Ask a question about Dewey/pragmatism. Ask another question that
the chapter provoked related to educational research. Comment on someone else’s
question.
13 comments:
Andrea Woodard
said...
This chapter speaks to how Dewey saw a “crisis of rationality” in his particular moment. From our view in 2018, does his characterization of the 20th century clash between inhuman rationality and human irrationality hold up? How has this crisis changed and evolved? Does it seem like an adequate description of the issues we see today? Why or why not?
1. Here’s my first question: What influence might pragmatism -early or contemporary- have had on feminism? (Surely we could look this up, but I’d rather give it some thought before turning to the “answering machine” of Google!) There’s something really bold about Dewey’s rejection of the dualisms of inside/outside, organism/world, and so forth - - not to mention the critique of consciousness as the “first reality” of philosophy. There’s a decentering of philosophical purpose and a blurring of boundaries that is really compelling. Did anyone else see this as (proto)feminist, in a way?
2. Second question: A sentence in the last full paragraph on p. 17 struck me: “The assumption that rationality only has to do with “hard facts” of science - and not with values, morals, feelings, emotions and so on – makes it almost impossible to find an adequate solution (to the crisis in culture).”
So ... I’m thinking about the research/practice tension that is a source of angst (an example in my world might be something like this: “Research supports young children using calculators in the classroom. So why are many teachers reluctant to incorporate them?”). I'm wondering now if my search for a "solution" is futile, in a way, because I have made an erroneous assumption. SO ...
Question(s): Is this version of research/practice tension also a legacy of Western philosophical tradition? Is it another dualism that we can actively conflate? And if so, how might the blurred boundary between research and practice look or sound?
Dana Brookover- Question 1: I had never learned about pragmatism before reading this chapter and the Bredo reading last week. It was a little shocking to me to think about not considering a dualism of mind and matter but an “anti-epistemology” of action. I definitely agree that we live in an ever-changing world that requires us to change our knowledge or actions. I think the quote in the reading that had me most curious was on page 20, “If men had associated their ideas about values with practical activity instead of with cognition or Antecedent being they would not have been troubled by the findings of society.” What are Dewey’s thoughts on spirituality? I am wondering since he seems to have a sense of a “greater purpose” since he is a proponent of “human rationality” and the “why” of the scientific method. So, I guess my question is more about him as a person than of pragmatism, but maybe it could relate. Question 2: If according to pragmatism, all knowledge is about action and we live in an ever-changing world, then it seems as if the educational research community would have to accept fallibilism in our education system. Could this lead to the “despair” we talked about in an earlier class, or do you see it more as a hopeful stance of there now is not one right “most effective means to bring about pre-determined ends” and we can continue using intelligent human action and human cooperation to question “why” and “what for” as we move forth?
The pragmatism chapter talked about the the foundations of pragmatism being distinctly north american and that some might mistake it as a north american ideology. The chapter talks about how this is not true as Dewey, Pierce and James had groundings in global theory but it is a mistaken assumption to think of it from a local lens viewpoint.
When we think about practicality and applicability of education/research/thought, are we able to fully see the ramifications (or reach extent) based on our individualized viewpoints? Considering our trajectories in life are all unique, how is it possible to be universally practical (or even as practical as possible?) Do we fall victim to groupthink or majority decision as to what is "best" or "most applicable" when making decisions in education? This reminds me of the John Stuart Mill and the "Tyranny of the Majority" from On Liberty . The extensions to social justice are of endless discussion here.
Responding to Dana's question: If according to pragmatism, all knowledge is about action and we live in an ever-changing world, then it seems as if the educational research community would have to accept fallibilism in our education system. Could this lead to the “despair” we talked about in an earlier class, or do you see it more as a hopeful stance of there now is not one right “most effective means to bring about pre-determined ends” and we can continue using intelligent human action and human cooperation to question “why” and “what for” as we move forth?
I can see where if an idea/topic/thought lacks "practicality" in modern-day, it can be classified by a society/community/decision-maker as useless or less-useful. What comes to mind is the idea of the arts in schools. Many schools are losing funding and time for music, arts, and theatre for what is seen as much more "practical" education functions. Especially the "push for the practical" that is being seen in K-12, 2 year colleges, and 4 year colleges for STEM-H comes to mind as an example of applied pragmatism. Personally, I think it's a dangerous world if we eliminate time for creativism, especially in individual development that comes from mindfulness that the arts discipline (which is paradoxical to say 'arts discipline').
I found the dualism between "facts" and values, morals, feelings, and emotions to be a very compelling one as well. There is most certainly a conflict between science and religion, between hard facts and spirituality. However, I find that even the term "human rationality" betrays this tension. Rationality in its purest form is not particularly human, and the human mind makes decisions based on feelings and emotions that are not particularly rational. Thus we are left with "inhuman rationality versus human irrationality" (p. 18).
Perhaps some of the tension between theory and practice can be attributed to this clash. Those on the side of theory favor research and hard facts, while those on the side of practice rely on experience and emotional reactions to those realities. I am wondering if pragmatism offers us a reasonable way to reconcile that tension and keep the despair at bay. I found it compelling, but not entirely comforting. Did any others find solace in this chapter?
Yingying Q1: Dewey’s points that “the distinction between mind and matter, subjective and objective, facts and values are not necessary for all philosophy”, “modern science has stripped the world of the qualities which made it beautiful and congenial to men” lead to his view of “accepting the conclusions of modern science and maintain the realm of values”. I am wondering how it applies differently to social sciences and “hard” science fields?
Q2: “Dewey’s approach is different in that he deals with questions of knowledge and the acquisition of knowledge within the framework of a philosophy of action”(p9); “reality only ‘reveals’ itself as a result of activities- the ‘doings’- of the organism”; “…that knowledge emerges from action and feeds back into action”, which is, Action-Knowledge-Action When we apply Dewey’s idea into educational research, “action” can be considered as an educational practice, which leads to: Practice-Research-Practice Does this imply educational research questions should only come from practices/policies? Does this determine the tension between research and practice in education nowadays?
Hey Dana, I have another perspective on your Question 2 (just some extent, not answers). If we think the knowledge human knows as of now is solid/certain, not individual knowledge, all the adjusting and changing we are making thus is certain and within the already- known/established/existed knowledge. Would this contribute to the fallibilism?
I wondered the same thing about Dewey and spirituality. Actually, I had wondered about it after reading Dewey’s classic “My Pedagogic Creed”. If you’ve never seen it, take a look at it and scroll to the very end of the last section, The School and Social Progress.
http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm
He sees school as the method and the locus of social reform, and hence teaching as a “supreme art”. He says, “Every teacher should realize the dignity of his calling … the teacher is always the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God”. Because it appears at the end of this very impassioned mongraph (a “creed”, no less) it almost functions as a punctuation mark. I wonder if it might have been a rhetorical norm for the time as well.
1.) In 1908, Arthur Lovejoy argued that there were at least thirteen different kinds kind of pragmatism, that you could easily find one kind to be true and completely disagree with the others, a critique that did not take Dewey and his work into consideration (p. 9). I truly wonder what Dewey thought of this. Mostly, though, I wonder what Dewey thinks of the development of pragmatism; whether he appreciates the work that has been after him. While I do not think it is bad to have so many strands, I wonder what Dewey would think of what pragmatism has become. My question for Dewey: do you feel that, as we know it today, the truths and core parts of pragmatism have been maintained over time?
2.) I really like the mention of knowledge being "in the muscles" first and in the mind second (p 11). It seems that knowledge is something that we know ourselves and is then confirmed by our interactions with our environment later. I wonder how Dewey would have thought about research and the basis for it; what I mean by this is, should all research be based on things we already "know" to an extent and inherently interested in? I know that, should professorship be in my plans, research will be a component of my professional responsibilities. It is probably bad to assume that, at some point, or in some way, I will be made to feel I should conduct research concerning topics that are of no interest to me. I wonder what Dewey would think about the scientific methods and findings that could stem from that, and if he would consider me to be a "sellout" for engaging in research without personal passion or investment.
1) I was fascinated by Dewey and pragmatism side-stepping the mind/body & inside/outside duality by assuming that we are all already and inextricably “in touch” with the world and the world with us. How interesting it is to think that we are co-constructing our world with others in every moment. This transactional realism is new to me. To what extent did he see this co-construction extending? Does my running through the rain to the car here in VA affect a child sledding in Greenland? Does it stretch to Pluto, our friendly past planet? If so, what a beautiful way to say in a way- we are all in this together. How intriguing to think again of our interconnectedness with nature in a caring and protective way. On a different note, I also wonder to what extent pragmatism is an existential philosophy? Dewey says we are always doing something. We are always making choices to take action and think symbolically. There is great freedom in that and great responsibility. Dewey also imbues our world, our habits with values and meaning. On the other hand, when he discusses that knowledge originates in the muscles, I wonder to what extent that precludes our choices.
2) Related to educational research, I’m wondering how values and ethical codes of conduct are demonstrated in action through the experimental process? How do we know what is the “rightful conduct”? How do we compare our constructed cultures/values with other constructed values, especially in educational systems? It does give me hope to think that “fluffy” concepts like love and community are part of the research we will do. I’m beginning more and more to see research as warm, action, and advocacy. Although I'm likely to forget the "action" part when I'm sitting writing journal articles!
3) Response to Cat: I really like your connection to feminism! I hadn't thought of that before but it does seem also to stress the importance and power in "the personal is political", so affecting change through our own actions/thinking in every day life. I thought at first that Hilary Putnam (works in 1995) was a woman, but as it turns out, I was wrong. He is a renowned philosopher and white male. I'm curious what female philosophers or feminist voices, such as Carol Gilligan and "In a Different Voice", are available or perhaps not.
Response to Rachel’s question of: how values and ethical codes of conduct are demonstrated in action through the experimental process? How do we know what is the “rightful conduct”?
I think this is a great question because I found myself thinking the same thing when reading parts of this chapter. While I find myself being a champion of the experimental process, it is critical to remember that in education research the experimental process is being carried out on a vulnerable population, i.e. children. There must be ethical codes/ laws in place to protect students from harm. To insure ‘rightful conduct’ in education research, Universities use the IRB process in attempt to make sure the research being conducted is ethical. I know the IRB process can be tedious and I’m assuming that it sometimes acts as an overreaching bureaucratic entity. However, I would argue that without it, there could be great injustices done to the recipients of educational research.
My question: Dewey argues that in order to find integration between inhuman rationality and human irrationality, we must find a way to 'accept the finding of modern science in such a way that is no longer poses a threat to the realm of values..." (pg 18). While reading this paragraph, I can't help but think about who's values, in particular, are in crisis? What particular values do you think are in crisis following WWI and before WWII? In what ways is our current society playing out those conflicts between modern science and values today?
Back again, responding to Question Two from Rachel:
I am honestly wondering the same thing! I cannot tell if Dewey would find the "right" way to do something by feeling it in his bones (or muscles, rather), or knowing it was right after interacting with the idea later. If we only know a decision/response is appropriate once it has been made, what is it that we should use to first guide those decisions, especially in terms of research and practice?
Dana Brookover- Response to Andrea M: "Dewey argues that in order to find integration between inhuman rationality and human irrationality, we must find a way to 'accept the finding of modern science in such a way that is no longer poses a threat to the realm of values..." (pg 18). While reading this paragraph, I can't help but think about who's values, in particular, are in crisis? What particular values do you think are in crisis following WWI and before WWII? In what ways is our current society playing out those conflicts between modern science and values today? "
Great point. Dewey saw a "crisis in rationality" but perhaps that was his cultural bias. And I'm sure our "crises" change as the world changes too, but I guess that is part of his point. Very interesting
Preeti here, This chapter was really an interesting primer on pragmatism. Dewey's works are really significant in terms of taking a 'Copernican turn' into the realm of modern philosophy. What struck me on reading the chapter is the question:"What turn did pragmatism take after Dewey's works, particularly, in the new millennium? My next question is "Dewey believed in inseparability of knowledge and action, fact and value. Does this mean that interaction between knowledge and actions is the only determining factor of how educational research will be useful to the educational practice and vice-versa?" I would like to thank Cat for providing 'feminist' perspective on this. I think we should explore on this further.
13 comments:
This chapter speaks to how Dewey saw a “crisis of rationality” in his particular moment. From our view in 2018, does his characterization of the 20th century clash between inhuman rationality and human irrationality hold up? How has this crisis changed and evolved? Does it seem like an adequate description of the issues we see today? Why or why not?
Hi, everyone - Cat here.
1. Here’s my first question: What influence might pragmatism -early or contemporary- have had on feminism? (Surely we could look this up, but I’d rather give it some thought before turning to the “answering machine” of Google!) There’s something really bold about Dewey’s rejection of the dualisms of inside/outside, organism/world, and so forth - - not to mention the critique of consciousness as the “first reality” of philosophy. There’s a decentering of philosophical purpose and a blurring of boundaries that is really compelling. Did anyone else see this as (proto)feminist, in a way?
2. Second question: A sentence in the last full paragraph on p. 17 struck me: “The assumption that rationality only has to do with “hard facts” of science - and not with values, morals, feelings, emotions and so on – makes it almost impossible to find an adequate solution (to the crisis in culture).”
So ... I’m thinking about the research/practice tension that is a source of angst (an example in my world might be something like this: “Research supports young children using calculators in the classroom. So why are many teachers reluctant to incorporate them?”). I'm wondering now if my search for a "solution" is futile, in a way, because I have made an erroneous assumption. SO ...
Question(s): Is this version of research/practice tension also a legacy of Western philosophical tradition? Is it another dualism that we can actively conflate? And if so, how might the blurred boundary between research and practice look or sound?
Dana Brookover- Question 1: I had never learned about pragmatism before reading this chapter and the Bredo reading last week. It was a little shocking to me to think about not considering a dualism of mind and matter but an “anti-epistemology” of action. I definitely agree that we live in an ever-changing world that requires us to change our knowledge or actions. I think the quote in the reading that had me most curious was on page 20, “If men had associated their ideas about values with practical activity instead of with cognition or Antecedent being they would not have been troubled by the findings of society.” What are Dewey’s thoughts on spirituality? I am wondering since he seems to have a sense of a “greater purpose” since he is a proponent of “human rationality” and the “why” of the scientific method. So, I guess my question is more about him as a person than of pragmatism, but maybe it could relate.
Question 2: If according to pragmatism, all knowledge is about action and we live in an ever-changing world, then it seems as if the educational research community would have to accept fallibilism in our education system. Could this lead to the “despair” we talked about in an earlier class, or do you see it more as a hopeful stance of there now is not one right “most effective means to bring about pre-determined ends” and we can continue using intelligent human action and human cooperation to question “why” and “what for” as we move forth?
The pragmatism chapter talked about the the foundations of pragmatism being distinctly north american and that some might mistake it as a north american ideology. The chapter talks about how this is not true as Dewey, Pierce and James had groundings in global theory but it is a mistaken assumption to think of it from a local lens viewpoint.
When we think about practicality and applicability of education/research/thought, are we able to fully see the ramifications (or reach extent) based on our individualized viewpoints? Considering our trajectories in life are all unique, how is it possible to be universally practical (or even as practical as possible?) Do we fall victim to groupthink or majority decision as to what is "best" or "most applicable" when making decisions in education? This reminds me of the John Stuart Mill and the "Tyranny of the Majority" from On Liberty . The extensions to social justice are of endless discussion here.
Responding to Dana's question: If according to pragmatism, all knowledge is about action and we live in an ever-changing world, then it seems as if the educational research community would have to accept fallibilism in our education system. Could this lead to the “despair” we talked about in an earlier class, or do you see it more as a hopeful stance of there now is not one right “most effective means to bring about pre-determined ends” and we can continue using intelligent human action and human cooperation to question “why” and “what for” as we move forth?
I can see where if an idea/topic/thought lacks "practicality" in modern-day, it can be classified by a society/community/decision-maker as useless or less-useful. What comes to mind is the idea of the arts in schools. Many schools are losing funding and time for music, arts, and theatre for what is seen as much more "practical" education functions. Especially the "push for the practical" that is being seen in K-12, 2 year colleges, and 4 year colleges for STEM-H comes to mind as an example of applied pragmatism. Personally, I think it's a dangerous world if we eliminate time for creativism, especially in individual development that comes from mindfulness that the arts discipline (which is paradoxical to say 'arts discipline').
Responding to Dana and Cat:
I found the dualism between "facts" and values, morals, feelings, and emotions to be a very compelling one as well. There is most certainly a conflict between science and religion, between hard facts and spirituality. However, I find that even the term "human rationality" betrays this tension. Rationality in its purest form is not particularly human, and the human mind makes decisions based on feelings and emotions that are not particularly rational. Thus we are left with "inhuman rationality versus human irrationality" (p. 18).
Perhaps some of the tension between theory and practice can be attributed to this clash. Those on the side of theory favor research and hard facts, while those on the side of practice rely on experience and emotional reactions to those realities. I am wondering if pragmatism offers us a reasonable way to reconcile that tension and keep the despair at bay. I found it compelling, but not entirely comforting. Did any others find solace in this chapter?
Yingying
Q1: Dewey’s points that “the distinction between mind and matter, subjective and objective, facts and values are not necessary for all philosophy”, “modern science has stripped the world of the qualities which made it beautiful and congenial to men” lead to his view of “accepting the conclusions of modern science and maintain the realm of values”. I am wondering how it applies differently to social sciences and “hard” science fields?
Q2: “Dewey’s approach is different in that he deals with questions of knowledge and the acquisition of knowledge within the framework of a philosophy of action”(p9); “reality only ‘reveals’ itself as a result of activities- the ‘doings’- of the organism”; “…that knowledge emerges from action and feeds back into action”, which is,
Action-Knowledge-Action
When we apply Dewey’s idea into educational research, “action” can be considered as an educational practice, which leads to:
Practice-Research-Practice
Does this imply educational research questions should only come from practices/policies? Does this determine the tension between research and practice in education nowadays?
Hey Dana, I have another perspective on your Question 2 (just some extent, not answers). If we think the knowledge human knows as of now is solid/certain, not individual knowledge, all the adjusting and changing we are making thus is certain and within the already- known/established/existed knowledge. Would this contribute to the fallibilism?
Cat here, responding to Dana’s question:
I wondered the same thing about Dewey and spirituality. Actually, I had wondered about it after reading Dewey’s classic “My Pedagogic Creed”. If you’ve never seen it, take a look at it and scroll to the very end of the last section, The School and Social Progress.
http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm
He sees school as the method and the locus of social reform, and hence teaching as a “supreme art”. He says, “Every teacher should realize the dignity of his calling … the teacher is always the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God”. Because it appears at the end of this very impassioned mongraph (a “creed”, no less) it almost functions as a punctuation mark. I wonder if it might have been a rhetorical norm for the time as well.
Erin Hanley:
1.) In 1908, Arthur Lovejoy argued that there were at least thirteen different kinds kind of pragmatism, that you could easily find one kind to be true and completely disagree with the others, a critique that did not take Dewey and his work into consideration (p. 9). I truly wonder what Dewey thought of this. Mostly, though, I wonder what Dewey thinks of the development of pragmatism; whether he appreciates the work that has been after him. While I do not think it is bad to have so many strands, I wonder what Dewey would think of what pragmatism has become. My question for Dewey: do you feel that, as we know it today, the truths and core parts of pragmatism have been maintained over time?
2.) I really like the mention of knowledge being "in the muscles" first and in the mind second (p 11). It seems that knowledge is something that we know ourselves and is then confirmed by our interactions with our environment later. I wonder how Dewey would have thought about research and the basis for it; what I mean by this is, should all research be based on things we already "know" to an extent and inherently interested in? I know that, should professorship be in my plans, research will be a component of my professional responsibilities. It is probably bad to assume that, at some point, or in some way, I will be made to feel I should conduct research concerning topics that are of no interest to me. I wonder what Dewey would think about the scientific methods and findings that could stem from that, and if he would consider me to be a "sellout" for engaging in research without personal passion or investment.
Rachel Regal
1) I was fascinated by Dewey and pragmatism side-stepping the mind/body & inside/outside duality by assuming that we are all already and inextricably “in touch” with the world and the world with us. How interesting it is to think that we are co-constructing our world with others in every moment. This transactional realism is new to me. To what extent did he see this co-construction extending? Does my running through the rain to the car here in VA affect a child sledding in Greenland? Does it stretch to Pluto, our friendly past planet? If so, what a beautiful way to say in a way- we are all in this together. How intriguing to think again of our interconnectedness with nature in a caring and protective way. On a different note, I also wonder to what extent pragmatism is an existential philosophy? Dewey says we are always doing something. We are always making choices to take action and think symbolically. There is great freedom in that and great responsibility. Dewey also imbues our world, our habits with values and meaning. On the other hand, when he discusses that knowledge originates in the muscles, I wonder to what extent that precludes our choices.
2) Related to educational research, I’m wondering how values and ethical codes of conduct are demonstrated in action through the experimental process? How do we know what is the “rightful conduct”? How do we compare our constructed cultures/values with other constructed values, especially in educational systems? It does give me hope to think that “fluffy” concepts like love and community are part of the research we will do. I’m beginning more and more to see research as warm, action, and advocacy. Although I'm likely to forget the "action" part when I'm sitting writing journal articles!
3) Response to Cat: I really like your connection to feminism! I hadn't thought of that before but it does seem also to stress the importance and power in "the personal is political", so affecting change through our own actions/thinking in every day life. I thought at first that Hilary Putnam (works in 1995) was a woman, but as it turns out, I was wrong. He is a renowned philosopher and white male. I'm curious what female philosophers or feminist voices, such as Carol Gilligan and "In a Different Voice", are available or perhaps not.
Andrea M
Response to Rachel’s question of: how values and ethical codes of conduct are demonstrated in action through the experimental process? How do we know what is the “rightful conduct”?
I think this is a great question because I found myself thinking the same thing when reading parts of this chapter. While I find myself being a champion of the experimental process, it is critical to remember that in education research the experimental process is being carried out on a vulnerable population, i.e. children. There must be ethical codes/ laws in place to protect students from harm. To insure ‘rightful conduct’ in education research, Universities use the IRB process in attempt to make sure the research being conducted is ethical. I know the IRB process can be tedious and I’m assuming that it sometimes acts as an overreaching bureaucratic entity. However, I would argue that without it, there could be great injustices done to the recipients of educational research.
My question:
Dewey argues that in order to find integration between inhuman rationality and human irrationality, we must find a way to 'accept the finding of modern science in such a way that is no longer poses a threat to the realm of values..." (pg 18). While reading this paragraph, I can't help but think about who's values, in particular, are in crisis? What particular values do you think are in crisis following WWI and before WWII? In what ways is our current society playing out those conflicts between modern science and values today?
Erin Hanley
Back again, responding to Question Two from Rachel:
I am honestly wondering the same thing! I cannot tell if Dewey would find the "right" way to do something by feeling it in his bones (or muscles, rather), or knowing it was right after interacting with the idea later. If we only know a decision/response is appropriate once it has been made, what is it that we should use to first guide those decisions, especially in terms of research and practice?
Dana Brookover- Response to Andrea M: "Dewey argues that in order to find integration between inhuman rationality and human irrationality, we must find a way to 'accept the finding of modern science in such a way that is no longer poses a threat to the realm of values..." (pg 18). While reading this paragraph, I can't help but think about who's values, in particular, are in crisis? What particular values do you think are in crisis following WWI and before WWII? In what ways is our current society playing out those conflicts between modern science and values today? "
Great point. Dewey saw a "crisis in rationality" but perhaps that was his cultural bias. And I'm sure our "crises" change as the world changes too, but I guess that is part of his point. Very interesting
Preeti here,
This chapter was really an interesting primer on pragmatism. Dewey's works are really significant in terms of taking a 'Copernican turn' into the realm of modern philosophy.
What struck me on reading the chapter is the question:"What turn did pragmatism take after Dewey's works, particularly, in the new millennium?
My next question is "Dewey believed in inseparability of knowledge and action, fact and value. Does this mean that interaction between knowledge and actions is the only determining factor of how educational research will be useful to the educational practice and vice-versa?"
I would like to thank Cat for providing 'feminist' perspective on this. I think we should explore on this further.
Post a Comment