Next: Elaboration 3
Up: Elaboration 2
Previous: Elaboration 2.1
Elaboration 2.2
Some decades ago, some twit or nitwit invented a new strategy for
education and for science. Under the motto of 'anything is better
than study', he proposed the 'discussion method'. It means something
like discussing the profound unhappiness of the neighbour because of
the damaged windscreen of his car, with your 4 year old son and,
upon seeing him understand it, hope he will not do it again. It
smacks of Marryat's 'Midshipman Easy'. Humourous, traces of truth in
it, but absolutely unworkable. In physical science not so much,
because there is little discussion possible about clear cut facts,
but the more so in so-called social science, the discussion method
was an admirable excuse for not studying mind, yet look very busy,
and it soon became the trade. Today, still, at universities, we can
see the strategy at work. Groups of students, sometimes under the
leadership of one, a year advanced, 'discuss' things. They have not,
sorry to say, as yet abandoned the learning by heart or the counting
in pages or books though. Russell, in his History, says?"To answer
this question, a very long discussion would be necessary." It is not
clear from the context whether he means 'I, to answer this
question', or, 'science to answer', but the nonsensical part
remains. No discussion, whatever its length, will answer a question.
It is (a) single person(s) who answer questions, just as it is (a)
single person(s) who ask them. Then, the difficulty (complexity) of
a problem (question) is not dependent of the number of persons
discussing it, nor is the length of time they do so. The sentence
probably was aiming to mean: 'To explain to you MY answer (yes, no,
middle, etc.), I would have to report at length umpteen prominents
... ' What is the ideational truth, the mind-scientific reality of
discussion? First, as Wells pointed out, the number of thinkers,
indeed has no relationship with the scientific effect. Then,
discussion between comparable scientists is indeed solely and only
meaningful between like levels of knowledge. Discussion between
comparable scientists remains very fruitful and very necessary, even
when from different disciplines. Not that there is more knowledge in
greater numbers, but certainly because hearing the other's ideas may
trigger-off fruitful ideas in oneself, leading to improvement,
newness, progress, which is science. Hoyle says in his 'Black
Cloud'?"New ideas, the impetus of all development, come from
individual people, not from corporations or states." Discussions
between non-knowers, students, novices, remain what they of
necessity can only be, empty talk. True, some student in such a
'thema-group', may be taught something he had not previously
grasped, but, with less effort and much more effectively, he could
have mastered it by himself. The basis for this statement lies,
obviously, in the mind scientific truth that, since all ideation is
auto-ideation, is self-ideation, therefore, all learning is
self-learning, all teaching is self-teaching, etc. Assistance, aid,
outside influence, consist mainly of books and teachers in which
clumsy paths of reaching conclusions in ideation, may have been
straightened by someone who walked and conquered the path himself.
Groups of students, therefore, without a teacher but with the same
books (for self-teaching), have no advantage over a simple quiet
room by oneself. What they may discuss with some benefit however, is
the weather, the sort of pen they use, what additional books they
can study, where to find the toilets, etc. In general, when there is
a group of people together to work, there are three possibilities.
- All of them are
experts on a comparative level, discussion is highly effective,
- all of them are just as non-expert, a session of
mere talk and talk,
- one of them is standing out, being an
expert, the rest not.
In this last case, discussion is
absolutely impossible, only teaching is. When nevertheless
they insist on discussion, the only teacher among them may
go home or read a book which is a far better pass-time for
him.
Our pseudology, today, thrives admirably on the discussion
method. It is an excellent replacement for rationality, for
work, for study, for first and last things. The discussion
method for teaching is simply balderdash, not a mere fallacy
but utter stupidity.
Next: Elaboration 3
Up: Elaboration 2
Previous: Elaboration 2.1
Ven
2007-09-11