Comments on: education versus research http://www.jon22.net/education-versus-research/ The Website of Jonathan Dobres Tue, 27 Sep 2011 03:58:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: GDeeeeZL http://www.jon22.net/education-versus-research/comment-page-1/#comment-1704 GDeeeeZL Sat, 07 Apr 2007 22:14:09 +0000 http://www.jon22.net/education-versus-research/#comment-1704 I am very glad that you chose to comment on this topic. Firstly, excellent discussion. Secondly, I must admit that I do not agree with your perspective on research as mostly confirmatory. Knowing you as well as I do, it seems to me that you, JD, have recently read through a handful of journal articles that seemed to state and/or reiterate obvious results...maybe, a few articles that suggest depression and sadness are linked, or cold symptoms may indicate....an illness? If you did hit a string of "no shit" research, as I so affectionately call it, I completely understand your frustration and your perspective in this post. However, I definitely would argue a wealth of research is peformed to invalidate what we think we already know. Furthermore, what of the body of investigations devoted to exploratory methodology? I see you have noted that there are exceptions to the majority of confirmatory research, still the two former bodies of study I mention here are too abundant simply to be considered exceptions. Ultimately, I guess you can contend exploratory investigation seeks to be confirmatory (eventually), but this argument is stating the obvious: research has a goal, an ending, and even to invalidate on hypothesis is to confirm another finding (albeit unexpected, or unintended). My present argument notwithstanding, I would agree that research should always inspire debate, evaluation and critical thinking (if this is what you mean by confrontational), and in fact, I believe it succeeds to do this. Next year, when you're kicking ass at grad school you'll find that there's plenty of confrontation amongst researchers but all too many of the undergrads you will teach and, more generally, the public passively accept supported findings as fact....and that is the real problem. Confrontation disappears, in my personal opinion, when John and Jane Q. perpetuate as unquestioned FACT suggestions and findings from correlational research. It's nails on a chalkboard to hear a study "PROVES" any result, let alone confirmation bias, failed replication, or dodgy methodology and recruitment. Still, I guess if your p-value is below .05 it's gotta be true, right? I am very glad that you chose to comment on this topic. Firstly, excellent discussion. Secondly, I must admit that I do not agree with your perspective on research as mostly confirmatory. Knowing you as well as I do, it seems to me that you, JD, have recently read through a handful of journal articles that seemed to state and/or reiterate obvious results…maybe, a few articles that suggest depression and sadness are linked, or cold symptoms may indicate….an illness? If you did hit a string of “no shit” research, as I so affectionately call it, I completely understand your frustration and your perspective in this post. However, I definitely would argue a wealth of research is peformed to invalidate what we think we already know. Furthermore, what of the body of investigations devoted to exploratory methodology? I see you have noted that there are exceptions to the majority of confirmatory research, still the two former bodies of study I mention here are too abundant simply to be considered exceptions. Ultimately, I guess you can contend exploratory investigation seeks to be confirmatory (eventually), but this argument is stating the obvious: research has a goal, an ending, and even to invalidate on hypothesis is to confirm another finding (albeit unexpected, or unintended).

My present argument notwithstanding, I would agree that research should always inspire debate, evaluation and critical thinking (if this is what you mean by confrontational), and in fact, I believe it succeeds to do this. Next year, when you’re kicking ass at grad school you’ll find that there’s plenty of confrontation amongst researchers but all too many of the undergrads you will teach and, more generally, the public passively accept supported findings as fact….and that is the real problem. Confrontation disappears, in my personal opinion, when John and Jane Q. perpetuate as unquestioned FACT suggestions and findings from correlational research. It’s nails on a chalkboard to hear a study “PROVES” any result, let alone confirmation bias, failed replication, or dodgy methodology and recruitment. Still, I guess if your p-value is below .05 it’s gotta be true, right?

]]> By: E Reed http://www.jon22.net/education-versus-research/comment-page-1/#comment-1512 E Reed Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:07:28 +0000 http://www.jon22.net/education-versus-research/#comment-1512 Interesting post, and more thought provoking than time allows a lot of concise insight to. I wouldn't say, "effective education... must be confrontational." What about math or physics? Since they're inter operable systems of understanding built on one another, do they become dogma as well? In areas, you seem to be inviting an argument that amounts to perpetual reinvention of the wheel, which is counterproductive to learning (i.e. every physics equation would have to be taken back all the steps to verification of 1+1 =2), though perhaps I misunderstand your intent. My muse on this post is that most of the learning process is based on developing logic and reasoning skills--whatever the subject may be--yet unless one takes a course in logic at the university level, the goal of trying to get students to think on their own gets lost in the rote memorization of facts, equations, and relationships that makes up the bulk of K-12 academia. I take the stance that logic should be introduced at the elementary level and continued throughout education. Then again, a good number of people never reach the metacognition stage of development. Incidentally, philosophers do have a better word for solid evidence, "empirical evidence." Nonetheless, a good topic, and a good post, as usual. Interesting post, and more thought provoking than time allows a lot of concise insight to.

I wouldn’t say, “effective education… must be confrontational.” What about math or physics? Since they’re inter operable systems of understanding built on one another, do they become dogma as well?

In areas, you seem to be inviting an argument that amounts to perpetual reinvention of the wheel, which is counterproductive to learning (i.e. every physics equation would have to be taken back all the steps to verification of 1+1 =2), though perhaps I misunderstand your intent.

My muse on this post is that most of the learning process is based on developing logic and reasoning skills–whatever the subject may be–yet unless one takes a course in logic at the university level, the goal of trying to get students to think on their own gets lost in the rote memorization of facts, equations, and relationships that makes up the bulk of K-12 academia. I take the stance that logic should be introduced at the elementary level and continued throughout education. Then again, a good number of people never reach the metacognition stage of development.

Incidentally, philosophers do have a better word for solid evidence, “empirical evidence.”

Nonetheless, a good topic, and a good post, as usual.

]]>