next up previous
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. 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 up previous
Next: Elaboration 3 Up: Elaboration 2 Previous: Elaboration 2.1
Ven 2007-09-11