Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ Beyond Human Trust in Science

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...."

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

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?

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

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.