Saturday, February 13, 2016
Week 4 Feb 9 - Feb 16
This post is relevant because this chapters are getting deeper with some many theories to consider. It is fascinating to me the way Davis uses Descartes' first principles notions to develop the evolution of episteme concepts (rationalism v empiricism). To me he develop Descartes' logic of rationalism and deduction while bifurcating Bacons' notion of empiricism and induction, to plant the seeds of verifying knowledge. From Descartes grew the focus on the individual, rigid analytical logic, and cognitive psychology. From Bacon grew positivism and measure, then statistics and the focus on populations and the "normal" concept. Then confound into this evolution "nativism". and Wala! emerges behavioral psychology. Behavioral psychology and other meta-physical metaphors drive today's teaching structures and methods. Davis conclude that these epistemic structures are too rigid, based on conjecture, and are from the wrong perspective. What I find intriguing is that he suggests episteme thinking in the educational community has evolved into mysticism. This raises the question is episteme an evolution from gnosis or a departure? Why? and How?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would say that episteme is an evolution from gnosis. I think that Davis shows evidence of this evolution in the chapters dealing with rationalism and empiricism. Davis states that scientific knowledge exceeded its modest roots (of gnosis) in the everyday know-how or episteme (pg. 64). It seems that through empiricism and rationalism the idea is knowledge is still out there waiting to be found but instead of coming from a higher "being/source" it is waiting to be scientifically discovered by building on truths and then building upon that knowledge. In rationalism it seems that you work from the very bottom (first truth) up to the idea you are trying to understand, but on the other hand empiricism will start at the "top/observed facts" and work down or through observations to derive principles. Empiricism can be seen as a an evolution from gnosis by Bacon, "he recommended the use of such figurative devices as aphorisms, illustrations, fables, and analogies, which to that point had been the tools of gnosis, not epistme." I also noticed that several times in both Descartes and Bacon's examples/explanations that they both used mentions of art and the "fine arts" that are so readily seen in gnosis and then built upon through analytical thoughts and processes. Also I see the the evolution from gnosis to episteme in the fact of how many of the synonyms for teaching in rationalism and empiricism were used in gnosis with slightly different meanings. For rationalism the synonyms for teaching are instructing, lecturing and professing, and for empiricism teaching can be seen as training and intuition. Does anyone else agree on the evolution from gnosis to epiteme or do you see it as a departure?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think there has always been a necessary balance between episteme and gnosis. For example Davis states (p. 64), the modern era might be defined as "the triumph of episteme over gnosis." Then Davis states (p. 64) that knowledge, learning, and teaching began "to be associated with rationalist and empiricist approaches to inquiry." Currently episteme is overvalued in society and I think the social sciences including education are under pressure to legitimize these fields by being as "scientific" as possible. It seems like qualitative data overly quantified leading to standardized testing which may not accurately tell much about an individual student.
Last Thursday, I stopped by my professor friend's office and asked, "Hey, what does the word 'espisteme' mean to you?" I thought his response was telling about the current view of knowledge. Leaning back in his swival chair, pen twirling in his left hand, he began his discourse, "Oh, you mean espistemology. That's just the general term we use for knowledge." I listened for about ten minuetes before interrupting, "And what about the word 'gnosis"? Interestingly enough, his response was, "Yeah, well, there's 'agnostic', which basically means denying or without knowledge." I didn't contest his view -- I had not even read chapters seven through nine yet. After reading these chapters though, I have a better understanding of why he answered as he did. He's a professor of philosophy and, dare I say it, a disciple of Descartes, described by Davis as the "father of modern (analytic) philosophy". I found it interesting that he immediately linked 'gnosis' with 'agnostic'. I think that his answer is a result of first an evolution from 'gnosis' to episteme, and later on, a departure from 'gnosis' to 'episteme'.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Davis, niether Rene Descartes nor Fraciois Bacon denied that there 'gnosis' views held a place of importance. What we see is, as Davis notes, "a shift from theism to deism" (72). Nontheless, both agreed that only systematic logic could lead to discovery of Truth. I see the rise of humanism and positivism as a departure from 'gnosis'. On the humanism side, I believe these ruptures are manifest in the writings of Fredrich Nietzche and John Locke. In Fredrich Nietzche's 1885 proclamation that God was dead" (72). Later, on the positivist side, Davis mentions that, "Locke ruled out the possibltiy of spiritual or divine knowledge (gnosis) by assering that 'No man's knowledge can go beyond his experience' " (89). Does anyone else see the rise of humanism and positivism as a departure from gnosis?
I think it's worth mentioning the connection that Davis makes between Locke's' tabula rasa (blank slate) and "discovery learning". Davis asserts, "Locke's emphasis on personal experience, a reflection of the prevailing empiricist sensibility, also underpins the contemporary prominence of "discovery learning" -- a construct that only makes sense if the truth is imagined in metaphyisical terms as something out there waiting to be uncovered. I have two observations here: Has anyone heard the phrase 'blank slate' in reference to children in Christian circles? In my mind 'tabula rasa' would seem to go against religious views as described by Davis. Also, did anyone else think of Freire would Davis describes Locke's emphasis on personal experience and especially the phrase "discovery learning"?
Reginald the conversation with your professor friend was interesting... was he saying that gnosis was agnostic or was he just confusing the words? I was just wondering because when I first read your passage I was thinking I do not see gnosis as agnostic at all actually I see it as an exact opposition or opposite... then I thought perhaps I had my words mixed up and went and looked up the definition of agnostic-a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. The synonyms of agnostic being disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan. (As given by dictionary.com). So I am maintaining my original statement that I do not see agnostic being gnosis but really an antonym. However in my earlier post I stated that I felt episteme was an evolution from gnosis, but I do think that the beginning evolution brought about an eventual departure. Even in the dictionary one of the synonyms of agnostic is "empiricist" which falls strictly under the episteme branch not the gnosis branch. Davis states, "In effect, the comfortable co-existence of gnosis and episteme collapsed as prevailing cultural sensibilities began to shift from theism,... to deism,... agnosticism and even atheism." (pg. 64) Where it is clear to see parts of gnosis at the beginning of the episteme evolution I believe that while there are still some ripples of gnosis within episteme, episteme has departed from gnosis... and dare I say has had a stronger and more lasting impact on what we see today as learning and knowing? "Educationally positivist science has had some tremendous influences on the curriculum structures and classroom practices." (pg. 70) While I can clearly see evidence of a mysticism and religious background in instructing and teaching, I see a much more prominent rationalism doctrine in what is learned and how it is learned. It seems that in a public educational system rationalism and even empiricism (especially a few decades back when behavorism was at its high) is the prominent way of students obtaining knowledge, basically off from an analytical prospective. I can even see this when schooling covers "gnosis" topics such as interpretation of art or even Greek mythology, I feel is taught in a very analytical way. Davis discusses the issue of episteme taking over gnosis by stating, "the deduction of that epistemic fact represented a violent incursion of the traditional territory of gnosis... even so, it was sufficient to displace gnosis from the space of proper academic debate."
DeleteThe episteme view shows that personal experience is key. I would agree with Reginald that Freire comes to mind in the episteme theory of education. Both rationalism and empiricism rely on the learner processing information that they gain from already established truths but I think it is key for the learner to have an "experience" in order for learning to incur. The learner can no longer just be told they have to process and have some proof as to the knowledge they are obtaining. Then they can use this learning experience as well as personal experience to build to even higher places of learning.
Hi, Alana. My professor friend’s response was, I thought, incongruent with what we have read in Davis. So, I think he was getting the term ‘gnosis’ confused with the Western World view which, sadly, seems to have become limited to terms that deny the possibility of knowing God, like ‘agnostic’ (of course he might say that Davis is confused). I agree that it has become an antonym in modern usage. That said, I knew better than to challenge him, first because he would have used inductive reasoning to make me even question my own name, and second because I believe that his field, modern philosophy has entrenched itself so deeply in the realm of rationalism that he doesn’t recognize the terms episteme and gnosis as having the same metaphysical root in Davis’ genealogy (we can’t let him read this conversation, okay). I’m thinking that my professor friend’s line of thought concerning knowledge dates back only to after the “epistemological turn” mention by Davis. I’m referring to chapter three, where we find, “Descartes was actually one of many who helped initiate a broad transformation in sensibility popularly referred to as the epistemological turn, wherein episteme not only shifted out of balance with gnosis, but came to be seen as sufficient in and of itself”. (31) In light of this statement, it seems that Davis wants to highlight the terms ‘modern’ and ‘contemporary’ in reference to Descartes. I wonder who would be the father(s) of pre-modern philosophy. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle?
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying... also I agree that it might have not been worth the time to challenge your friend. I do think it is very interesting that he is soooooo deeply rooted in rationalism after the "epistemlogical turn." I find it very interesting the responses your friend had and I thank you for sharing them. It really helped open my mind out of just the text of this book to some thoughts that are obviously present in today's modern philosophy.
ReplyDeleteIn reading through Davis' chapters about rationalism and empiricism I found that some of the roots of these theories are responsible for current teaching/educating or the teaching/educating of the past few of decades. Davis said, "Overwhelmingly, rationalist and empiricist sensibilities are used to frame teacher education and public school practices." (pg. 74)
ReplyDeleteFor the rationalist ties to modern Western World education I see a direct link between the knowledge being "independent of the learner". The "linear lesson plan" that Davis refers to on page 78, reminds me so much of my walk through pre-service education. I personally do not know how many lesson plans I have written without any knowledge of the learners or environment of the learners. Davis states in talking about rationalism, “beliefs about knowledge were assumed to be independent of the time and place, and hence, suitable for everyone, everywhere.” (pg. 80) Just think of the modern "text book" that is laid out cover to cover and teachers are mostly expected to just follow along regardless of how their individual students are doing or have preparation to actually be successful in what they are doing. It is definitely that "one size fits all" way of teaching. Davis said "subject matters were parsed and linearized. such parsing was prompted by the rationalist impulse to impose a logical order on all areas of knowledge." (pg. 86)
For empiricism I was amazed to find this is where the roots of “normality” came from. I thought it was so interesting up until this time there was no need for what is considered “normal,” and possibly that was due to previously not educating “the masses” as Davis put it. I think the idea of normality being based off of a bell curve, where the “teaching came to be oriented by the notion of the normal child” (pg. 86) has unfortunately prevailed in the Western World view of education. Davis said that during the 20th century the field of psychology referred to itself as “the science of education” and I am sure was needed to help deal with what Davis said, “newly invented categories as hypo-hyper activity, retarded-advanced intelligence, introversion and extroversion.” (pg. 86) When I was in elementary school I can clearly remember being “grouped” for reading and mathematics. And I knew as well as all the kids in first grade that if you were in the “red” group you were smarter than everyone else, “yellow” you were ok, and “blue” you were not as smart as everyone else. Even though I was in red for math I felt bad I was only in yellow for reading. I believe that this theory has definitely shifted over the decades but even though students may not be “grouped” I still think there is way too much placed on “normality” in schools today… would you agree?
I don't like the stigma and labeling that come with fitting (forcing) students into categories such as normal or nativist. I don't even like the term "gifted" because it excludes students without that label of learning opportunities.
DeleteThe normal distribution is only a convenient distribution that is symmetric and simplifies statistical calculations. There is no empirical evidence that it most representative of all students or of students in a particular classroom. I think it represents a cultural bias to treat students as though they are part of an assembly line instead of individual humans who are unique.
DeleteSteve I completely agree... I thought how Davis said that in the empiricalist branch teaching was being seen as an assembly line.... I felt this was an appropriate metaphor for teaching a one size fits all "normal" curriculum.
DeleteAlana, I agree, the notion of designing lesson plans around a normal group mostly independent of the individuals of the group is our current instructional design, this is derived from the behaviorist concept that the learning population is distributed as a normal distribution and therefore the center of the distribution is consider normal and outliers from the center are consider not normal and deviate from the “normals” learning abilities. This is probably a false assumption
DeleteOn page 76 Davis writes that Descartes pulled knowledge away from gnosis toward episteme. It seems to me that knowledge can be gained through intuition (from gnosis) or through scientific investigation (from episteme). There is value in an enlightening experience whether it is based on logical procedure or is based on a mystical or religious experience.
ReplyDeleteI do think teaching is best when consideration is given to the teacher, the students and the subject, as opposed to lesson plans based only on the subject and ignore the students and teacher.
ReplyDeleteOne of the subjects I found most interesting and relevant to education concerns in 2016 is Davis’ mention of testing in chapter eight. It seems to me that Davis has done a great job at staying objective in laying out his genealogy of Western thought on teaching. I can only hope to be so objective if I had the task of including Nietzsche or and mention of religion in a writing project, so I’ll take Davis as a great example. That said, it seems to me that he wants to express an opinion about standardized tests. I don’t recall any tendency in Davis’ analysis toward the benefits of these types of assessments. Did anyone else sense a criticism of, perhaps EOI (end of instruction), ACT or SAT testing? On page 81, for example, Davis states explains that the necessity that rationalists to test what the student does or does not understand supports a tendency toward “….examinations that are often constructed and administered by persons and agencies other than actual teacher and test results that follow individual learners by rarely inform teaching decisions”. If Davis is criticizing the current system of standardized testing, I’d like to agree with him. According to my ACT and SAT scores, I should not have gone to college at all.
ReplyDeleteI got the impression Davis was criticizing standardized testing when I read that section.
DeleteReginald, I agree Although Davis did not specifically address standardize testing, it was certainly implicit in his discussion of nativist and normal. And these standardized tests do not take into consideration the learning environment of the individual.
Delete