|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795 |
Jeanne,
"It takes someone with vision and courage to truly understand the universe--and more so to try to explain it to the rigid "scientific" community." Those people (that someone) are scientists. Scientists aren't just the people who dogmatically believe what the people before them discovered. While there are plenty of those in science, there are also those who have vision and courage, and they come up with new ideas. Science incorporates all of that.
Jeff,
Thank you for the compliment.
I think what you've done is amazing, and it's pretty uncanny. Your co-workers are lucky to have you.
When I was getting my writing degree, I saw very clearly that everyone had their own developing style of writing, and that, unfortunately, there was a pretty bad problem in learning how to write well. Some teachers taught methods in a way that was squelching. Forcing the round peg into the square hole by sheering off the sides.
I saw, however, that everyone was developing in their own way and that you could really help them develop into unique and powerful writers by encouraging them, emphasizing their strengths and at the same time helping them produce writing that was well-formed. Have them create well formed writing their own way, guiding them where necessary. They did not have to reach the destination the way the teacher would. The power of their experience and writing would be from having learned how to do it in their own way.
I don't know of a writing program that exists that uses this method. I am sure there has to be. But it is truly something amazing.
I think that the same method can be used in teaching mathematics and any other problem solving method.
It's teaching as a dialogue, really, isn't it? The student makes a statement. The teacher makes a statement. Student replies. Teacher replies, and so on. The skill of the teacher is making the kind of statement that will necessarily lead the student to the right reply. And the structure of the statement of the teacher is, essentially, "YES, and...."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481 |
Hi Babayada;
Yes I would agree with you on teaching. For my part it is not that I know something and those under me have to do it my way until I give them some acknowledgement. It does not consult their understanding or involve them in the learning.
My opinion of a teacher is that they are judged by the success in life of their students. Now that is a pretty broad statement and it's hard to imagine a first grade teacher having that kind of impact but they can.
There is that exercise where a group of people gather with candles. At the beginning only one is lighted but that one candle will light another and they in turn continue lighting all the candles. I think of the Teacher as the first candle.
Montessori Schools use a method that you descibe, although it is with a checksheet and the limits are only the ability of the instructor they have that administers it, although the spirit of the teaching is as you outlined.
In my case I make the point to my guys (female & male) that I need people who can take care of a wild alligator without supervision. If I am stuck handling some flooding space and get a call that there is a 480 volt circuit blowing sparks all over the place, well I really need someone else I can depend on and know they can deal with it in a safe and sane manner. Don't give it second thought. We all make out and we all look good when the work is done. (this has happened by the way).
To do these things you have to be a cheerleader and see the value of keeping morale high. You also have to consider that painful lessons are the ones that people remember the most, so letting them fall on their face can be a very positive thing. Just don't rub it in and you don't just let them get depressed and walk away either. We're gonna get through this and make it a positive experience.
As a friend and teacher I once had did to me when instructing me on something I have long forgot. He stared into my very soul to see if I really understood what he just passed to me and when he was satisfied that I had got it, he let me go. That part I never forgot. So from that experience I also look deep into my students to see if they really got it. If they haven't I continue working with them, no big deal. When the candle is lit, I'll see it.
Sometimes you use a different method. One time I had about 6 kingspoint graduates asking questions about high voltage. Luckily I had just completed a refresher course on this stuff and somehow remembered all the formulas, but that wasn't getting through to them. So we got out the dry erase board and I talked pidgeon Hawaiian to them drawing dakine electrons go through da whozit, go holo holo/round and round come out here. blah, blah, blah.
They got it because it was a visual and practical application and not to serious. It connected the dots. All they did was laugh and go "Wow!". I Heard about that for months.
I think also that teaching is also an attitude. When you take on someone who wants to learn, you have to decide if you really want to do this and if you do then failure is not an option. Maybe they will not be the greatest whatever, but if they want to farm chickens then they can darn well be successful at it. You have a responsibilty to prime the pump. And you do this because it has meaning to YOU, no one else.
Anyway, these things can apply to Science or any subject.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327 |
Quote:
If the universe were left entirely to "scientists" we'd still think it was flat, and that the Sun rotates around the Earth. That's what scientists once thought.
Actually, such were the beliefs of ancient philosophers. Scientists were the ones who "corrected" these mis-beliefs. Also, believe it or not, the Flat Earth Society is still strong today, and their belief is based on authoritative scriptures, not on physical evidence (which science upholds above authority).
Quote:
Do we need science? Of course we do, but not as an orthodox church, fundamental and unbending. The best and most significant discoveries throughout the ages have always flown in the face of the "science" of the times, and sometimes resulted in the discoverer being jailed or even having his/her life threatened.
This is an amusing mixing of facts. First, science is not a "church." It is not anything remotely similar to a church. I believe I expounded on the distinction quite extensively in a previous post. To draw this analogy betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Second, scientific discoverers have been persecuted by authoritative entities such as the Catholic Church. Validated scientific discoveries have always been honored and hailed by those within the scientific establishment. To suggest otherwise betrays a fundamental lack of historical knowledge.
Quote:
Bless the scientists, but also bless those who dare to question them.
What I find most amusing about this particular forum community is that there are hundreds of postings which laud and support the most far-out ideas, but at the same time, vehemently attack those who would rationally question these things. And these are the same folks who regard anything "scientific" as questionable and worthy of challenge. Gee, something seems seriously lopsided here!
Anyway, science THRIVES upon challenge, and it REQUIRES evidence. If only you could see it at work (rather than heed all that mis-information propagated by all those anti-scientific agenda pushers), you would be much less eager to tear it apart.
Personally, I've found that the average scientist is MUCH more honorable than the average mystic. In my experience, the former is more interested in discovering truth, while the later is more interested in bilking a gullible audience out of their money.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795 |
hartreefoch,
Some people in this place need their own South Park episode.
Science is bad because it points to reality. Some people here just want to share a fantasy. When you question things or mention reality you're spoiling the party. Threat to fantasy: bad. Support of fantasy: good. It's as simple as that.
On the other hand, of course, (not so much here but generally) you have thickheaded people who call themselves skeptics who are really just incredibly dogmatic. They aren't interested in researching anything they've been told or decided is quackery. They quickly form opinions about things. They never apply any rigorous questioning or critique to their own beliefs or thinking processes. I find these people incredibly annoying. They style themselves as scientific but never perform any experiments or tests on anything, least of all on their own notions.
I really hate to see entire areas labeled as bunk, which is sort of like having a cognitive police line drawn around them. The police line means, "Don't really think any more about this, just consider it hokum. Only criticize it. No other kind of exploration is necessary or allowed." I think that's crap.
For instance, I doubt that remote viewing works as such. But what I do think is that the techniques of remote viewing may have value. They may develop intuition or the imagination. They may help an individual to learn how to pick up signals from their body or information from various intelligences at work in them, perhaps? Maybe it's like image streaming? Who knows?
Last edited by babayada; 11/09/06 08:00 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 347
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 347 |
Quote:
Science is bad because it points to reality.
Not only ludicrous, but you're twisting what most of us have said. I (and most others here) didn't say science is "bad.'' I alluded to the fact that many scientists go into an area of research with a closed (not open) mind. In my post, I blessed both the scientists and those who question them. They, like anyone else, need to be questioned. If that somehow threatens you, it's a darned shame.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 78
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 78 |
Hartreefoch "What I find most amusing about this particular forum community is that there are hundreds of postings which laud and support the most far-out ideas, but at the same time, vehemently attack those who would rationally question these things. And these are the same folks who regard anything "scientific" as questionable and worthy of challenge. Gee, something seems seriously lopsided here!" Absolutely spot on Hartreefoch. Wish I had written that! Regards Steve
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327 |
Quote:
Threat to fantasy: bad. Support of fantasy: good. It's as simple as that.
How very, very true. This should become the official sub-title for this forum. Babyada, your balanced, rational, level-headed, and often eloquent contribution to this forum is MUCH appreciated, at least by me.
Strange, too, how different folks get off on different strokes. Like, whenever I come here, I go away very disturbed and depressed, because after reading the threads, I think, gosh, there are people in this world who REALLY think like this??? Makes me shiver to my bones. And yet, I'm sure these folks are very happy with their thought processes, and I'm glad they've found a supportive community to fan the flames of their collective fantasy. I just get very perturbed when they turn it around and accuse me of being the one who's trapped inside some cold, rigid delusion called "objective reality."
Either way, despite many of the sentiments expressed in this forum, I HOPE people are more interested in building UP rather than tearing DOWN. With the same amount of time/energy as it takes to write something like, "Science is bad because of this, that, and the other thing," someone can write something like, "How can science help me become a better person on my road to enlightenment?" Why spend so much effort tearing something down, when in fact it can be an ideal tool to help you attain what you're seeking? Why cause separation and controversy, where you can create harmony and cooperation?
Here, the mystics seem to be the ones who prefer separation, while the rationalists, harmony.
Ultimately, enlightenment is to see reality for what it truly IS. In my opinion, science is a great tool to this desired goal. The longer one refuses to accept reality for what it IS, the longer one sentences herself to be imprisoned by a trance which does not serve her well at all.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327 |
Quote:
They, like anyone else, need to be questioned. If that somehow threatens you, it's a darned shame.
Jeanne,
In the scientific endeavor, questioning is one of the cornerstones of discovery. No scientist is threatened by questioning, because proper questioning is the only way things are done in science. Remember, what is currently accepted as "scientific fact" is the result of countless hours of open-minded, objective, rational questioning, thinking, experimenting, debating ... a LOT of work over a LOT of time. You're always welcome to question, yes, but unless you have some REALLY good counter EVIDENCE, I'm not about to throw away a hard-established finding/fact just because it doesn't fit the liking of some mystic.
What does bother me (not threaten me ... but BOTHERS me) is how despite the most rational, open-minded, level-headed consideration and investigation of a matter, some people (not you in particular) continue to INSIST that things are not the way they really are as demonstrated objectively. Then they ramble on about how reality is subjective, that you create your own reality, and that we shouldn't trust science and scientists because these are instruments of a limited mindset, and that we should question EVERYTHING, yada, yada, yada ... OK, fine, such mystics are free to spew such notions, but I simply can't take it seriously unless they are able to objectively demonstrate what they claim.
If you REALLY want to question things, it should be what most mystics are spouting off about. If you want to question something "scientific," you're most welcome, too. You'd just better have a good deal of convincing EVIDENCE if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise, I wish you every happiness in your fantasy.
(Again, I'm not using "you" in a personal manner, but in the most general way.)
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 70
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 70 |
Quote:
For instance, I doubt that remote viewing works as such. But what I do think is that the techniques of remote viewing may have value. They may develop intuition or the imagination. They may help an individual to learn how to pick up signals from their body or information from various intelligences at work in them, perhaps? Maybe it's like image streaming? Who knows?
This is really the crux of the problem. Areas of scientific research are governed, consciously or unconsciously, by people’s beliefs.
If you believe in RV, why do you believe? If you do not believe in RV, why do you not believe?
There is a fictional movie called Suspect Zero about the FBI using Remote Viewers to track serial killers. I don’t recommend the movie because it is very dark and disturbing, but I do recommend the extras portion of the movie on DVD. The director of the movie went to visit a Remote Viewer for a demonstration. The Remote Viewer would not do a demonstration, he insisted the director of movie try it himself. What follows on the DVD is amazing. Was this faked for the movie? Perhaps.
People who “know” that RV does not work, are saying that not one time has it every work. And they haven’t done their homework. The US government spent over $30 million dollars on its own Remote Viewing program through the CIA and the defense department. Jimmy Carter once announced to the press that we used RV to find a downed US pilot and plane in the jungles of Central America (or was is South America?). And there are many more…
Some of us have actually done RV and made it work. People here may accuse me of gullibility; however I can assure you than I am always look other possible solutions, more grounded solutions. However, when all other possible explanations have been eliminated, the last remaining explanation must be true, no matter how unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795 |
Coyote, Sometimes the results of research are massaged in one way or another by the conscious or unconscious mind set of the researcher. There's an answer to that: transparency (public exposure of methods and results) and peer review. Maybe remote viewing works. I doubt it. But I admit that I don't *know* whether it does or does not. That's why I used the word "doubt" instead of the words "am absolutely certain." I have a free remote viewing program on my iPod. One of these days I am going to go through it, just out of curiosity, and see what happens. hartreefoch, Shortly after I made that South Park reference, I found the recent episode online that criticizes Richard Dawkins. I thought that was pretty funny. What irony. The people here don't scare me. They tend to be very loving and forgiving. I don't think they're going to blow up any buildings because the building's Feng Shui was consistently messing with the chi flow through their energy centers. They are more likely to visualize whirled peas or world peace, and there's nothing wrong with that, I think. I get frustrated because I think I am right, and, damnit, they just won't come around to the proper point of view. I think that perhaps due to nature and nurture different people tend to think differently from one another. One person may be more rational, while another is more fanciful. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. And, after all, this is the current state of our evolution. What you're seeing has been selected FOR rather than against. I think that it's very important, however, for a fanciful person to be able to demonstrate critical, empirical thinking. Jeanne, I honestly think some people think that way. You've made it clear to me that you're not one of them.
|
|
|
|
|