and asked my advisor for suggestions, he replied, "You can't make others' work all sound so useless - actually they are not - and meanwhile overestimate your own contributions." Stubbornness and arrogance turn many new researchers like me into a so-called "weak" sense critical thinker. But only since I read Paul's definition and classification of strong/weak sense thinking that I realize how necessary and valuable to become a strong one.
But I don't agree with McPeck about critical thinking cannot be taught in some general way. In my opinion, some critical thinking was born in an abstract level which should be taught in more general way and applied to more disciplines.
I love the way how Noddings stated the importance but hopelessness to seek for certainty, and how observation is sometimes not reliable and immediately becomes 'past-tense'. This argument coincides and reinforces the perspectives from Postmodernism we learned last time - we must compromise and step back to admit 'local truth'. I am also interested in coherence theories because there are a lot of conscious or unconscious 'event' in history being revised incorrectly in this way.
I can't image how fierce the debate between quantitative and qualitative research was then. Nor do I agree that they are incommensurable. The analogy of rational and irrational numbers does not reflect the same relation between quantitative and qualitative researches. They may use completely different approach, and base on their own theories, but there must be a certain point where they are connected and share the commons. For example, how can we draw the conclusion of "An apple a day keeps the doctor away."? We must start with an opening question: what keeps the doctor away? We may question those healthy elders and analyze their life styles. Hopefully, this qualitative research will eventually uncover that it is eating apple that keeps the doctor away. But how many apples should one eat? What kind of illness may apple be a precaution? Those are questions for quantitative research. Instead of debate, researchers from both parties should strengthen collaborations.
But I don't agree with McPeck about critical thinking cannot be taught in some general way. In my opinion, some critical thinking was born in an abstract level which should be taught in more general way and applied to more disciplines.
I love the way how Noddings stated the importance but hopelessness to seek for certainty, and how observation is sometimes not reliable and immediately becomes 'past-tense'. This argument coincides and reinforces the perspectives from Postmodernism we learned last time - we must compromise and step back to admit 'local truth'. I am also interested in coherence theories because there are a lot of conscious or unconscious 'event' in history being revised incorrectly in this way.
I can't image how fierce the debate between quantitative and qualitative research was then. Nor do I agree that they are incommensurable. The analogy of rational and irrational numbers does not reflect the same relation between quantitative and qualitative researches. They may use completely different approach, and base on their own theories, but there must be a certain point where they are connected and share the commons. For example, how can we draw the conclusion of "An apple a day keeps the doctor away."? We must start with an opening question: what keeps the doctor away? We may question those healthy elders and analyze their life styles. Hopefully, this qualitative research will eventually uncover that it is eating apple that keeps the doctor away. But how many apples should one eat? What kind of illness may apple be a precaution? Those are questions for quantitative research. Instead of debate, researchers from both parties should strengthen collaborations.
Thoughts on Dewey and Aristotle--Noddings chap 1-4
--It is neat to read Markc 's comment on Dewey about his rejection of Truth. I hold similar idea towards it. Dewey's assertion that knowledge is bigger than truth brothers me because I believe that the goal of natural inquiry or other format of research activities is to find truth. Without acknowledging the existence of truth, it is hard to expect any rational discovery from inquiry process.
--To me, the educational philosophy from Aristotle, especially the part on moral education, is of particular value to education in general. We think of education a lot of times as a way to obtain knowledge or a tool or format for growth. To be able to approach an issue with critical thinking is also part of our educational goals. Whereas, Aristotle pointed out that moral education should be present in young people's education before they could be trusted to analyze moral issues ethically. His educational ideas echoed with the character education model later in the nineteenth and twentieth century. The cultivation of basic traits of character builds the foundation of ethical rationalization. Startled by the growing tendency of unpleasing social practices, I consider that his moral educational model deserves re-appreciation.
--To me, the educational philosophy from Aristotle, especially the part on moral education, is of particular value to education in general. We think of education a lot of times as a way to obtain knowledge or a tool or format for growth. To be able to approach an issue with critical thinking is also part of our educational goals. Whereas, Aristotle pointed out that moral education should be present in young people's education before they could be trusted to analyze moral issues ethically. His educational ideas echoed with the character education model later in the nineteenth and twentieth century. The cultivation of basic traits of character builds the foundation of ethical rationalization. Startled by the growing tendency of unpleasing social practices, I consider that his moral educational model deserves re-appreciation.
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.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Noddings 1-4: from confused to less confused
First, I confess that chapter 4 annoyed me mainly due to my insufficient background knowledge in philosophy. Different philosophies share commons while fight against each other at some points, and they each proposed unprecedented ideas. Having an engineering brain, I find difficulties in accepting knowledge that is not logically organized.
However, I eventually figure out that it is me who fails to identify the implicit relations among diverse philosophies. Thanks to the big table in class, I am now more aware of the critical dispute and the mainstream of each philosophy. I am extremely amused by the 'buying and selling' analogy by Dewey. In my opinion, the comparison of merchant and teacher implies more responsibilities on teacher in that merchant has a direct and immediate feedback when a customer buys the product whereas teacher may not. Linking with the competition between Soviet and the U.S. in that era, it's not a surprise to see how many challenges came out towards this notion. I neither agree nor disagree Dewey's statement unless I know the precise role of teacher. It's not fair to scold a teacher if he/she is not responsible for assessment and hence not able to have feedback to improve his/her teaching.
I support the abandonment of the enlightenment quest for absolute truth in Postmodernism. Newton's Laws have a profound impact over the past few centuries. No one was going to oppose me 100 years ago if I announced that Newton's Laws were indubitable truths. But what about now when we have Relativity Theory? If we believe in a fixed one-truth concept in the world, we lose our sense of aim of education is growth/more education by Dewey as well. The existence of multiple truth may lead to discrepancy in our common basis. How to value the trade-off between growth/diversity of knowledge and the barriers posed by the discrepant local truths geologically and temporally?
BTW, I am reading an article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that overlaps with some points in Noddings' book. In case someone else may also be interested, I post the link below. I found it easier to follow - at least for me :P
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy/
However, I eventually figure out that it is me who fails to identify the implicit relations among diverse philosophies. Thanks to the big table in class, I am now more aware of the critical dispute and the mainstream of each philosophy. I am extremely amused by the 'buying and selling' analogy by Dewey. In my opinion, the comparison of merchant and teacher implies more responsibilities on teacher in that merchant has a direct and immediate feedback when a customer buys the product whereas teacher may not. Linking with the competition between Soviet and the U.S. in that era, it's not a surprise to see how many challenges came out towards this notion. I neither agree nor disagree Dewey's statement unless I know the precise role of teacher. It's not fair to scold a teacher if he/she is not responsible for assessment and hence not able to have feedback to improve his/her teaching.
I support the abandonment of the enlightenment quest for absolute truth in Postmodernism. Newton's Laws have a profound impact over the past few centuries. No one was going to oppose me 100 years ago if I announced that Newton's Laws were indubitable truths. But what about now when we have Relativity Theory? If we believe in a fixed one-truth concept in the world, we lose our sense of aim of education is growth/more education by Dewey as well. The existence of multiple truth may lead to discrepancy in our common basis. How to value the trade-off between growth/diversity of knowledge and the barriers posed by the discrepant local truths geologically and temporally?
BTW, I am reading an article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that overlaps with some points in Noddings' book. In case someone else may also be interested, I post the link below. I found it easier to follow - at least for me :P
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy/
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Readings of Aug 28 - Sept 3, Noddings 1-4
These are the August 28-September 3 reflections and commentaries of Noddings, Chapter 1-4. My apologize for not writing them yesterday:
/////////////////////////
For me, these readings were an introduction to several philosophical lines of thinking. Some of them were already discussed in a previous undergraduate class I took, however due to the time lapse, I forgot some of the main fundamentals of their thinking.
In this post I basically share which of the philosophers and philosophical movements I found out to be compatible with my actual line of thinking and which one, partially, did not agree with.
Of the short descriptions the author gave about the different philosophers, I was drawn more to Freire, Giroux, and Sartre. Freire, because of the emphasis in educating the newly literate people about the different forms of oppressions that are being (or were) imposed to their group. His concern in educating the oppressed group, to have a knowledge and awareness of the way dominant groups try to abuse their own literacy, should be a mandatory part of their new literate condition. By this, we intent to prevent more oppression and abuse of power. Giroux, because of the emphasis he places in the importance of learning to ask questions, engage in objective criticism, analyze, and resolve problem. More than reading and writing, those skills have more weight to prevent more oppression. Both authors are under the Critical Theory philosophy.
Of the philosophical thought of Sartre, first, I like his emphasis in the responsibility that humans must have for their own existence, which also translates to the responsibility that each individual human being has with the rest of the humans. We are living in an interdependent world, so every action we make, somehow will affect the collective. Second, his belief that "man is nothing else but what he makes of himself (...) there is nothing in heaven; man will be what he planned to be. Not what he will want to be", is a mirror of his emphasis on the responsibility of humans to their own destiny and transformation. This philosopher is categorized under the Existentialism movement.
Of Dewey, it impressed me his definition of democracy to be a "shared process of inquiry", as Noddings discussed. I always have had the vision of democracy as a governmental system. I agree that an "isolationist society" has the risk of losing its democracy, because of the losing of the free contacts between people and the "opportunities to inquire beyond its own borders" [Noddings, p. 37]. I ask myself whether the term "isolationist society" refers to the isolation experimented from one person to another, among the limits of his/her own society; or if it's related to the isolation that one entire country can experiment from the rest of the other countries. If Dewey would be alive today, would he consider his own society nowadays to be "isolationist"?
About Socrates, I don't agree completely in his teaching methodology because it preoccupies me that sensitive students can get intimidated and can "close themselves" when they perceive that a teacher is being too arrogant, sarcastic, and imposing his or her own ideas as the "ideal ideas". But certainly, I agree with his thought that "we are our own participants of our creation".
Finally, I'm starting to express my opinions, in a more frequent manner. It was only in the few Humanities courses taken, that I had to express and support my point of views. I have to admit that, I am overcoming little by little the fear of being rejected because of my opinions (perhaps is a common issue of my gender). During ALL my entire academic life, I "survived the coursework" handling it completely alone, without relatively few tasks that needed to express my opinions. Usually, it is seen that you don't have to express your opinions in technical courses. :-)
Thanks for your attention.
/////////////////////////
For me, these readings were an introduction to several philosophical lines of thinking. Some of them were already discussed in a previous undergraduate class I took, however due to the time lapse, I forgot some of the main fundamentals of their thinking.
In this post I basically share which of the philosophers and philosophical movements I found out to be compatible with my actual line of thinking and which one, partially, did not agree with.
Of the short descriptions the author gave about the different philosophers, I was drawn more to Freire, Giroux, and Sartre. Freire, because of the emphasis in educating the newly literate people about the different forms of oppressions that are being (or were) imposed to their group. His concern in educating the oppressed group, to have a knowledge and awareness of the way dominant groups try to abuse their own literacy, should be a mandatory part of their new literate condition. By this, we intent to prevent more oppression and abuse of power. Giroux, because of the emphasis he places in the importance of learning to ask questions, engage in objective criticism, analyze, and resolve problem. More than reading and writing, those skills have more weight to prevent more oppression. Both authors are under the Critical Theory philosophy.
Of the philosophical thought of Sartre, first, I like his emphasis in the responsibility that humans must have for their own existence, which also translates to the responsibility that each individual human being has with the rest of the humans. We are living in an interdependent world, so every action we make, somehow will affect the collective. Second, his belief that "man is nothing else but what he makes of himself (...) there is nothing in heaven; man will be what he planned to be. Not what he will want to be", is a mirror of his emphasis on the responsibility of humans to their own destiny and transformation. This philosopher is categorized under the Existentialism movement.
Of Dewey, it impressed me his definition of democracy to be a "shared process of inquiry", as Noddings discussed. I always have had the vision of democracy as a governmental system. I agree that an "isolationist society" has the risk of losing its democracy, because of the losing of the free contacts between people and the "opportunities to inquire beyond its own borders" [Noddings, p. 37]. I ask myself whether the term "isolationist society" refers to the isolation experimented from one person to another, among the limits of his/her own society; or if it's related to the isolation that one entire country can experiment from the rest of the other countries. If Dewey would be alive today, would he consider his own society nowadays to be "isolationist"?
About Socrates, I don't agree completely in his teaching methodology because it preoccupies me that sensitive students can get intimidated and can "close themselves" when they perceive that a teacher is being too arrogant, sarcastic, and imposing his or her own ideas as the "ideal ideas". But certainly, I agree with his thought that "we are our own participants of our creation".
Finally, I'm starting to express my opinions, in a more frequent manner. It was only in the few Humanities courses taken, that I had to express and support my point of views. I have to admit that, I am overcoming little by little the fear of being rejected because of my opinions (perhaps is a common issue of my gender). During ALL my entire academic life, I "survived the coursework" handling it completely alone, without relatively few tasks that needed to express my opinions. Usually, it is seen that you don't have to express your opinions in technical courses. :-)
Thanks for your attention.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Just looking for some feedback
I had a lot of trouble understanding the different views of analytic philosophy. Noddings stated that many educational philosophers consider themselves analytic philosophers by being engaged in conceptual analysis. She also stated that philosophers cannot effectively set aside their values while then engage in analysis. I believe this to be true and a very interesting thought. I pose a question (hoping for feedback), is it better as a researcher to confess your values and base your studies on them or try to research without them?
I was exposed to this type of analysis during my masters program in a qualitative research class. This was discussed but referred to as 'subjective lenses' by Corrine Glesne in Becoming Qualitative Researchers. She expresses embracing the different values and calls them "Subjective I's".
I was wondering about other views on including personal subjectivity into research. Does anyone thing this is good? Or inevitable perhaps. Maybe it is bad?
I was exposed to this type of analysis during my masters program in a qualitative research class. This was discussed but referred to as 'subjective lenses' by Corrine Glesne in Becoming Qualitative Researchers. She expresses embracing the different values and calls them "Subjective I's".
I was wondering about other views on including personal subjectivity into research. Does anyone thing this is good? Or inevitable perhaps. Maybe it is bad?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
