During the past few days, I have been part of a very helpful discussion which grew out of a comment posted on a Facebook page regarding attitudes by some scientists who dismissed any consideration of the role of God in creation. My initial comments pointed out that the term ‘God’ is a far less clear term than many people realize – especially if you dig down and ask questions about exactly what people mean (or think they mean) by God. Obviously, if one looks at all the various conceptions of God offered by the various religions throughout time, plus the massive amount of output of theologians and philosophers though the millennia, not to mention the contributions of scholars of anthropology and archaeology, one sees an enormous variety of concepts and issues related to “God.”
I am preparing to teach a fully online course for the first time, GNHU 151, Inquiry into the Humanities, and this discussion has helped me think of what I wish to accomplish in the course.
When I thought about resurrecting this course, my plan was for the course to help students better understand what exactly the Humanities are and what they are useful for. I also wanted to explore a series of issues raised by various fields of the humanities, such as “What do we mean by democracy?” “What do we mean by justice?” What do we mean when we make a contrast between fact and option?” “How compatible is a meritiocratic system with democratic ideals?” and so forth.
There are many problems in our world, and one which particularly bothers me is how people (including major political figures) will offer strong and assured opinions about complex subjects without the slightest awareness of the depth of complexity of the issues at hand, or even show a willingness become more informed – especially if the truths may prove to be ‘inconvenient.” I think one of the best intellectual quality one can acquire is a sense of our own ignorance and lack of understanding – thus the well-known Socratic dictum “The only thing I know is that I do not know”. (which has it own problems, but let’s not go there…)
This, as Plato pointed out long ago, is one of the problems of making a democracy function in a complex world, democracy here being defined as a political environment in which all adult citizens, regardless of education, personal temperament, or background (excepting certain criminal or medical backgrounds, of course) have an equal right to vote, express their opinions and try to influence fellow citizens, and hold office and govern. If accept the idea that complex problems really need complex study and thought to understand and untangle, then the majority of individuals are simply not up to meaningfully engaging these questions. Thus there is a marked tendency (especially in the USA) to have a quite conflicted view of ’expert opinion’.
I do not advocate, as Plato would, rule by Philosopher kings. But one of the goals of this course is to make students more aware of the real depth of complex subjects, and less satisfied and willing to accept glib, populist answers to hard issues. I guess I want students to be more ready to ask “What do you mean by that statement? How can you know that? What are the logical consequences of that belief? What do I need to know to understand the issues better? To what extent do I know enough to have a strong opinion on this issue?”
Comments welcome!
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Thought of Day July 8
 | One definition of God which occurs to me is 'the incalculable eudaimonic potential within the universe, which, because it is incalculable, precludes us from holding despair as pure certainty, for, until Time itself is ended, there remains open the possibility of radical revision, and a end different from what we could imagine happening…’ |
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Thought of the day July 7, 2009
Does anybody think that higher education and psychology are alike in the sense that they in part distract individuals from the real source of problems? For example, I am convinced that often psychologists are asked to cure problem that arise in large part from conditions found in society and family, and thus the reason often all psychologists can help us do is to manage our distress is that the real causes and cures rest in changing society. Similarly, educators cannot solve problems which arise from a broken families, frayed social relations and the lack of decent jobs for people who do not want to work as part of the information economy. We cannot educate society out of its problems that way.
Friday, February 22, 2008
A worry about this technology
One of the problems of technology is that it functions as a multiplier of human abilities, which tends to make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I worry sometimes that this sort of technology will tend to discriminate against those who are, for whatever reason, more private, who simply do not want to give their opinions, to be asked to expose themselves, etc. We live in an increasingly exhibitionistic culture, and I wonder if we fail to respect people who are intelligent and able, but simply desire to be guarded and reticent.
Does anybody else worry about this?
My ideas for Wikis and Blogs -- how I might use this technology, Part I
At this point, all such plans are pretty hypothetical, for I think I need to do more experimentation and give this matter a lot more thought – more on that later.
Let me try to answer the questions in order…
(1) Right now, I suppose, if I use blogs or wikis, I shall use the services which we have used. However, I think there is a need for a wiki server as part of the MSU IT system. Perhaps I need to bring this up in a meeting. I am more interested in wikis than blogs, but I think both can be useful. But again, I am very much thinking this through. As I said during the conference call, I see using this technology as providing a space where students construct, early on, a framework for what they will study, by bringing up questions, concerns and issues which they then connect to issues pertinent to the subject under consideration, such as Roman history. This can become an ongoing project. I may experiment with this soon in the class I am teaching in my Senior Humanities Seminar. More to come on that.
(2) My very hypothetical notion is to create a wiki format which looks like a Talmud in progress. The core would be a central question, and radiating outward would be wikis devoted to the first layer of pertinent issues, and radiating outward from that would be more wiki pages devoted to specific concerns about these issues. This would be non-hierarchical. It would be also tied to the discussion group. Here is something of a problems – posting to a discussion group is a LOT less technologically challenging than posting to a blog or wiki, and right now, considering the difficulties I have had, I am not sure how comfortable I would be using wikis in a 35 person Gen. Ed. Class. Think of all the time it might take me, not only to moderate, but to deal with all the problems students might have implementing this technology. This seems something of a show-stopper for the moment, for I cannot ask students to call the help desk for help on their wiki. This is a real problem we need to address – right now, can we use this technology in a regular Gen. Ed. Class – which is mostly what I teach? Perhaps what I can do is to make discussion thread have a moderator, who will then make the wiki. Here is a visualization
I have a wiki on netcipia.net which my colleague Prudence Jones as started, with little student participation so far. Here is the text of what I have written.
I have been thinking about what a noted educator, Ken Bain, has been telling us about what we need to do so that students will better engage the material. The key for this engagement is _NOT_ to simply present a list of goals to be achieved. A better solution is to start with a problem or issue students can relate to, and then find ways to tie this concern to the course. I want to do a better job of this the next time I teach Roman civilization -- and you can help me. Please!!
And we can start with a very simple question, which we can then tie into the study of Roman history.
And the question is this -- what aspects of the political life of the United States REALLY MAKES YOU MAD? Please, let us all know!
Again, as I noted, there has been no student input as of yet. More to come.....
Let me try to answer the questions in order…
(1) Right now, I suppose, if I use blogs or wikis, I shall use the services which we have used. However, I think there is a need for a wiki server as part of the MSU IT system. Perhaps I need to bring this up in a meeting. I am more interested in wikis than blogs, but I think both can be useful. But again, I am very much thinking this through. As I said during the conference call, I see using this technology as providing a space where students construct, early on, a framework for what they will study, by bringing up questions, concerns and issues which they then connect to issues pertinent to the subject under consideration, such as Roman history. This can become an ongoing project. I may experiment with this soon in the class I am teaching in my Senior Humanities Seminar. More to come on that.
(2) My very hypothetical notion is to create a wiki format which looks like a Talmud in progress. The core would be a central question, and radiating outward would be wikis devoted to the first layer of pertinent issues, and radiating outward from that would be more wiki pages devoted to specific concerns about these issues. This would be non-hierarchical. It would be also tied to the discussion group. Here is something of a problems – posting to a discussion group is a LOT less technologically challenging than posting to a blog or wiki, and right now, considering the difficulties I have had, I am not sure how comfortable I would be using wikis in a 35 person Gen. Ed. Class. Think of all the time it might take me, not only to moderate, but to deal with all the problems students might have implementing this technology. This seems something of a show-stopper for the moment, for I cannot ask students to call the help desk for help on their wiki. This is a real problem we need to address – right now, can we use this technology in a regular Gen. Ed. Class – which is mostly what I teach? Perhaps what I can do is to make discussion thread have a moderator, who will then make the wiki. Here is a visualization
I have a wiki on netcipia.net which my colleague Prudence Jones as started, with little student participation so far. Here is the text of what I have written.
I have been thinking about what a noted educator, Ken Bain, has been telling us about what we need to do so that students will better engage the material. The key for this engagement is _NOT_ to simply present a list of goals to be achieved. A better solution is to start with a problem or issue students can relate to, and then find ways to tie this concern to the course. I want to do a better job of this the next time I teach Roman civilization -- and you can help me. Please!!
And we can start with a very simple question, which we can then tie into the study of Roman history.
And the question is this -- what aspects of the political life of the United States REALLY MAKES YOU MAD? Please, let us all know!
Again, as I noted, there has been no student input as of yet. More to come.....
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Why I support Obama
Why I support Obama:
I begin with a confession – I have had a difficult time making myself vote, for it was hard for me to like any of the candidates and their parties. It bothered me how very sound candidates like Richardson could make hardly a stir, and I wished candidates would tackle the hard issues harder, with less fear of the polls.
Yet I now support Obama – and I feel I must justify myself.
I support Obama, in the end, not only because I believe is he is the better bet, but because he is the superior dream. The worst case scenario for both candidates is roughly equal, although I think Clinton has more downside potential, due both to her own limitations and the inescapable baggage she hauls with her. And because of those limitations and that baggage, the upside potential of Clinton is hard to locate. But Obama is quite another case – as widely noted, he represents the imaginative possibility of significant positive change, not only to citizens of the US, but to diverse billions across the world. I think his election will make those billions, who also need better dreams, think anew about their beliefs concerning the US. Note how I said ‘imaginative possibility’ – and imagination is an important, even necessary factor at this time, for a hope you cannot imagine cannot move. In regards to Clinton, I strongly suspect it is far easier to imagine great disaster than great success from her. She probably deserves better, but that is how it is, and most of us really know it. But I can imagine greatness coming from Obama. It may be fantasy, but, since the downsides of both candidates are pretty equal, why not take a chance on fantasy? Especially when Obama’s election, without question, will signal the possibility of a new direction in politics. It’s been a long time since we and the world could imagine a new direction, not just the lesser of two evils.
I begin with a confession – I have had a difficult time making myself vote, for it was hard for me to like any of the candidates and their parties. It bothered me how very sound candidates like Richardson could make hardly a stir, and I wished candidates would tackle the hard issues harder, with less fear of the polls.
Yet I now support Obama – and I feel I must justify myself.
I support Obama, in the end, not only because I believe is he is the better bet, but because he is the superior dream. The worst case scenario for both candidates is roughly equal, although I think Clinton has more downside potential, due both to her own limitations and the inescapable baggage she hauls with her. And because of those limitations and that baggage, the upside potential of Clinton is hard to locate. But Obama is quite another case – as widely noted, he represents the imaginative possibility of significant positive change, not only to citizens of the US, but to diverse billions across the world. I think his election will make those billions, who also need better dreams, think anew about their beliefs concerning the US. Note how I said ‘imaginative possibility’ – and imagination is an important, even necessary factor at this time, for a hope you cannot imagine cannot move. In regards to Clinton, I strongly suspect it is far easier to imagine great disaster than great success from her. She probably deserves better, but that is how it is, and most of us really know it. But I can imagine greatness coming from Obama. It may be fantasy, but, since the downsides of both candidates are pretty equal, why not take a chance on fantasy? Especially when Obama’s election, without question, will signal the possibility of a new direction in politics. It’s been a long time since we and the world could imagine a new direction, not just the lesser of two evils.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
More on Wikis
I just realized you could use HTML Coding here!
I have been working more on my own 'wikiverse', Wikis are another way of doing web pages, it seems to me, with some advantages. Teachers in poorer school systems should learn about them.
I also was thinking that the old-fashioned list format for presenting hyperlinks often would be much
better if the relationships could be better shown graphically. Here is a mock-up of a wiki on
Shelly's poem Ozymandias. See how the links surround the central point. And such links are not hard to make
with image mapping.
The adventure continues...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)