Scuse Me - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Scuse Me

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Thanks

Date: Mar 21, 2005

As we say in fencing, the point is that when you indoctrinate a student, you are not teaching that student to think. You are training that student to espouse whatever ideals his or her "boss" espouses.

I think the prescient point is that it is the job of faculty to present facts and encourage discussion but to allow students to reach conclusions on their own. The biggest problem is in relation to grading. If the student's ideas don't mesh with the instructor's, then it is often the student's grade that suffers.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

student's ideas should mesh with the research evidence...not their opinion. then grading is much easier

Date: Mar 21, 2005

The opinions of students was the mainstay of our well recognized graduate system. The skills of the ongoing faculty only provided the well schooled foundation of its system. We are moving on in complete desired beliefs -- now what?

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Outside Observer---

What if there is no research evidence? How can we interpret Conrad's Heart of Darkness as a journey on the river as a journey into the depth of the human soul if we rely only on research evidence? I've never heard of a physician who, upon looking at an image of someone's 'heart' said "Well I'll be damned! That looks like a river in Africa upon which I could take a journey to see and hopefully understand the dark nature of the human spirit."

Somebody somewhere interpreted that story in that way. Is that the only way to interpret that story? I doubt it.

What is Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" really about? Is it really the soundtrack to "The Wizard of Oz" or "2001: A Space Odyssey?" Since Floyd won't say, all we can do is argue, because there is no certain evidence.

Why does everything have to be about logic and proof? Humans are irrational, illogical beings who act in many instances without full information. Logic and "research evidence" can't explain everything.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

I guess I was speaking from the perspective of a field which has research evidence. The rest of you talk amongst yourselves.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Epee
"Outside Observer--- What if there is no research evidence? How can we interpret Conrad's Heart of Darkness as a journey on the river as a journey into the depth of the human soul if we rely only on research evidence? I've never heard of a physician who, upon looking at an image of someone's 'heart' said "Well I'll be damned! That looks like a river in Africa upon which I could take a journey to see and hopefully understand the dark nature of the human spirit." Somebody somewhere interpreted that story in that way. Is that the only way to interpret that story? I doubt it. What is Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" really about? Is it really the soundtrack to "The Wizard of Oz" or "2001: A Space Odyssey?" Since Floyd won't say, all we can do is argue, because there is no certain evidence. Why does everything have to be about logic and proof? Humans are irrational, illogical beings who act in many instances without full information. Logic and "research evidence" can't explain everything."

So no interpretation can be wrong (or right)? Are you saying it is all "spin" in those fields? SFT would be an honor student in that field. I bet that even if Floyd said what it was, people would argue he is wrong and unaware of what was going on in his subconscious level.