This article is a criticism of the survey of philosophers conducted recently by David Bourget and David Chalmers (I covered it here). The form of the survey suggests that "philosophers are in the business of developing arguments in support of one or another answer to a set question." As usual, the same could be said of theorists in other disciplines, including education. But "a lot of the philosophical work that I find most meaningful doesn't take this form. Instead, it challenges the questions themselves." As has become so clear in my own MOOC this fall, things like ethics are more a matter of perception than decision, as Martha Nussbaum and Iris Murdoch propose. A lot of people still feel we can argue our way to knowledge in our field, and that we should stake out a position (constructivist, behaviourist), select a 'lens', and advance a thesis. I don't think it works that way at all.
Today: 4 Total: 4 [Direct link] [Share]
