Search Forum:

On the contrary. Please continue. A small number of participants can often pursue something more deeply than can a herd. Perhaps out of respect for the thread of the discussion, some of us do not wish to intrude. Let me offer a contribution to suggest why I believe the discussion raises important issues of particular relevance to educational research. This discussion has been interesting from the point of view of developmental epistemology in that it serves to raise the problem of the stubborn nature of scientific and philosophic frameworks. If the developmental science of the formation of knowledge in the human species is by now clear and well-established in its basic principles Then we would expect that it would be taken as a given that, on the one hand, knowledge is not to be understood as the result of information due to ?? a.?experience, ?? b.?nor to learning ?? c.?nor to perceptions ?? d.?nor to language ?? e.?nor to social factors ?? f.?nor to lived experience and the many theoretic or philosophic frameworks based on them relegated to the dustbin of history. Equally clear, on the other hand, should be that knowledge also is not derived from some a priori capability, intuition, invention, creation, construction, faculty, or ability of the human subject and these frameworks too are no longer relevant for scientific purposes. And if there is no pre-given subject and object existing to interact and produce behavior as developmental epistemology has shown, then all the forms of interactionism between a subject and an object deemed to produce knowledge also should have been laid to rest. To say that knowledge derives from experience is false, of course. Or to say that behavior is the product of treatment x aptitude interaction is also false. Or to say that mathematics derives from intuition is equally false. These notions should have been laid to rest. But of course we find that is not the case, and these alternative frameworks keep arising in the literature in spite of their scientific rejection. Some exist in spite of depending on their most blatant disregard for the scientific findings while others are far more subtle in their rejections and distortions of the science. If scientific epistemology as a well-established science, having been verified over and over again in hundreds and hundreds of studies across many diverse fields and levels of development, has shown that the source of knowledge always derives from ??a.?activity?--- I?would say yes especially when there is a potential observable ??b.?and not from the subject ??c.?nor from the object ??d.?nor from their interaction Then why are these findings not accepted, and why do we not find the many alternative explanatory frameworks¡ªphenomenology, empiricism, behaviors, rationalism, Kantian dualisms, interactionism, norms/facts dualisms¡ªlaid to rest? Scientific epistemology has not ended the disputes and speculations, and so the continued recurrence of these alternatives contradicting developmental epistemology in the most basic of principles raises a new problem¡ªwhy do these various frameworks that have been so clearly refuted still perennially arise to re-make their appearance in philosophy, epistemology, educational research, and other forms of human thought? Why, since each has been so clearly refuted by research, do they not disappear in contemporary thought but instead arise over and over again in each new generation of writers? MLC:?This might be due to many things.?Once one learns things, we do not unlearn them.?Experiential "knowledge' is not disconfirmable.? Empirical and Analytic "knowledge" are.