It sounds good, to be able to present "both sides" of an issue, but doomed to fail. It's easy to present both sides when you yourself are unsure. I can present both sides of the "should we start a war" issue, because I can imagine myself being wrong in my opposition to starting a war. But if the topic is whether evolution occurred, I cannot present another side - nor would I want to, because I _know_ some version of evolutionary theory is correct. I might present the opposite side to dispense with the opposite side, as when I say "critics of evolutionary theory claim ...." but here I'd be setting up the opposition to prove it wrong.
I call this the "Fox news fallacy" - the idea that there are two - no more, no less - sides to each issue. And that these two sides have equal validity, equal a priori chance of being correct, and I respect the audience so much I let _them_ decide. Sometimes an issue has three sides. Sometimes, one side. And the number of sides to an issue depend on whose is doing the talking. When I lecture on Freud I present two sides, because I am not sure about Freud. But when Freud himself delivered his introductory lectures on psychoanalysis there was no other side (and his lectures are more famous than mine!). ============================================ John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State College Plymouth NH 03264 ============================================ "Eat bread and salt and speak the truth" Russian saying. -----Original Message----- From: David Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:14 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: Classroom bully pulpits This discussion of pushing personal views in the classroom reminds me of a news story from Oakland, CA, a couple of months ago. High school teachers organized a "teach in" to discuss the possibility of war in Iraq. It was charged that only anti-war opinions were "taught" at this event, and the organizers responded that they could not find anyone who was willing to present the opposing point of view at this event. My reaction was that the teachers have misunderstood what it means to be educated. Any teacher should be capable of developing the argument for either side in this debate--the information is readily available in newspaper columns and on the internet. If they can only express the position they personally agree with, then they are providing propaganda, not an educational experience. Recently I raised this issue in my Senior Seminar class. It turned out the students had only heard the anti-war arguments and had no clue as to why Bush and perhaps most of the U.S. public supported an invasion of Iraq. So I did my best to provide balanced arguments for each side (even though my personal feelings side with the anti-war folks). If we cannot articulate each side of an issue, then we have not become truly educated ourselves on that issue. In my opinion, it is often best to hide your true beliefs (e.g., who you're going to vote for) for fear that your position power will unduly influence the students. I have had some success in this effort--often through the years my students have accused me of harboring beliefs that are directly counter to my true beliefs. --Dave ___________________________________________________________________ David E. Campbell, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Psychology Phone: 707-826-3721 Humboldt State University FAX: 707-826-4993 Arcata, CA 95521-8299 www.humboldt.edu/~campbell/psyc.htm --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
