Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Though we have talked about paradigm shift in the past, up until this week no one seems to have experienced one. This week was different. Until Tuesday evening we may have considered ourselves masters of our own fates and captains of our own souls, much as Henley's Invictus describes. Tuesday evening, we again brought our assumptions to terms.
Does it not seem more likely that, as researchers, we all audition for a part and that we are players on the academic stage, some for a performance of feminism and others for constructivism. It is not that the actors are either feminists or constructivist, but rather they play the part. Neither do the we decide which parts we will play, for that is at the discretion of the entity that casts the parts for the play. We are little more than actors on a stage, as Shakespeare said many years ago. Neither do we get a part because we choose to do so, but rather our life's narrative and pre-dispositions have prepared us for such a part. The only choice we really have is whether or not to audition, though I am not sure how much a choice herein lies. We were chosen for a job, we did not choose, we are at the beck and call of the paradigm, for it is the paradigm that chooses. The paradigm is the master of our fates and the captain of our souls, and the souls of those who went before us (Vachel, George, and Alicia). On the other hand, there have been those who have cheated fate and regained their souls, such as Faust, and there is one in out midst that has discovered the secrets of moksha.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Argumentum ad hominem is a Latin phrase used in debate or rhetoric which literally translates "argument against the man." I did not make this up, nor did I intend the pun (as we shall see later). An ad hominem argument "consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim" (Wikipedia). Therefore when feminists state that a certain claim is made "because x is a male (white male, black male, et al)," they are using argumentum ad hominem in more ways than one. In the first place, it is a de facto statement categorizing a claim made by a male by nature as invalid because the author is a male. At the very least, this is circular reasoning. In the second place such an argument has never been considered valid, seeing that it is based on neither qualitative nor quantitative evidence or data. Because ad hominem arguments do not directly address the claim or proposition (only the author of the proposition), such arguments are falacies. As it relates to feminism, it is an a priori premise to validate the feminist paradigm and nothing more. Therefore, if this form of argument is invalid then any parts of feminism based upon it remain indeterminate and without either authority or authenticity.
Some may say that many positions hold to a priori premises and feminism is thus no worse or better than any other. That may be so, but if feminism's a priori premises (which ultimately disenfranchise one group and take away their voice) go unchallenged then several movements of the past that have proved less that egalitarian or humanitarian based upon similar a priori reasonings (19th treatment of Native Americans, social-darwinism, holocaust, slave trade, Darfur genocide) are given a pass. This makes for strange bed-fellows.
Let's consider a case in point from class. There was a brief discussion on the Muslim Hijab which somehow morphed into long hair on women in American holiness churches. When it was suggested that possibly the women under consideration (either Muslim or Holiness) chose to wear the associated head dress, it was stated that this was clearly oppression and that only a [white] male would make such a statement. Now that, my friends, is a classic example of an ad homimen argument, meaning this: since x male made the claim and y female said it was oppressive, then ipso facto the male was in error because he was a male. The behavior as relates to women's head dress had already been deemed oppressive (whatever that means), so any argument to the contrary, especially when made by a male, is therefore invalid. But where is the evidence? Is it possible that western culture is being read into either situation to deem it "oppressive," or is it possible that only certain women consider it such. I'm really having a hard time with the connotations of oppressive. Am I being told that a scarf is oppressive to the same extent as honor killing is? Everything with which one disagrees can not be considered "oppressive" just to bolster the quantative data on female oppression. Doesn't this sort of data manipulation parallel to the girl who cried "wolf?" Now for the rest of the story.
As regards the hijab in the Mulsim world. This head dress did not derive from 7th century Muslim males (which were, by the way, not white males), but rather from the wives of Muhammad. It seems that these gals were on the par with superstars and could not leave their houses to go shopping or to the bathroom without being thronged. Therefore these women (not men) decided to go incognito, and the hijab was created. Later on some folks though that if it was good enough for the wives of the prophet, it was good enough for the common folks. Thus it was an imitation of women's customs, not male dictates. How it may have evolved in the present is another narrative. The moral of the story is to be careful with the facts and not read western culture into every situation.
In the second example, it was stated that women who wore long hair in US holiness churches were oppressed. Now that is really peculiar considering the historical context from which it derives. Neither does a hair style seem so oppressive a the self-imposed female assessories of the past such as girdle, corset, eye-liner, high-heels, chokers, etc. (but I do admit that is my own perspective and would not want to participate in gladitorial games that requires such equipment). Cultures have their symbols: iPods, blue jeans, hats, and hair. Faith communities also have symbols: crosses, menorah's, and head coverings. Jewish men wear a tallit when praying. For many years, only males did this but now it is common to see women in synagogue wearing a prayer shawl. In Christian faith communities, it has been women who wore the head coverings. Could common men wear them: not usually! From whence does this custom derive? From white male oppression or from female customs of the east? Take your best guess, and then you can proceed. In the first century Roman empire, it was common for women to have long hair, to wear veils, and to have head dresses. In the church of Corinth, St. Paul addressed this matter. Not that the women failed to veil themselves (as female custom dictated), but that some of the men were apparently copying older Greek traditions of wearing long hair like the Greek warriors in the Trojan war (Iliad). It was apparently no longer customary to do such. St. Paul asks the folks, "what are your customs." He appealed to the common life of Roman citizens in formerly Greek regions. Life was hard enough without asking for a fight. Holiness churches drew their idea of long hair on women from the same passage of scripture (1 Corinthians 11), such was common in the early 20th century, it released those women from hats and veils, and it actually states that a woman's long hair empowered her (at least in that day). Again, we have considered oppression what another culture considers empowerment, because of a failure to recognize what anthropologist call cultural relativism. Western values are not the touchstones for all peoples.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Feminism wants me to see more difference, more politics, more power, more oppression, and more avenues to voice and empowerment. But I must ask, empowerment at whose expense? I can not speak for feminist, or so I am told that this is not possible since I am a male, but I am sure that females or feminist are not the only persons who have been oppressed and silenced. Neither do I believe that all silencing and oppression comes via white males, black males, rich males, poor males, smart males, dumb males, or males of any shape or color. We have somehow approved racism, sexism, and religious intolerance as long as it refers to a general, biologically non-existent, category of white males or white European males, or white European Christian males. Why do we continue to perpetrate racism and sexism, just as long as it is the phantom white male whom we imagine has all the benefits and none of the disadvantages of humanity. Even if this phantom male is guilty and without defense, is it O. K. to be racist and sexist just as long as it's "the other." Hitler could have done no better.
I asked my wife if she was being or had been oppressed in her life and if so by whom. She said she had suffered oppression, almost exclusively from other women. She claimed there were few males that a woman can not handle, seeing most of them can easily be controlled with food and sex. It was the other women that had oppressed, silenced, and disenfranchised her in nearly every walk of life, including education. She added that she had most often gotten sincere help from males of all classes and colors. Women, she said, were the problem and the chief oppressors of the species of both genders. In Chaucer's Wife of Bath tale, the wise woman says what females most want is to rule over men, not to be their equals. Do they also want to rule over other women?
I speak for myself, as an observer of critical theory. I speak as a mere human who had no choice over either race or gender as I entered the world. I personally and presently don't have any power, either over women or other males. I live with three daughters and one wife. When I got married, my wife and I split my authority 50/50; she retained all of her own. I was told by her: What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine tool. It sounded like a fair trade to me, her company has always been worth more than my stuff. When my son was born, I did not impart any of my authority to him; he will have to fend for himself. When my first daughter was born, I divided my remaining authority with her 50/50 while my wife continued to retain all of hers. I think that left me with 25% of my original allotment. When my second daughter was born, I again shared my authority 50/50 with her, leaving me somewhere around 12% considering inflating and devaluation. By the time my third daughter was born, it left me with about a nickel's worth of say-so in my own home. I have to be really careful so as not to lose what is left.
I often read ancient texts, philosophical treatises, and sacred writings. It's my job and what I teach online. Nothing I have seen in critical theory surpasses the words of a first century Roman Citizen of the Jewish persuasion: "And [you] have put on the new humanity, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free-man, male nor female: but Meshiach is all, and in all (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:10-11). Friends, we are still far, far away from this type of "new humanity."
Monday, November 17, 2008
2. The study states that "I take up the feminist researcher's concern of honoring the voices of women, using a multiplicity of data, and starting with women's personal experiences" (388). I did not hear the voices of all four women (Annie, Candace, Sheila, & Alecia), I mainly hear Alecia's voice and Annie as a construction of Alecia's conceptual framework. I do not see how we can hear all voices unless all women are allowed to speak for themselves?
3. The article states that "Sheila did not acknowledge difference and assumed that Annie would assimilate to teach exactly like her, even though Annie's method of teaching is nearly opposite Sheila's" (393). I find this a non sequitur. Nothing in the article persuades the reader that Sheila either ignored difference or assumed that Annie would assimilate to teach exactly like her." On the contrary, what appears in the article is that Annie did not acknowledge difference and assumed that Sheila would act exactly as Candace." Neither does it follow that worksheets, tests, or lectures are poor forms of teaching, nor that they constitute teacher-centered models. There is no direct connection between constructivist ideology and modes or models of teaching (discussion, portfolio, presentations). Open discussions, whatever they are, do not in and of themselves constitute student learning, neither do other methods in and of themselves exclude student learning. The content often dictates the method, and a good teacher must master more than one teaching style. Why does the language of the article force me to see Sheila as a poor example, to see her teaching style as somehow "wrong" or that Annie must be correct in her assessments.
4. I find Annie a classic example of an Echo Boomer. Is this a correct assessment, and if not how does she differ from this sociological model.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
On the one hand, critical theory does seem to focus on the oppression of the masses. On the other hand, the masses seem to be faceless and individuals are rather expendable. So critical theory is willing to empower the masses while at the same time disenfranchising the individual. I believe that it is important to consider that the revolution often proposed by critical theory, either social, economic, or military, does not propose to liberate all people, but only the oppressed of a certain sort, usually economically oppressed or those on the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Should we be satisfied to offer humanity bread and circuses, considering the task accomplished? What of those who are spiritually or ideologically oppressed, those who lack transcendent purpose, and those who oppress others because of ignorance? I would consider all of the foregoing candidates for liberation, though usually not the liberation of which the revolutions of the past have focused. Maybe humanity does not live by bread alone and possibly those who are well fed, clothed, and housed also suffer a type of oppression that is beyond the ken of current critical theory with its monolithic and myopic origins. What if by liberating a few spiritually they in turn would use their means to liberate the masses economically, forgoing the cruel and bloody revolutions that dogged the so called liberators of the past.
Monday, November 10, 2008
After that epiphany, I have found Action Research to be a liberating and time saving ideology. It also tends to function much along the lines of phenomenology, allowing the participants to tell the story. It made me begin to imagine ways to incorporate Action Research into some of my more time consuming methods of inquiry.
If there are many ways of knowing, many truths, and no Truth, it makes no difference whether one takes the red or blue pill; one fellow's poison is another's potpourri. It only makes a difference in a universe of hierarchical values where it is possible to make good and bad choices.
Action Research project in my community:
My wife is the music director for a UMC in Hickory, NC. She is always wondering what songs folks want to hear & sing. They have used a questionnaire in the past, but then someone has to tabulate the data. After we did the fish/rock activity, I got this idea of a simple way to get the same data without the intervening days/weeks of compilation. Do the fish chart, but write favorite songs in the fish and bad songs (ones folks don't like) on the rocks. If folks like the same song, they could trace around the fish and make it bigger. The same would go for the rocks. Folks could do this as they walked in the auditorium and the results could be used in just a few minutes. I guess folks could also use Jacob's ladder and stumbling blocks if they wanted biblical allusions to the exercise. I wonder if I could market the idea to the folks who sell the rights to the songs/music?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Let me propose, since there are many truths, that constructivism and the other models are only one of many models and that it may be very possible that no one model can answer all questions, just as no one man or woman can possess all the truth. That interpretist models can answer some questions in some situations (social constructions), may be a reasonable assumption. That intrepretist models can best answer all questions in all situations is a generalization which is unwarranted. That we may some day find a more useful model that can answer many more questions and possibly replace constructivism or other interpretist models is altogether likely. We have seen it happen at least three times in the 20th century educational contexts (idealism => logical empiricism => behaviorism => constructivism). It seems that total annihilation of one model by the next is never complete, and few models can expect eternal life in the academy.
It may be that case that constructivism is the current dominant paradigm because it best explains the dominant mode of teaching, not that it best explains the modes of learning. There actually seems to be no logical connections between the theoretical foundations of constructivism, how people learn (social construction of knowledge), and what constructivist teachers should do (Lerman). At the least, social constructions of meaning (or sense) are not limitless (Crotty), but very limited indeed. If this were not so, communicating with other humans (even in the same language), writing a book, giving directions to a male of the species, or typing on the computer would prove near impossible. In many cases, a cigar is just a cigar. And on second thoughts, I might retract the statement about giving directions to keep from looking ignorant before my female colleagues.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Therefore I am beginning to see Kitchen Stories as the characature it is, a cartoonish spoof of objective methodologies. I saw this more clearly when I read of ethnographic methods/methodology (Eisenhart seems to confuse the two). It is almost impossible to generalize ethnographic studies, and when it is attempted great error can occur. It is not that ethnographic studies are subjective, but it seems that since subjectivism is admitted folks don't feel that private or sectarian interpretations must be guarded against. One of Eisenhart's admissions of weakness was lack of mobility. Of course this is the case. A researcher can not study Amazon tribes anywhere but in the Amazon, and the study can have little or no correlation with the evolution of northern European society. Eisenhart seems unable to even define "culture," although this is the focus of ethnology. Culture, instead being the defining aspects of a group such as food, clothing, religion, art, et al, has become little more than individual habits or imitations. The quest for difference and diversity has had such an overwhelming influence on the methodology that ethnology has truly lost sight of both the forest and the trees, focusing on a NY Yankee's ball caps mistakenly left on-site by a boy scout troupe 3 years ago.
It seems as all methodologies wish to use some form of quantification. Even Eisenhart counts the number of Ph. D. students doing qualitative research at the beginning of a 14 year span and after it (18). It seems pretty ungrateful to bite the hand that feeds you. The article is also filled with the conflict thesis. I wonder if ethnology or critical theory could function without words like dominate, justice, fairness, narratives, change, poor, equality, poverty, economic, socialization, world view, multicultural, identity, manipulated, struggle, incongruities, incommensurable, contradictory, elite, hierarchy, violence, minority, relationships, contention, and gender. If these concepts are so important, why are they never defined or why do anthropologist and ethnologist argue over the connotations or applications of the words. The surrender to uncertainty has made the methodology of uncertain value to some if not many. No wonder that Eisenhart seems to be trying to salvage a sinking ship at times.
Monday, October 13, 2008
I don't know why the original title is Kitchen Psalms. I wonder if the Swedes automatically think of the Hebrew Bible when the word Psalm is mentioned. The book of Pslams in the Hebrew Bible contains hymns, but it also contains royal Psalms, thanksgiving psalms, penitential psalms, and imprecatory psalms. I don't know if there is a connection or the title is incidental. Titles usually mean something.
Probably the most remarkable point in the film is near the end where it is realized that the observer had been observed, and the observed had filled in some of the details himself. Where the understudy feels that this has jepordized the objectivity of the research, the author of the study finds the phenomenon interesting and possibly the best part of data that was collected. Here again, the researcher determines both the validity of the data and its importance.
Melanie's viewpoint from a media perspective as film criticism is just another example of how we can see the same data differently based on perspective.
What I want to know from research is can we live with it. That is, do our conclusions reflect how earth folks really live or do I have to believe in Lilliputians or Martians to make sense of it all.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Now for class and how it goes. Vachel's demo of the correlation function in Excel was great stuff. Melanie said it only appears in Office 2007, but I also found it in Open Office 2.4 which is free and multi-platform. I must also admit I am a skeptic, so I checked Excel 2003 and found a correlate (correl) function hidden there also. So this tip was cool! Thanks Vachel.
Now for the classroom. O. K., the cat is out of the bag. Who is researching the attrition rate of doctoral students confined to small spaces? That is the only reason I can deduct that 11 doctoral students and their kind master are week by week stuffed into a low tech cul-de-sac created in the dark ages before Kenneth Eble published Professors as Teachers (1971), which stated that the physical accommodations for learning were atrocious and derived from medieval torture chambers and French monasteries. This is not good modeling folks. I suggest we form a doctoral students' union, compose a manifesto, stock up on garlic, and begin negotiations with the bourgeoisie. Better yet, let's move class to Portofino's, a bar, a church, or somewhere that is conducive to human beings and Boone's environmental fluxes. If we were cattle or chickens, the humane society would help us. Seeing we are on the top of the food chain, we have no advocate.
Resolve: That Cohort 16 hold class at the Chancellor Peacock's house every Tuesday afternoon (and on the two weekends we are in town), eat his food, and drink his beer until the situation is remedied. I am sure this course of action would speed up the negotiations and work better than any formal complaint that we can lodge. His house also has lots of free parking.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Although SET are used to present quantifiable data, often using a 1-5 scale (strongly agree, agree, no opinion or neutral, disagree, strongly disagree) resulting in percentage breakdowns, it has been documented in the literature that student input can be directly influenced by one or more of the following: candy, gender, easy course requirements, personal appearance (hot or not) and professional favors. For example, if I want high student ratings on a bad course, I would prep the students at least a week before SET by showing funny movies, giving out pop corn, and allowing students to write their own final scores in the gradebook. On the other hand, if I taught a rather difficult course, I could get a poor SET score merely because I gave a difficult test, did not allow late work, or wore stinky sox on the same day of SET.
This is not to totally ignore or call for a moratorium on the use of SET, but it goes to illustrate the need for controls, not only over the control group and its environment, but in interpretation of results and the possible fallacy of basing quantitative reports on qualitative data and highly subjective input. This is definitely not rocket science from anyone's point of view, unless that be be the viewpoint of one's department head.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
It is difficult to make a statement of philosophical position without first establishing the limitations of such. For example, a person may believe in liberal economic policy (liaise faire or free markets), yet be a fiscal, moral, and ethical conservative. There is currently a Christian constituency that is theologically conservative and sociologically liberal. Positions that would have been impossible or paradoxical in the past appear common in a post-modern world. Therefore, instead of appearing contradictory or inconsistent, I will present my philosophical position on three fronts: reality, transcendence, and daily life. For example, I hold to an objective view of reality and believe it’s out there aside from any human perception. As far as transcendence, I believe everyone rolls their own, although Acapulco gold differs from horse manure (even though some choose the latter). I realize that this is a subjective stance with an objectivist hierarchical reference point (bad-good-better-best). Finally, I believe in the mind and that we have the power to create poverty and plenty via our thoughts. Do humans create meaning, definitely! Do humans also create myth, absolutely! This appears to be a constructivist framework, but with a twist: not all meaning making is valid. Let me expand the foregoing premises.
Stuff exists. Lots of stuff exists. Can we know or detect it all? I doubt it, nevertheless it exists and is part of the universe in which humanity lives. Not all things that exist can be seen, either with the naked eye or aided with scientific instruments. Astronomers know dark energy and black holes because of attraction. 95% of the energy in the universe is undetectable and un-measurable at the present. Simply put, there is a lot of stuff out there that we have no way to measure, no quantitative assessment of, and no indication except for its influence on visible matter. It’s similar to what Jesus said about the Spirit: “The Spirit breathes upon whom it desires; you hear its voice, but cannot tell where from where it derives.” So both the seen and the unseen world exist out there, whether or not humanity can either measure or detect it. This objectivity does not seem to be an empirical judgment, since it rests on the testimony of mystics and visionaries.
On the other hand, some very cherished “realities” do not exist. Humanity creates myth. Many feminists believe in a patriarchal society that stretches back to the countless ages, but that may be a non-existent construction of a reality that is only in the minds of feminist. Marx constructed a history of humanity, based on a similar oppression. It was not real, and if so it does not and has never existed. I believe many such myths have arisen in the modern world because of a certain religious faith directed toward both the hard sciences and the social sciences. Humanity has been told that a reality exists that is only a hypothesis which can be neither verified nor falsified. It is very possible that the mythology of the modern world exceeds that of any former age. Therefore I hold that humanity as a whole, and individuals in particular, are as liable to accept myth today as in any time before, verification being a poor test on many levels and falsification being impossible at the present. That organic life arose from inorganic matter is a case in point, and though utterly unobservable and mathematically improbable/impossible, it is the dominant paradigm in the contemporary scientific world.
Humans can know some things: name, rank, and serial number are a good start. The list may continue with date of birth, gender, biological parents, ethnicity, country of origin, political party, and favorite ice cream. These facts can be established with a good degree of certainty for many folks, though possibility not for all. Historical records, such as birth certificates, driver’s license, passports, and family Bibles have know to house data to verity these areas of personal data. These sources may even be subject of falsification, the apex of veracity according to Karl Popper. Even if historical records are discovered to be unreliable, we are still left with knowledge of a negative sort. It is logically impossible to say that humans can know nothing, for in that negative statement is an affirmation that knowledge, even if it means we know nothing like Socrates, is possible.
Furthermore, if Jung was right about a collective unconsciousness, then Plato was also right (at least to an extent) that knowledge is recollected rather than learned. Folks may not exit the womb with calculus hidden somewhere in the little gray cells (to use Poirot’s phrase), but they do come into the world with archetypes (Jung) or body language (Joseph Campbell).
Logical analysis, and both the scientific and historical method offer a reliable framework for many areas of study, but these may not tell the whole story. Methodology is highly context and content dependent. To determine whether or not there is a certain level of student attrition in the university demands a quantitative methodology, but to determine why there is a certain percentage of attrition may require a qualitative methodology.
I like counting noses, counting words, counting recurrences, referring to texts, and consulting experts. I have a hard time seeing how a narrative could challenge quantitative data, but I also realize that a picture (objective data) grants no conclusive facts without the story that accompanies it (see Appendix 1).
I am not a positivist. I don’t believe that either metaphysics or theology is non-sense. I can not see how science could exist without speculation, anymore than metaphysics could. I am an empiricist modified by rationalism and mysticism. I believe in a real world that can be experienced. I hear the birds in the morning and the crickets at night. I have seen the moon rise and Orion march across the night sky many times. I have read how the little dipper spins around Polaris like a clock and have seen the same. Other humans have witnessed and documented these facts for thousands of years. Much of the universe moves in an orderly, predictable fashion, else our daily lives would be complete chaos. G. F. Moore called this a common sense philosophy. These phenomena force me to speculate on intelligent design. I really need a 3-D model to express my position; both Guba and Morgan fail me. I am not a social-constructivist. Though I believe that man has the ability to make meaning, he just as readily makes myth. It would be more correct to say that mankind makes sense of his surroundings and experiences, and the range of making sense is extremely limited. Else, why would scholars even attempt to write books, or why would students attempt a philosophical position paper?
The Lord is my Shepherd
Islamic terrorist drowns Jewish sheep
Shepherd forces sheep to bathe
Radical Sheep cell leader
Is a picture really worth 1,000 words, or is a picture meaningless withoug verbal descriptors?
Monday, September 8, 2008
It is now considered that Galileo was not censored for his scientific views, but for his lack of protocol. Copernicus' work had been in publication for sometime before it was banned as a result of Galileo's politics. The story is long and involved, but two examples will help clarify matters. First of all, both Copernicus and Galileo challenged a Ptolemaic model of the universe, not a Christian one. This Ptolemaic model was based on Aristotle, and it was not just astronomy, but the Protestant reformation that rejected Aristotelian philosophy which had been championed by Thomas Aquinas and the scholastics. It is clear that neither Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, nor Newton were nothing but dedicated Christians. There was no such a thing as the institution of science vs. the church. All of the discussion took place within the church, within Christianity. There is even an argument among experts of the history of Science (Lindberg, Brooke, Huff) that the scientific revolution could have only taken place within Christendom, seeing that both the Muslim world and the Chinese had dropped the ball because of their overly ridged social institutions (no safe haven, no rule of reason or logic, and no corporate law).
Therefore, since Seidman chose the now defunct Conflict thesis, pages 11-16 are replete with error and exaggeration as to the historical nature of the rise of modern science. I can see no other reason for Seidman taking this route except prejudice, since it is hard for me to believe that he is actually ignorant.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
1) Theological -revelation
2) Metaphysical - reflection
3) Scientific/Positive - experience or empirical
One might state that the theological stage derives knowledge from a epistemology based on divine revelation of all truth, but only Islam would qualify under such a strict understanding of revelation. For instance, modern Judaism holds at least four models of revelation, all of which are mediated (through prophets for instance). But Rabbinic Judaism also believed that if God had not revealed the Torah to Moses on Sinai, then the Jewish people would have had to extract it from nature. This gives a peculiar empirical twist to revelation. Both Greek philosophy and early Christianity considered reason as a faculty of divine revelation. Though philosophy was considered the handmaiden to theology, reason never was. Initially reason was the touchstone for Christianity, though not reason as the opponents of Socrates, the sophists, contended. Thus revelation characterizes an epistemology that is subjective, derived from an inner light to some extent, but not necessarily irrational or non-rational.
A metaphysical epistemology would believe that knowledge comes from reflection, that is if anything can be known. Here we confront the contemporary constructivist, some post-positivist ideologies, and the ancient sophist in the same venue. It was the sophists that sought to teach the students of Athens that nothing could really be known; it is the constructivist that offers the same relativistic ramblings. Socrates confounded the sophists, stating that although it was true that they knew nothing, it was not accurate that nothing could be known. Socrates's point was that most folks had not considered the validity of their own premises. Constructivism, the heirs of the metaphysical stage, may allow either an irrational or non-rational epistemology. Metaphysics in this model was considered non-sense by logical-positivism.
Finally, scientific or empirical knowledge is the end of the positivist train. When we have reached this stage, and to Comte all men and societies must go through all stages, then we have arrived to positive knowledge, in contrast to natural knowledge (Crotty). In later positivist incarnations, both theological and metaphysical epistemology would be considered non-sense. The Vienna Circle that flourished in Einstein's era rejected all metaphysical or non-empirical knowledge as meaningful. Wittgenstein proposed verification, but Karl Popper went further to propose falsification as the only test for scientific veracity (demarcation). But strictly speaking, Einstein could not be considered a positivist; he said religion and science asked different questions (Mein Weltbilt), and thus requiring methods other than logical analysis (Vienna Circle). Quantum theory also threw a monkey wrench into the works, not to mention the seminal work by Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of the Scientific Revolution (1962). In the musings of current day experts in the philosophy of science, Michael Ruse states that the hypothetical deliberations of faith and the hypothetical deliberations of science are hard to distinguish. That is, the idea of demarcation (Popper) between science and faith are not discernible in their early stages. This brings us back full circle in somewhat parallel to Kegan's concept of systemic thinking, if fully expanded.
The failure of positivism was its belief that the stages of epistemology were linear. It is much more possible that the stages exist simultaneously in the same person, although related to differing context and content. Positivism does leave us with a reality and an ontology that says some things do exist "out there" independent of perception.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
- A post-positivist is a positivist that has met his/her demise at the hands of a constructivist.
Positivism is a child of its own age, being the aftermath of the French revolution and the Napoleanic era. Remember the book Anna and the King or the film, The King and I? Well the king of Siam was a positivists, at least he believed himself to be such. In simple terms, a positivist believes that science is the Messiah. In contrast, a constructivist believes that education is the messiah, a Marxist believes that revolution is the messiah, and a feminist believes that she is the messiah. Having lost all concept of religious faith in the enlightment, there arose a host of substitutes. It seems that mankind is incurably religious. Now back to positivism and Auguste Comte (pronounced Kont).
Comte was a disciple of Saint-Simon and coined the term sociology, but that may not be entirely so. Nevertheless, Comte may be called the father of sociology as a scientific discipline, or at least he wished that it would be considered such. Comte claimed three eras of epistemology and human development: theological, metaphysical, and positive (scientific). In actuality, the use of the word "science" to cover all disciplines was would not be used until late in the 19th century, prompted by a lecture in the Royal Academy. The basis of positivism was epistemological empiricism. (more to come)
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The dilemma that the class faced yesterday appears to me to be endemic in scholarly societies where dog-eat-dog is the rule of law. There is also something here to argue against radical individualism and constructivism. If everyone is in the habit of making their own meanings, they take little time to actually define terms. Terms that we confronted with double and triple reference were paradigm, ontology, subjectivity, objectivity, and reality. This lack of concrete definition is no fault of the class. A great deal of the blame should go to writers like Guba who first blames Kuhn for multiple references to the work paradigm, then himself does the same for ontology, ignoring the age-old philosophical denotation of being, existence, for his own connotation and epistemological confusion (Guba 18). Such tampering with the terminology is inexcusable.
Guba lists ontological as a methodological question, then defines or references the termonology as "what is the nature of the knowable or what is the nature of reality." I don't believe that this is an accurate reference of ontology. The word ontology derives from the Greek participle of the intransitive or linking verb "to be, to exist," not to be confused with Hinduism's articulation of all being or creation, OM, though the connection is interesting. Therefore ontology is what exists, what is, or being. It is neither how we know it, which is epistemology, or how it is perceived, which is one of the theories of reality, either nominalism or objectivism/realism. For instance, an ontological question is "does God exist." This question says nothing of either how or if we can know God (epistomology) or if God is an objective reality (objectivism) or only in our minds (nominalism, subjectivism, constructivism). What is knowable tends to center in epistemology; what is reality tends to center in modes of perception, neither of which constitutes what exists. To be frank, we neither know, understand, nor perceive much of what is real in the universe, if indeed energy is real. That dark energy, dark holes, and about 95% of the universe is currently neither known nor understood by humanity does not negate its existence. There are many things known to various species of the animal kingdom that are not known to humanity, these elements are both real and exist, though they are not yet a part of the perception of humanity.
Some of these perception may have even been lost between lower and higher life forms. Take the parallel between certain animals and birds which seem to have an innate sense of direction and the male homo-sapiens, who claims a innate sense of direction, but the data collected by the female of the same species proves the contrary. The male of this species, when confronted with the data, may claim that there is no one right way to get to the convenience store two blocks away. The female, of the same species, claims that she can see the store's sign when standing on an ironing board on top of the roof of the car, so there must be a direct route to anyone to who God gave enough sense to get out of the rain. (A map or GPS are only instruments of instrumental rationality used by positivists, and such items are not taken seriously by relativists, since who knows if the lines or roads may change under the cover of darkness).
At this point a light comes on in the females head (one of the ladies in class even called this a paradigm shift). The female remembers distinctly that her mate often fishes in the rain, plays golf in the rain, mows the grass in the rain (at dark), and will even wash the car in the rain. It is also a proven fact that males wash the car to make it rain, which has replaced the native American rain dance in form, although not in ritual. With this data, the female of the species deducts that possibly the male of the same species does not have enough sense (God given or otherwise) to get out of the rain, and there drops the issue as a fruitless waste of time that could be used to chase the kids that have now spread to the four-winds whiles the parents were attempting to navigate two blocks to purchase de-vitalized food imitations and drinks with enough sugar to give a horse a rush and a good start on the road to diabetes.
We have now entered the first phase of becoming true philosophers, having collected and logged all the wrong answers. The next step is to collect an equal mass of all the wrong questions, and finally to associate questions and answers with the precision of a game of pickup sticks. We are not entirely confused at the present, but given time, each of us should become at least as daft and illogical a Guba or any other relativist within 4.9 miles of the Duncan Hall.
Let me close today's ramblings with a little story. I was recently told by an ASU professor of philosophy: "I was a relativist, until I became a parent." Can any class member verify the ontology of this statement or offer a supporting narrative?
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Both Crotty and Burrel-Morgan offer a scholarly synopsis of the varied horizons of social research. In both articles, the reader sees the relationship of ontology, epistemology, human nature, methods, and methodology as it relates to both research and the researcher. In contrast, Guba attempts to tell the reader how to make vanilla pudding or horse shoes. I can not really determine which, but whatever the case I am sure that Guba would consider my construction valid. Let me take a moment to muse on Guba, his religion (constructivism), and world view (relativism). I begin with last things first.
Guba declares himself a relativist almost as a sly turn of fate. You see, says Guba, we are all relativist by nature it's just that some are adverse to coming out of the closet and really declaring our preference for vanilla pudding. Now I admit, this statement is somewhat of a construction, but Guba would no doubt approve. The parts of Guba's article that trouble me are not that he fails to give a list of ingredients for vanilla pudding, but that he uses such definite or absolutist words in the process. For instance, Guba uses the definite article at least six times in the first paragraph. A relativist should consider the definite article and all of its kinfolk off limits. The reason being, well, its just too absolutists. The second foible that appears early on in the article is the use of "every" as in everyday. This is a definite no-no for a relativist. It has the smell of positivism all over it, nasty stuff it is. But the last error to appear in the first paragraph of Guba, but by no means the least, is his use of quantitative methods, numbers, and math. This is a clear sign of positivism on the one hand, and an indication that Guba has fallen off the wagon in full view of his readers: "[Kuhn] ... has used the term no fewer than 21 different ways." Now I would affirm that such blatant used of math has no place in vanilla pudding.
In the second place, Guba wears his religion on his sleeve. It is not enough that he denotes a paradigm as a "basic set of beliefs that guides actions," but he initiates credo ("I believe it is important to leave the term ... in limbo" p. 17) before he concludes with the facts. Now vanilla pudding looks and smells more like theology, with creed, a place in the after life (limbo), and moral instruction ("guides action"). It was the opinion of the early positivist Comte that man evolves through three levels of consciousness: theology, metaphysics, and science (positivism). It seems that Guba is attempting the first level, though with some difficulty and contradictions. At least in the end, Comte admitted that positivism was a religion. Guba does not promote the same authenticity with constructivism.
Finally, I have a few closing remarks on baptism. While studying Guba's discourse on vanilla pudding, I ran across a little aphorism. It seems that Guba was hired for a position with a six figure salary. When he presented himself for his payment for services rendered at the end of the year, he was given a bag of apples and $6.
Though appearing somewhat down cast, Guba responded to the lady at payroll in true constructivist fashion. "Ms. Fancy, I can understand why you gave me six one-dollar bills. I did sign a contract for six-figures and that could be constructed as six bills of any denomination, though I could have sworn that it was $600K. That must have just been my construction. But what I can not understand is the bag of apples. I can not seem to make a meaning of the fruit."
Ms. Fancy responded in pure positivist precision: "Make Apple butter."
I will leave it to the class to draw their own conclusions.
Monday, September 1, 2008
But there were also hopes, hopes that we would not get just another one-sided story, either of the excellence of one singular theory or philosophy, implying the banality of all others, or the damn fool idea that one was just as good as the next. All involved wished both objective and subjective views expressed upon all points and critical examination of even the most treasured theories, including absolutes where they existed and options where they did not.
Some in the class had become wearied with the absolutist pronouncements of professed relativists. A case in point is as follows: "There are no absolutes." If that is not an absolutist statement, then we should all retreat to the sandbox. It would be much more authentic to say that some disciplines function on a model of absolute truth and others do not, or, for some disciplines there are best (or one best) practices, but for others there are not.
So how did our initiation go? Well, there were no fatalities by the end of class which creeped into the late hours of the night (or early hours of the morning, I was too bleary eyed to remember). But again, the roll has not been taken for this week as of yet. There may have been delayed reactions to the medicine.