G. Marc Turner wrote:
> I admit I am concerned as well, though perhaps for a
> different reason. It almost seems like some are not sure
> that the norms would stand up if challenged, so we shouldn't
> challenge them. And I must admit, that I am
> equally concerned by those that feel the norms aren't
> necessary. I think the difference between myself and the
> position Jeff takes is on whether or
> not we should be allowed to challenge the norms of our
> culture. In essence I see there being 3 camps:
>
> 1) Accept the norms without challenge
> 2) Accept the norms and allow them to be challenged
> 3) Change or discard the norms
>
> I see myself in group #2. Perhaps my stance is a little
> clearer now....
I wish I had time to respond more completely to this thread, but the way
Marc puts it here works quite well at laying out my position as well. In a
fascinating off-list exchange with him, I wrote:
"That's an interesting idea. Notice, by the way, that we jump immediately to
statements like "I don't know whether or not this is true, because I haven't
looked at the evidence" (in other words, that we assume the need for
empirical evidence). I believe we do this not because we've been
"brainwashed" into believing that empiricism is the best "way of knowing",
but rather because we've evaluated the effectiveness of the alternatives,
and found _through critical examination_ that empiricism is necessary"
(this in response to an interesting alternative explanation he'd offered).
A student in my methodology courses would have to be doggedly determined to
paint scientists as dogmatics if she were to come out of the course
convinced that we're trying to "brainwash people into Eurocentric ways of
thinking". We spend MOST of the time in the course justifying the methods.
In my opinion, our best methodology-oriented texts do as well. For example,
Campbell and Stanley/Cook and Campbell, Earl Babbie's social research texts,
and the critical thinking books like Don McBurney's and Keith Stanovich's -
they all present the specific natural reasoning errors that are addressed by
the specific scientific methods. They don't simply say "Here is the
scientific method - follow it or else!".
Then Jim Clark wrote:
> I agree that the norms can and often should be challenged,
> perhaps especially in courses devoted specifically to the
> development of such norms, but I (a) wonder to what extent it is
> practical in every course to go back to first principles and (b)
> am extremely skeptical that a sufficient number of students will
> arrive at the correct answer left to their own devices.
In fact it took humanity all the way until just a couple of hundred years
ago to come up with these methods (we tend to forget the fact that science
is _young_!). And we have solid evidence that people do _not_ simply mature
into intuitive scientists (Deanna Kuhn's work, again, which among other
things showed that going to college made a difference, but "intuitive
science" was _not_ related to age - 20 year olds in college were better at
it than 60 year old non-college folks).
I carry my students through the arguments for various methods and for
science in general. They see my reasoning, and leave knowing quite well how
I feel about it. I explicitly remind them that I could be wrong, and that in
fact they will meet other faculty who disagree with me. But I point out
exactly why I believe what I believe and why I think they should believe the
same thing. And of course I later discover that some did agree with me, and
some didn't. I don't imagine there's anything too surprising about that.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
