Methodologism

Qmeri

In general... I just cant feel like i'm actually objective and correct about things... I know that even the best in history have continuously failed - often not because they had too little information or skill - but because they were biased... The only solution I have come up with to make me as sure as possible that I didn't do mistakes like that is methodology.

In general, my generic definition of methodology is: a predefined system that tries to produce predefined results. A good methodology is a predefined system that successfully produces predefined results.

When you have an argument about politics for example... if you end up disagreeing, most usually both will at least in their minds accuse the opposition of bias... But how can we determine that objectively? I think that by concentrating less on the end results of human thinking and beliefs and more on the methodology of how one should think, agreement could be found more easily.

We talk a lot about arguments for and against specific issues, but in order to actually convince someone, its usually fruitless if they have a biased way of thinking about things in the first place. The problem is not usually in the people not knowing the data and arguments... The problem is in how they analyze the arguments... And because I think that its usually fruitless to even try to educate externally everyone about everything and it would be more efficient to just make everyone god tier capable and interested in educating themselves... We should probably concentrate more than anything on the methodology of how to think.

My proposition: Make critical thinking, objectivity and methodology for example by going through their history in different cultures a new separate subject that is as big as mathematics in general education... I'm a very secure student of history in my claim that nothing close to this has ever actually even been tried on a meaningful and functional scale... Why? Its an obvious thing to at least try. If it didn't work... the world would learn and so on. If it worked... Democracy would most probably make better decisions and the country that tried it first just got a big victory... very nice!

Tom Storm

My proposition: Make critical thinking, objectivity and methodology for example by going through their history in different cultures a new separate subject that is as big as mathematics in general education... — Qmeri

You wouldn't be the first person to recommend a radical program of critical thinking amongst their fellow creatures. Privileging a methodology for correct thinking will sound programmatic and dictatorial to many and is unlikely to gain adherents who may consider such an approach a technocratic imposition upon their worldview. In my view it is not the methodology of argumentation that is the issue, it's that people inhabit different worlds and simply don't apprehend things in the same way. I doubt that this is something that can be overcome readily using a process for thinking. I would also be skeptical of the idea of an 'objective' view of many subjects like politics - these are values derived and based upon the interpretive perspectives of human beings.

AJJ

We should probably concentrate more than anything on the methodology of how to think. — Qmeri

I wonder if this would backfire. Learning how to think, in my experience, comes from realising that an opinion you’ve held - one that was important to you or that you took for granted - is wrong. Perhaps if you taught a load of people a “methodology of how to think” they’d wind up believing anyway whatever was popular, and how could they possibly be wrong: “We know how to think; we learned it in school!”

I read a suggestion once that we could do well by teaching young pupils only Latin and Ancient Greek: they take discipline to learn, they incorporate history and literature, and you don’t learn from them *what* to think; students can decide on that for themselves by studying other subjects separately, and later as specialisations when they reach adult education.

Qmeri

↪Tom Storm

for example: modern scientific method is a methodology, that seems capable of achieving more objective truths than its predecessors... and the main invention of it was not logic or empiricism... those are way older... it was the fact that we need a good methodology to play every possible card against human biases and corruption through things like peer review... and it worked... modern science has achieved more objective truths than past stuff... since my very conservative starting point for this new subject in schools would be just to learn about the history of these things and understand them... im pretty sure more people would start appreciating and using things like actual honest peer review and checking sources and such in their world views... and actual objectivity would become at least a little more common... even politics deal with objective facts of what happens when things are decided irregardless of the point of view. different consequences might be differently advantageous for different people, but knowing them and then fighting about them is still better than people being completely dissociated from reality and fighting with made up facts.

Tom Storm

↪Qmeri

I can't see this working. The so called scientific method is problematic even to philosophers of science. This is a worldview - you affirming its value is just you valuing what you already value. Teaching people the right way to think implies there is a right way to think. (It also has Stalinist overtones) The matter of divergent views is considerably more nuanced that this.

Qmeri

↪AJJ

Well, my main point was to not teach people strict rules on "how to think correctly"... I pretty much believe that people would in general make better decisions about how they think, if they knew more about how people have in the past thought irregardless of whether that was correct or wrong... I dont think people should be told what is correct... we should just give them as relevant and objective data as possible and let them make their own damn minds... I dont mind if they come up with different conclusions from mine... thats the point of methodologism... you just care about how it was done and is done... and just accept the results irregardless of what they ended up being.

Qmeri

↪Tom Storm

What i have represented is a very conservative and non revolutionary idea to try... just to make a subject that concentrates as objectively and as without predefined rules on how to think as possible on the history of how people have thought and with that to see with interest into what conclusions the students end up in... if thats stalinist for you... then to me it seems like having any curriculum with any rules would be stalinist for you. Please, give me an example of teaching anything to anyone without affirming any values in any way.

Qmeri

↪Tom Storm

Btw... just came up with a way to teach people stuff without any affirmation of values... just teach totally randomized things... of course the practicalities of reality do make stuff not completely random... but cmon.... it would be close enough... and very nice :P

Tom Storm

Please, give me an example of teaching anything to anyone without affirming any values in any way. — Qmeri

That's my point. It can't be done. Your whole project is predicated on a critique of people's current worldview and values. This is bound to generate resentment.

Why not provide an example of your idea in action because so far it is just a series of not so clear principles. Let's take one issue, let's say a political issue. Can you drill down into this and demonstrate how it would work? How would you balance out a religious worldview - perhaps Evangelical Christianity versus a scientific view?

AJJ

my main point was to not teach people strict rules on "how to think correctly" — Qmeri

...thats the point of methodologism... you just care about how it was done and is done... and just accept the results irregardless of what they ended up being. — Qmeri

What you’re saying here seems incongruous, like you’re advocating first *against* and then *for* having a particular methodology for arriving at our beliefs.

Qmeri

↪Tom Storm

I guess as a subject goes through the objective facts of what kind of methodologies are associated with certain subjects like creationism and modern science... yes... that curriculum would almost certainly in most eyes make it quite obvious that one of them is doing things way worse than another.... but thats still way more sophisticated way of teaching things than what is currently normal: when things are just taught as facts you should remember for the test... current way of teaching just says very directly: creationism is wrong, which it is... but does that actually convince indoctrinated children?... I think at least compared to the current education standards i know of the countries i know of... my system of teaching them to learn by themselves by cultivating their method and that that method would be a big part of what you would need to justify to get high scores at least in that subject... I just cant see how that would not be at least worth a very large and highly organized try.

Qmeri

↪AJJ

I think you are equating "a methodology to teach people methodology" which doesnt care about what methodology the students end up with... you are equating that with just generic methodology that doesnt care about the results.... it true that i worded it in a confusing way... but yeah... having a good methodologist curriculum about methodology and objectiveness just teaches students data that helps them to come up with a way to choose their methodology to choose their methodology... and one methodology for shits and giggles :P im getting confused myself at this point

Tom Storm

↪Qmeri

It would help me to understand your thinking if you used fully formed sentences and appropriate punctuation.

I think most of what you say here sounds dubious. Here are some problems:

as a subject goes through the objective facts — Qmeri

You are not going to get agreement on what objective facts are. Even the term 'objective facts' is a contestable anachronism.

in most eyes make it quite obvious that one of them is doing things way worse than another... — Qmeri

This seems naïve.

. current way of teaching just says very directly: creationism is wrong, which it is... but does that actually convince indoctrinated children? — Qmeri

Current teaching does not say this. Some teaching says, 'creationism is right. science is wrong.' Reconcile this? We are back to world views and ways of seeing.

teaching them to learn by themselves by cultivating their method and that that method would be a big part of what you would need to justify to get high scores at least in that subject. — Qmeri

You haven't provided a method yet or substantively addressed my question. You seem to be just making claims or motherhood statements about education which are not backed up with a method.

AJJ

↪Qmeri

If you hand students a methodology that when followed brings them to the conclusion that creationism is wrong and mark them on how well they follow this methodology/reach its conclusion, then really you’re teaching them *what* to think, not *how* to think. It’s just that the ‘what they should think’ now includes this methodology you’ve given them.

Qmeri

↪AJJ

Because of the practicalities of knowledge its pretty much impossible to not know any probabilities of what results any particular methodology brings... Thats just reality... But the point of methodologism is to not care about the results even if you know their probabilities... Especially in methodologism, the results are not particularly good arguments against or for any particular methodology even if they are knowable. You still go through the methodology even if you think you know what the result is... And if its a good methodology, it will probably surprise you and show you that you actually didnt know beforehand where it eventually would lead you.

AJJ

↪Qmeri

Keeping with the example of creationism, someone might simply choose to believe this because it comes with a community and a sense of purpose; people have always told fables as a source of inspiration and a way of seeing the world more richly. Science is a purposefully blinkered subject and is brimming with political and ideological bias—to teach according to its methodologies (which is what I interpret you as proposing) seems to be just another bias.

Qmeri

↪AJJ

i'm not actually proposing that... teaching of scientific method is actually already a part of most curriculums... i'm actually proposing of teaching about others ways of thinking of history and of course of scientific method too since its a big part of history and making students consider and compare these different methodologies to come up with their own methodologies. way more than modern curriculums do. if someone has a respectable way of thinking and he ends up with creationism, i will respect that. i will still think he is wrong, but i will still respect the person quite a lot actually. it would be hilarious to find a person who does everything right and still ends up with creationism. very nice :) i'm pretty sure that simply because of the number of people and statistics, this legendary person actually exists somewhere.

AJJ

↪Qmeri

Sure, given the way you describe your view here I have some sympathy for it.

Methodologism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories