coberst

Enquiry Demands the Ability to Formulate Questions

“I count myself one of the number of those who write as they learn and learn as they write.” Augustine of Hippo. I am coberst and I approve of this message.

“Joseph Schwab said in 1962 that science is most commonly taught as a “rhetoric of conclusions." He developed sophisticated arguments for teaching science as enquiry."

An independent mind is one that is grounded in ‘enquiry’. Enquiry demands the ability to develop significant questions and the ability to utilize good judgment while separating the wheat from the chaff.

John Dewey, a great philosopher, psychologist, and pedagogy discussed the discrepancy between the skills valued in adults and the skills taught to children in schools. Dewey lamented the fact that independent thinking skills were demanded of adults but our children were being taught the converse in our schools.

My grade school, high school and college education convinces me that Dewey is accurate. I am a retired engineer and my contact with the sciences of physics, mathematics, chemistry, and engineering were completely an experience that was algorithmic (a step-by-step procedure for solving problems) in nature. Later I took courses in the humanities and these were more of a historic enquiry into who thought what and why they thought it at the time that they did so.

In my opinion the natural sciences do not prepare an individual to become an independent mind whereas the humanities do a better job of that.

Does your schooling lead you to agree with me and Dewey?

Quotes from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...01/ai_n8934732.

Sharks and love

Yes. How can you learn anything when you are convinced you already know the truth?

Lucius

coberst,

Since you asked, my schooling leads me to conclude that when some one uses "enquire" instead of "inquire" he's bullshitting me. I know, that says as much about me as it does about the "enquirer, but, as I said, you asked.

lars

"I am coberst and I approve of this message." If only Agustine knew that. I'm sure he would feel ... validated(?)

coberst

I just wish that he could be here and delight in my agreement with him.

Edgewaters

I had one teacher who profoundly changed my view of science, such that I do not see it as a process of enquiry that produces knowledge - but as a system to build models which have predictive value, and a theory is useful not in terms of being an absolute truth about the universe, but in terms of being an accurate predictor of natural phenomena. Theories aren't absolute, they are just models and better models can (and do) come along to replace them - all theories are dispensable. Therefore, science isn't really about discovering absolute truths behind the functioning of the universe at all. It's simply about creating a human framework which reflects the universe, which we can use to determine what will occur in a given situation. The theory (a model) and the reality (the thing being modelled) are discrete - one is a reflection of the other, but they are not a single thing and the universe does not order itself according to scientific laws (it is the other way around!)

lars

i'm sure he would be chuffed to bits! (assuming he really does agree that is)

mlipo

Holy crap-Coberst is capable of humor! God job, man, and keep it up.